IGT - Sat 5/24 Mets @ Rox

[Guest AG/DC]

Alright, Delgado.

Let's get another chance for Evans.

OE: Shit, he was switched out.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Delgado blasts a no-doubt-about-it HR to right field.

[Frayed Knot]

Valadius wrote: Where the hell did this Nick Evans come from?

Most recently, Binghamton.

If you want to go back further than that, he was a 4 round pick (134th overall) in the 2004 draft out of a high school in Arizona.

[Guest AG/DC]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="AG/DC"] batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="AG/DC"]I'm certain the incidence of five-run firsts indicates little or nothing.... The Cubs have the best O in the league, but they've scored five times in the first once. It doesn't have to be five. It could be four. Or three. Or six. Then please don't say otherwise. What exactly is the "otherwise" that I wrote that you have a problem with?

"If it happened five times, it should've happened 10 times."

Do need to go in circles?

[Guest AG/DC]

This is really silly. We agree. I shouldn't argue with you over how much to agree. Sorry.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"] AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"] AG/DC wrote: I'm certain the incidence of five-run firsts indicates little or nothing.... The Cubs have the best O in the league, but they've scored five times in the first once. It doesn't have to be five. It could be four. Or three. Or six. Then please don't say otherwise. What exactly is the "otherwise" that I wrote that you have a problem with? "If it happened five times, it should've happened 10 times."

I stand by my post. A manager who insists on bunting right before the middle of order is due up is costing his team runs. Sac bunts reduce offense. This has been proven statistically. When a manager serial bunts with the #2 hitter, the team takes an even bigger offensive hit than it ordinarily would by merely bunting at the bottom of the order. If the Mets have "x" big first innings under Willie, they'd have more than "x" with somebody less inclined to bunt.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: This is really silly. We agree. I shouldn't argue with you over how much to agree. Sorry.

You started it.

[metirish]

Blame me guys.

[Guest AG/DC]

So, you respond to "sorry" with with a preference to continue arguing.

You are more iramets every post.

[seawolf17]

="metirish"]Blame me guys.

What the hell is that thing?!? Get it off my screen!

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="AG/DC"]This is really silly. We agree. I shouldn't argue with you over how much to agree. Sorry. You started it.

="AG/DC"]So, you respond to "sorry" with with a preference to continue arguing. You are more iramets every post.

That wasn't an argumentative post. None of my posts were. I understand how when two posters on a web-site carry on a cyber-conversation in which they disagree with each other, the conversation might appear to be argumentative or confrontational. Much of that is due to the limitations inherent in this type of communication -- where one poster can't hear the voice of the other, or can't see the facial response that delivers the message -- all important clues in determining the mood and tone of the speaker. What's that saying about being able to say the word "fuck" and have it mean 20 different things depending on the surrounding context? The web filters out a lot of important context that helps define the message.

But enough of that bullshit. I wasn't arguing. It's also unfair of you to challenge many of my posts and then accuse me of acting undesirable when I defend my posts. (So first you blast my post, and then you blast me for defending myself). Or to accuse me of being Iramet --- even more so when it should be obvious to you that I have no idea what this reference is all about. And how am I like this Iramet? And is that good or bad? And this post isn't argumentative either. Because I love you. Okay? There. I said it. Even though you did start all of it.

[Guest AG/DC]

I'm not accusing you of being the guy. I'm accusing you of being like the guy.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="AG/DC"]I'm not accusing you of being [iramet]. I'm accusing you of being like [iramet].

Isn't that what I wrote?

="batmagadanleadoff"] And how am I like this Iramet?

And since when is it a good thing to be accused?

[Guest AG/DC]

No. It's not what you wrote.

We're going in circles.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: I'm not accusing you of being the guy. I'm accusing you of being like the guy.

Against my better judgment, I'll bite: So how am I like the guy? (Which is what you shoulda come out and said in the first place, instead of the cryptic accusation).