Benjamin Grimm

I hate seeing a B lineup, but I guess guys gotta get days off. This would be a good game to win. Of course, all of them are!

I was looking at the post-season schedule. The Mets could, potentially, get through the NLDS with three starters. If Syndergaard starts the wild card game (as I assume he will, unless the race remains tight and the Mets aren't able to arrange their rotation), he'd be able to start NLDS Game 3 on four days rest. If Colon is the Game 1 starter in the NLDS, they could start him on three days rest in Game 4. Wild Card Game: Wednesday, 10/5, Syndergaard NLDS Game 1: Friday, 10/7, Colon NLDS Game 2: Saturday, 10/8, Matz or Lugo or Gsellman NLDS Game 3: Monday, 10/10, Syndergaard NLDS Game 4: Tuesday, 10/11, Colon (three days rest) NLDS Game 5: Thursday, 10/13, Game 3 starter Would they do this? I don't know. I figure that if any starter is going to pitch on three days rest, it would be Colon. I doubt they'd do it with Syndergaard or Matz. If Matz is unavailable, having Lugo or Gsellman start the decisive Game 5 of the NLDS is far from optimal, but it may be the best option. The alternative is a four-man rotation, where the fourth starter pitches Game 4 and Colon goes in Game 5. I'd be more willing to try that if the Mets have won two of the first three games.

Didn't the Twins win the World Series one year with two good starters and one sacrificial lamb? (It may have been Morris and Blyleven in 1991.) I think, though, that they probably did it pitching their two veteran starters on three days rest. There's no way I can see the Mets doing that in 2016.

Ynoa to pitch on Sunday. Yeesh. We're definitely going to need Lugo and Gsellman to keep it up.

I loved Shoeless Joe. Iowa Baseball Confederacy was okay. And then there was another book, Box Socials that I didn't like at all.

Okay then! NEXT?[/bigpurple]

Technically that's not true, but yeah, I agree.

Yeah, today has to be labeled a good day. The Mets have already dropped their magic number on the Cardinals, and on the Giants, and one of those teams will lose another magic number point later tonight.

This is weird. Yes, that framed color photo of the Mets looks nice above that sofa, but what really catches my eye is the tiger. If I had a tiger living in my house I'd have much greater concerns than wall hangings. EDIT: I'm sorry... I think I posted this in the wrong thread. I thought it was the "Tigers in places you don't expect" thread. My bad!

You're right, but I think I interpreted this correctly: Determining Home-Field Advantage in Two-Team Tiebreakers 1. Head-to-head winning percentage during the regular season. 2. Higher winning percentage in intradivision games. 3. Higher winning percentage in intraleague games. 4. Higher winning percentage in the last half of intraleague games. 5. Higher winning percentage in the last half plus one intraleague game, provided that such additional game was not between the two tied clubs. Continue to go back one intraleague game at a time until the tie has been broken. And then there's this: Three-Club Tie for Two Wild Card Spots: After Clubs have been assigned their A, B and C designations, Club A would host Club B. The winner of the game would be declared one Wild Card winner. Club C would then host the loser of the game between Club A and Club B to determine the second Wild Card Club. It's not possible for all three teams to have the same record against each other, as the Mets and Cardinals each play the Giants seven times, but they only played each other six times. I'm not even going to try to interpret this yet, because there are still three games to be played between the Cards and Giants. By Monday morning the picture will be more clear and then maybe I'll take a crack at it. All I can say is that it's possible that one of the teams will have a 5-2 advantage over the other, and that a 4-3 Cardinals advantage over the Giants may be better (or worse) for the Mets than a similar advantage for the Giants. 2. Three Clubs Do Not Have Identical Records Against One Another • If Club 1 has a better record against Clubs 2 and 3, and Club 2 has a better record against Club 3, then Club 1 chooses its designation, followed by Club 2. • If Club 1 has a better record against Clubs 2 and 3, and Club 2 and 3 have identical records against one another, then Club 1 chooses its designation. Clubs 2 and 3 would follow the two-Club tiebreak rules to break their tie to pick the next designation. • If Club 1 and 2 have identical records against one another, but each has a better record against Club 3, then Clubs 1 and 2 would follow the two-Club tiebreak rules to break their tie to pick the first designation. • If Club 1 has a better record against Club 2, Club 2 has a better record against Club 3, and Club 3 has a better record against Club 1; OR Club 1 has a better record against Club 2, Club 2 and 3 have identical records against one another and Club 3 has a better record against Club 1; OR Club 1 and 2 have identical records against one another, Club 1 has a better record against Club 3 and Club 2 and 3 have identical records against one another, then: a. The Clubs will be ranked by their overall winning percentage amongst the other Clubs combined. The Club with the highest overall winning percentage in that group chooses its designation, followed by the team with the next highest overall winning percentage. b. If two of the Clubs have identical winning percentages, then they would follow the two-Club tiebreak rules to break their tie to pick their designation. c. If all three teams have identical winning percentages, then the tiebreak rules above (No. 1) for three clubs having identical records against one another should be followed.

Just in case this comes to pass, here's how MLB breaks ties in the standings: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/59527184/playoff-tiebreaker-rules/ The Mets finished the season series with a 4 games to 3 advantage over the Giants. They split 3-3 against the Cardinals. So if the Mets and the Giants tie for the two Wild Card spots, it's easy. The do-or-die game will be played at Citi Field. If the Mets and Cardinals tie for the two spots, then it gets more complicated. They'd have to look at the interdivisional record, and right now the Cardinals have the advantage. The Mets are 33-30 against teams in the N.L. East, and the Cards are 36-30 against teams in the Central. So this is something else we can watch, if we care to.

Well, at least his wrist allows him to feel his neck. That's a start.

That reminds me; I still haven't bought any 2015 Mets N.L. Championship merchandise. I was planning on buying a t-shirt but never got around to it. I don't know if they're still available. And I'm also hoping that they win an even better title in 2016.

It amazes me that people are willing to pay ten dollars for a single, brand-new baseball card. Part of me thinks that all of these cards should be rounded up, put in a pile, and set on fire, like they do with rhino horns and elephant tusks that have been reclaimed from poachers.

Half of my bones want to root for the Cardinals and half want to root for the Giants. (All in the interests of the Mets, of course.) I'm hoping that my skeleton gets fully synchronized within the next couple of days. And I too am glad that we no longer have to worry about those pesky half games in the standings. In some strange way that I can't really define, they can be hard to relate to.

Maybe! I thought of dusting off the NHOP a few weeks ago, but with the Marlins and Pirates still in the mix it seemed hopelessly complicated. Things are coming into focus a bit more, so maybe NHOP's time has come. Let's see how the weekend goes.

Cover counts through September 16: Daily News 116, New York Post 100, Newsday 90. I wonder... if the Mets go deep into the postseason this year, will they get as many front pages as they did last year? Or will the Presidential election limit them to the back pages? Let's hope we find out!

2008, the Bishop Museum in Honolulu. It's a museum of Hawaiian history and culture, but there's a little section there called "The Hawaii Sports Hall of Fame." It was nice, while so far from home and in a prestigious museum, to see old friend Sid Fernandez:

Centerfield wrote: It's hard to believe that Cespedes hasn't been the player of the month more than once. He has as many honors as Mike Cameron. Cespedes finished second in April (0.83 points behind Michael Conforto, who used to be pretty good), third in May (2.00 points behind Noah Syndergaard and 1.95 behind Steven Matz), sixth in June (4.62 points behind Jacob deGrom), fourth in July (4.46 points behind Wilmer Flores) and eighth in August (5.53 points behind Neil Walker). For the season so far, counting September games, he's one of two players who is in strong contention for Player of the Year.

This was my first Sporting News. It was the first copy I ever saw, and I bought it at the 7-Eleven on Townline Road in Islip, NY in June 1976. I still have it, somewhere.

Duda is especially interesting. If in fact he does come back, will he have enough time to show that he merits a spot on a postseason roster?

Two thoughts on Jay Bruce: 1. I don't know much about him, but they say he's "streaky". I hope he has a hot streak coming that's long enough, and hot enough, to counterbalance how awful he's been so far. If that happens (starting, like, now) that will be a very good thing for the Mets, and well-timed as well. But I'll believe it when I see it. 2. He seems to have been beloved in Cincinnati, and the fans there seem to have been regretting his departure about as much as we've regretted his arrival. I was trying to think if there were any opposite examples in Mets history, where Mets fans were thinking "how could they let him leave?" while said player was stinking things up on his new team. I couldn't really think of anyone. (Maybe Edgardo Alfonzo with the Giants in 2003? Not really the same, but it was the best I could come up with.)

I remember that I used to buy it irregularly, until I discovered The Sporting News in 1976 and it was love at first sight. I dropped Baseball Digest and never looked back.

That's right, 1988 was the Mets shortest postseason, with seven games. (The second-shortest was 1969, eight games, but I'd categorize that one as pretty successful.)

By "making the playoffs" do they mean getting to that one-game Wild Card playoff, or do they mean advancing to the NLDS? (I'm assuming it's the former.) Playing that Wild Card game and losing it would not be at all satisfying. It would technically make 2016 the Mets ninth postseason, but in such a minimal way that it would feel worthy of an asterisk. I was much more excited about last year's race to the division title than I am this year. I haven't bothered figuring out the Mets' NHOP even once!