Gwreck

I guess it's incorporated into the Johan thing but the Daniel Murphy error in Florida has to bear a mention of its own. There was also a flyball that dropped between Beltran and Church I think.

I guess that could've theoretically ended worse but I'm not really sure how.

Unbelievable. I guess Beltran bears a certain amount of fault but there's a cardinal rule that any ball the centerfielder can get to, he takes. Pagan should have known better.

I feel like our chances to win just went down in a big way when we didn't take a lead there in the 10th. Would you double switch out Tatis for Reed in order to keep Stokes in the game longer?

Of course, the big difference is that we're talking about Sterling (radio) as opposed to our TV guys. In the end, as long as Bill Webb is doing a good job, he can cover for whatever Keith is prattling on about at any given moment. Sterling has a much bigger responsibility given that he's on the radio. If we compared him to Howie or Wayne, well...that's just not going to look very good for Sterling.

="Benjamin Grimm":12rdthb9]There are times when I'm listening to Gary, Keith, and/or Ron and I think, if I wasn't a Mets fan watching right now, I'd be groaning and calling them a group of clowns.[/quote:12rdthb9] I can see that. My general impression is: Gary + Ron = always very intelligent Gary + Keith + Ron = mostly good, although too much joking can distract from focus of game Gary + Keith = problematic, as Gary can get dragged down by Keith's irreverence/goofiness/etc. The problem generally is Keith. A little more focus and a little less buffoonery would do him well. Benjamin Grimm May 18 2009 12:10 PM Confession: I don't think I've watched a Yankee telecast since I was a kid, and the games were done by Bill White and Phil Rizzuto. So I'm just taking everyone's word that the current team is a bunch of idiots. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 12:13 PM ="Gwreck":3icqqf62] The problem generally is Keith. A little more focus and a little less buffoonery would do him well.[/quote:3icqqf62] Agreed. My favorite Met ever, but he's a bit like the team's Kramer, but with a higher sperm count. Gwreck May 18 2009 12:15 PM Of course, the big difference is that we're talking about Sterling (radio) as opposed to our TV guys. In the end, as long as Bill Webb is doing a good job, he can cover for whatever Keith is prattling on about at any given moment. Sterling has a much bigger responsibility given that he's on the radio. If we compared him to Howie or Wayne, well...that's just not going to look very good for Sterling. metirish May 18 2009 12:22 PM ="Gwreck":1cm2wclz]="Benjamin Grimm":1cm2wclz]There are times when I'm listening to Gary, Keith, and/or Ron and I think, if I wasn't a Mets fan watching right now, I'd be groaning and calling them a group of clowns.[/quote:1cm2wclz] I can see that. My general impression is: Gary + Ron = always very intelligent Gary + Keith + Ron = mostly good, although too much joking can distract from focus of game Gary + Keith = problematic, as Gary can get dragged down by Keith's irreverence/goofiness/etc. The problem generally is Keith. A little more focus and a little less buffoonery would do him well.[/quote:1cm2wclz] I agree with this . I would add that Ron defers to Keith too much when all three are in the booth......."isn't that right Keith" can be heard a lot during a game. I remember when Ron came over from DC former poster ABG said he was terrible and I think Ron would agree as I have heard him say he's worked a lot on it. Edgy DC May 18 2009 12:31 PM I didn't like him at all in DC. Ashie62 May 18 2009 02:33 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":3ko9nf0g]Confession: I don't think I've watched a Yankee telecast since I was a kid, and the games were done by Bill White and Phil Rizzuto. So I'm just taking everyone's word that the current team is a bunch of idiots.[/quote:3ko9nf0g] and Frank Messer Fman99 May 20 2009 06:57 AM ="Gwreck":2zbz3uwt]="Benjamin Grimm":2zbz3uwt]There are times when I'm listening to Gary, Keith, and/or Ron and I think, if I wasn't a Mets fan watching right now, I'd be groaning and calling them a group of clowns.[/quote:2zbz3uwt] I can see that. My general impression is: Gary + Ron = always very intelligent Gary + Keith + Ron = mostly good, although too much joking can distract from focus of game Gary + Keith = problematic, as Gary can get dragged down by Keith's irreverence/goofiness/etc. The problem generally is Keith. A little more focus and a little less buffoonery would do him well.[/quote:2zbz3uwt] I disagree. I love all three of them. The best combo is all three but any of the above choices are great. I like Keith's non-chalance and I think both Darling and Mex bring some intelligent analysis mixed with humor as well. The only guy doing Mets games these days that I still do not like is Wayne Hagin on the radio. He's a hack. Maybe it's because he used to work for another MLB team and doesn't have the former Met/long-time Met fan weight that Howie Rose, Cohen, Mex and Darling all carry. Plus national broadcasts of Mets games starring the boobs of ESPN and Fox (Morgan, Phillips, Buck, McCarver, etc.) are, of course, all just terrible. They should throw themselves collectively down a well and survive on eating each other's small and unimaginiative brains, entrails and anuses. Gwreck May 20 2009 07:44 AM ="Fman99":2zwys8h1]The only guy doing Mets games these days that I still do not like is Wayne Hagin on the radio. He's a hack. Maybe it's because he used to work for another MLB team and doesn't have the former Met/long-time Met fan weight that Howie Rose, Cohen, Mex and Darling all carry.[/quote:2zwys8h1] Realizing that we're really at split territory in this thread... Wayne's hardly a hack. It took me a while to acclimate to him but he's brought good perspective to the team and I appreciate his honesty (he doesn't hold back when criticism is warranted). The two things I don't like about him are that his otherwise laid-back style is in sharp contrast to his home run calls, and that on hits with men on base, he's slow to tell the listener about the advancement of the runners around the bases. Seems like he focuses on the ball first and the runners' movement gets passed on after the play ends. Frayed Knot May 20 2009 07:58 AM My only reservations about Keith concern what he'd be like with a bad team in front of him. I'm afraid he'd get bored rather easily and would slip into full Phil Rizzutto mode except that his occasional bouts of 'I'd rather be in Sag Harbor' disinterest wouldn't be as cute. Other than that for the high-school jock sandwiched between two Ivy Leaguers he plays the role well enough without overdoing the stereotype. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 20 2009 07:59 AM I still haven't warmed much to Hagin either. I like him only sometimes. It's not just that he doesn't call plays fast enough for me; he often gets caught up in the middle of anything he's saying and forces out some crap just to complete the sentence. It's as if he catches himself making a cliche and decides mid-stream not to go through with it. It's not good rythym. Plus he's got that creepy Midwestern/other team perspective that clashes with Howie's hopeless New Yorkishness. Howie wants to talk about Rusty Staub and Grover Powell; and Hagin wants to talk about Mark Clear and Gene Tanace. Howie wants to talk about My Mother the Car and Hagin wants to talk about Bonanza. It's a little off. SteveJRogers May 20 2009 09:56 AM ="seawolf17":1lpp27t8]="soupcan":1lpp27t8]The whole Yankee broadcast team - Sterling, Waldman, Kay, O'Neill, etc. are just one of the many reasons I'm glad I'm not a Yankee fan.[/quote:1lpp27t8] The problem is, MFY fans must eat this crap up, or it wouldn't sell. I don't know what I'd do if Gary Cohen was that unlistenable. Would I even notice? I don't know.[/quote:1lpp27t8] Actually two popular threads on NYYFans.com are "Petiton To Remove Michael Kay From YES" and "Petition To Remove John Sterling From CBS Radio" so I'd gather it is mixed in terms of Yankee fandom with their annoucing teams. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 20 2009 09:58 AM Nice of Rogers to take some time off that place to visit his enemies here. SteveJRogers May 20 2009 10:12 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 20 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1gwq7fqn]Nice of Rogers to take some time off that place to visit his enemies here.[/quote:1gwq7fqn] Could be worse, over at PhilaPhans.com they've been bashing Tom McCarthy for drawing Mike Piazza references to Ryan Howard tape measure blasts. Over at Dodger BlueBalls they actually consider Vin Scully a bit overatted because he is such a sacred cow out there. soupcan May 20 2009 10:19 AM ="SteveJRogers"]Over at Dodger BlueBalls they actually consider Vin Scully a bit overatted because he is such a scared cow out there. Hmmm, that doesn't look like Vin. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 20 2009 10:48 AM ="soupcan"]="SteveJRogers"]Over at Dodger BlueBalls they actually consider Vin Scully a bit overatted because he is such a scared cow out there. Hmmm, that doesn't look like Vin. It's play by play-- I think he meant that Vin sounded like a scared cow. And speaking of scary... http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090518&content_id=4799820&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb A Boy Named Seo May 20 2009 10:59 AM ="Frayed Knot"]My only reservations about Keith concern what he'd be like with a bad team in front of him. I'm afraid he'd get bored rather easily and would slip into full Phil Rizzutto mode except that his occasional bouts of 'I'd rather be in Sag Harbor' disinterest wouldn't be as cute. Other than that for the high-school jock sandwiched between two Ivy Leaguers he plays the role well enough without overdoing the stereotype. Keith gets bored now with a pretty good team. His bafoonery is what makes him my favorite, though. I think Gary is a supremely knowledgeable Met guy, clearly a fan but not annoyingly so. Ron is very knowledgable, but (sometimes) a bland cliche-machine. Keith brings life to the booth, though because he's so not polished and he doesn't pander to the Mets or the network. He knows the game, has fun most of the time, but will tell you when he'd rather be at home watching Cavuto or whatever. Sometimes we'd all rather be somewhere else. I can't argue it's not unprofessional, but it's refreshing to me anyway and I think he's damn funny. G-Fafif May 20 2009 01:04 PM Keith Olbermann story about Vin Scully that makes even Michael Kay seem likable. Gary referenced it one of the last two nights. ]The advent of the Mets' annual visit to Dodger Stadium always reminds me of one of the greatest baseball stories nobody tells. Let's correct that. A decade ago, when I was still working full-time in sports and in Los Angeles, it was the Yankees coming to town for an exhibition game, and, with them, my friend Michael Kay, at that time still a member of their radio team. Michael is usually pretty direct, but on the field before the game, he was hemming and hawing something awful until I finally blurted "out with it!" He explained he was just too nervous to introduce himself to the legendary Vin Scully, even though both were not only major league broadcasters, but also alums of Fordham University in New York. Mike was still repeating his apology when I explained I knew exactly how he felt. When I had first worked in Los Angeles as a local sportscaster in the '80s, it had taken me two years to screw up the courage to introduce myself to this nonpareil of my business. As I reassured Michael, Vin was easily the nicest famous person in the sport, maybe in the country. And he always had a story that in some way related to you. Little did I know. As Michael began to hyperventilate, I made the introductions. Vin asked about Fordham, about Mike's youth, about his newspaper career, about the Yankees. And then came the story: "Michael, did you know; Keith, I don't even think I told you this -- I nearly became the Voice of the Yankees?" Absolute silence for two or three beats, and then, from Kay and Olbermann, a joint "whaaaat?" "When the Yankees let Mel Allen go in 1964, I got a phone call from the man who they had brought in to run their broadcasting operation, Craig Smith," Vin began. "He had been in charge of the World Series broadcasts forever, so I'd known him about ten years by then. And he asked me if I'd like to come home to New York and become the lead announcer. He offered a very handsome salary, and a long contract. "Well, I was amazed, as you can imagine. I'd found a wonderful home here in Los Angeles, but remember, this was only seven years after the Dodgers left Brooklyn. I was still a New Yorker through and through. Plus, here was a chance to work again with Red Barber. And recall, too, that this was just before the Yankee dynasty collapsed. As much as Mr. O'Malley had done here and in Brooklyn, the Yankees were still the marquee name in sports. If it had been 1958 or 1959, when I still missed New York so, I would've said yes before he hung up the phone." "So, I thought long and hard about that one. But I had a young family, and I think we had all just truly adjusted to living here - takes just about seven years, I think - and in the end I turned it down." Michael and I each sputtered various observations about how changed the baseball world might have been. Vin Scully doing the Yankee games? Would the franchise still have ebbed with such a benign but effective salesman at the microphone? Would the Dodgers' roots, still growing in 1964-1965, have gone in as deeply as they did? Would CBS's failed experiment in corporate ownership have succeeded, and George Steinbrenner never have bought the Yankees? What would have happened to the man to whom the Yankees gave the job Scully turned down? Would Joe Garagiola have ever wound up on The Game Of The Week, or The Today Show? Vin laughed. "Oh, to tell the truth, I don't think it'd made that much difference. It's not very important." He excused himself to go back to preparing for his broadcast, and, as usual, made it seem like I had done him a great favor by introducing Michael to him. After Vin had left, Michael and I sat there on the Dodger bench for a few moments in silence. Then he said "If he had been the Yankee announcer when I was growing up, I never would have dreamed of applying for a job as his gopher, let alone as his partner." I told him that once again I knew how he felt - it was very tough knowing that my sportscasts often preceded Vin's play-by-play on cable. It seemed somehow a sacrilege to pretend to deserve to be on the same channel. Still, think of it: 45 years of "Hi again everybody, it's time for Yankee Baseball!" Or maybe Steinbrenner would've quarreled with Vin and eased him out. Or, likeliest of all the alternate-galaxy theories: working in New York, where in the '60s all the network and advertising executives were still located, Vin Scully would've gone on to the Game Of The Week, or something even higher up on the tv food chain, a lot earlier than he actually did. Who knows - maybe he'd still be doing it - and doing it on NBC. Frayed Knot May 20 2009 01:41 PM ]Keith brings life to the booth, ... Yeah, I'm just afraid he wouldn't if stuck with a team going nowhere. There's a difference to going off the tracks every once in a while during a dull game or long pitching-change filled innings, it's another if it's all game every game. But that's just my speculation and am getting ahead of myself here. Hope we don't find out anytime soon. G-Fafif May 20 2009 04:01 PM State of the booths as heard from here: Keith Hernandez is a wild card/loose cannon. Some nights a gem, some nights a goof. Not the baseball genius I thought he'd be. An original, to be sure. I'd miss him if he left. Ron is a real jock, which is not a bad thing. He really likes being part of a team in there. Sounds happy when he doesn't have to be "Ron Darling, Yalie" and can be Ronnie, one of the guys. A good fit with each of his partners. More comfortable in contemporary climes than Keith. Someday Wayne Hagin will be doing the Royals or the Twins or the Astros and bring up the way David Wright charges a ball and his listeners will scratch their heads at why he's always referring to some random New York Met. Conversely, those among us who aren't obsessed with such matters will say, in five years, "oh yeah, Wayne Hagin, I forgot about him." He's an insightful observer of baseball matters, a pretty good announcer of baseball games. I don't know that he'll ever be a Mets broadcaster except in name. It's not that we have high standards; we have specific standards. I like him a good deal, but I can't quite get used to him. Howie Rose is a conversationalist, which is a lost craft in broadcasting today. He came into the business when civility and boundaries were implicit and sports was something people loved, not an all-pervasive industry. He's a bit of an anachronism in that sense, and a welcome one, even as curmudgeonliness slips into his delivery more and more. I don't think of him as a great play-by-play guy probably because I think of him as a great talk show host. He's wonderful between the pitches, sounds like he's putting on when he becomes an announcer (though not as badly as Michael Kay does). He and Hagin will never, ever mesh. That's neither's fault. Howie should keep his seat as long as he wants. Mets fans deserve a Mets voice on the radio. Gary Cohen is a conductor. He is a maestro. He grows as a broadcaster every year. He was the best thing since Vin Scully on radio and he's lifted his game to a high level on TV. He conducts. He moves the game along. He moves Keith and Ron along without stopping traffic. He still calls the action brilliantly. He questions what needs to be questioned, he emphasizes what needs to be emphasized and he sees what's coming. I'm in awe that he's the Mets' voice of record (and am ever thankful that SNY's original offer to Dave O'Brien to serve in that role was rejected). Whereas Howie seems like a Mets fan who grew up to broadcast Mets games, Gary seems like a broadcaster who was a Mets fan when he was a kid. Gary Cohen and Bob Murphy were a great team. Gary Cohen and Howie Rose were a great team. Gary Cohen, Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling are a great team. I don't think the common denominator is a coincidence. bmfc1 May 22 2009 06:37 AM G-Fafif said what I would have said, so I will just recommend your watching this video (NSFW!!!):

="DocTee":2fu35ilo]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:2fu35ilo] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:47 AM ="Gwreck":35na9z32]="DocTee":35na9z32]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:35na9z32] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup.[/quote:35na9z32] Marketing slogan: "Just like 1986... minus all that annoying pitching!" Benjamin Grimm May 18 2009 11:50 AM You know, we'd all like to see Bobby Valentine come back. (I'm included in that group.) But I think I'd almost rather see Davey Johnson come back. I think he'd be a good for this particular team. Not at all likely to happen, of course, but if I were in charge, I'd consider reaching out to him. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:58 AM ="soupcan":30mmzwu6]What did I miss? Why are we talking about replacement shortstops? Jose's injury more serious than first thought? I haven't read or seen that anywhere. Cora's finger broke or something? Edgy just worrying too much?[/quote:30mmzwu6] Cora already sprained his left thumb during the game Saturday sliding after a double... then did the same to his right thumb last night in the first on the EXACT SAME PLAY. Headfirst slides and dumbshit plays make the Creepy Sun Baby cry. Ashie62 May 18 2009 02:38 PM Can Murphy learn short if Reyes is going on hiatus? Are we getting the Jose on DL after 9 days routine Elster88 May 18 2009 10:48 PM Two errors and some awful turns at the plate for Ramon. Early returns indicate he is not a major league shortstop. smg58 May 19 2009 06:56 AM I hope Minaya has Jose Valentin's number on speed dial. Elster88 May 19 2009 10:00 PM How many at-bats until Ramon Martinez gets his first hit? I say 25 or being sent back down to AAA, whichever comes first. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:08 PM OK, time to talk shortstops. Part of me thinks Putz was held out because he's being dangled as trade bait. Tejada at Bingo: .236 / .301 / .356 // .657 in 36 games. Coronado at Bingo: .316 / .409 / .474 // .883 in six games, but... Coronado at Buff: .141 / .240 / .165 // .404 in 29 games. Gun to my head, I go with Jose over Ruben, but... John Cougar Lunchbucket May 22 2009 08:14 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 22 2009 08:18 PM Nevermind, just unnecessarily breaking nuts. Rockin' Doc May 22 2009 08:16 PM I'd go with whoever was the best defensively. It's not like their losing offense compared to Martinez. Martinez is not hitting (.063) and he has already committed 4 errors in roughly 25 innings. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:30 PM My nuts have been busted to the consistency of baby powder already today. Edgy DC May 24 2009 09:45 PM Alexi Casilla, a prospect in the Luis Castillo mold who failed to replaced Luis when Castillo went to the Mets. Still young, played as much short as second in the minors, and is getting big league money to play down there now. Shot in the dark.

Geez, I don't like any of those pitching matchups one bit.

I really wanted to duct tape the mouths of Miller, Morgan and Phillips by the time the game ended. Other commitments have kept me from watching or attending many games for most of this month (I think I last caught one a week and a half ago) so based on tonight I'd think the Mets were totally stinking up the joint. Balks aside, Pelfrey wasn't exactly bad tonight so I'm otherwise ok with occasionally getting oudueled by a better pitcher. Want to see a big win tomorrow though.

I saw this movie last year with Ryan Church and the do-we or don't-we disable him bit. I didn't like it then, either.

Very nice. Randy is going for career win #299 on Saturday, and if he got it, he would then go for #300 in his return to Seattle the following week. Here's hoping Johan makes that impossible.

Mike Gonzalez, their closer.

Frayed Knot wrote: Nothing like extra-innings on getaway day before a coast-to-coast flight w/no day off. They're flying to San Francisco (6 hours) in the lap of luxury on their chartered airplane, with prearranged transportation from park to plane to hotel. Even if they were to not leave NY until 9 tonight, they'd arrive in SF at midnight and not have to play a game until 7 PM (local time) that night. Unless the Mets require 15 hours of sleep each, I can't see how this would be an issue. Travel day complaints are a load of BS in my opinion. If they were flying commercial coach and had to take public transportation, then I might have some sympathy.

Yeah, we did one where order of appearance in a game (or Game 1/2 of adoubleheader) was figured out. Don't remember if it was done in '07 or '08. I don't know where it's lurking these days but when I get a chance I'll try to find the thread.

If they wanna walk Luis to get to Beltran, I've got no objection.

I liked Niese tonight. No walks. I thought he struggled with control when we saw him last September. Woulda been fine with Parnell for the 9th over JJ but not a big deal either way. Nyjer Morgan's a very good outfielder.

="SteveJRogers":lfrprm3x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though.[/quote:lfrprm3x] Yeah, that's basically 100% untrue. It might make you slightly more difficult to catch is all. Edgy DC May 07 2009 09:32 PM ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2]="themetfairy":b6ybtpm2]="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:b6ybtpm2] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Irony. Deep and thick. SteveJRogers May 07 2009 10:00 PM I think the thread was in reference to people not getting into legal trouble because of pics on the internet. Ashie62 May 07 2009 10:14 PM ="Edgy DC":8mn149g9]="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]="themetfairy":8mn149g9]="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:8mn149g9] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:8mn149g9] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:8mn149g9] Irony. Deep and thick.[/quote:8mn149g9] ironic & anonymous..too funny duan May 08 2009 06:55 AM side issue but funnily enough I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Edgy DC May 08 2009 07:00 AM British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US? Nymr83 May 08 2009 07:06 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"]]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there?Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

All 3 of the home runs were announced as being 400+ feet, with I think a quote of 425 for Wright's centerfield shot. Fun game to be at. Shut up the morons from down south quick and they left early. "Jason Worth-less" chant that happened late in the game was kinda unfortunate given that he was 4-4 at that point. Was fine with the Mets sticking with Feliciano for the whole inning. Very surprised to see Rodriguez and not Putz.

P.S. We're finally back to .500.

seawolf17 wrote: Jerry's going all out. Do NOT take Santana out of this game. Gwreck, I'm assuming you're at the game. Go lock the bullpen door, and take Ryan Church's helmet away. Hahahaha. Nope, actually sat this one out as I'm recovering from 4 concerts in 6 days. Will be there tomorrow though. Ordinary would be happy to oblige...

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ron Darling extols the subtle virtues of being Alex Cora. According to Ron, Cora has intangibles. I like intangibles. I especially liked the intangibles Dwight Gooden had from about the middle of 1984 through the middle of 1986. Bernard Gilkey had some great intangibles in 1996 when he had one of the best Met seasons ever. And Tom Seaver has some set of intangibles also, throughout his entire Met career. I'm with you on this, and was thinking the same sort of thing, but then they flashed his stats for the year and it had an OBP of .412 and an average of .310 something and it occured to me that if that's how he's going to produce -- for now, at least -- I'm fine with him hitting 2nd occasionally.

Wasn't worried for a second. Francsisco gets paid the big-boy dollars to deal with situations just like that. In some ways, Putz' inning was more important. Glad to see him getting it done too.

My recollection is that Luis' homers all come from pulling the ball as a right handed batter, and the MFYS home run problem is to right field.

Tough spot with Ibanez up and bases loaded. If Pelfrey wants to put some guys on, ok, but man up and get the out here, thanks.

I thought Beltran looked slow there too. But I was glad to see him using proper sliding form.