stevejrogers

="Centerfield":1okcvwit]The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day.[/quote:1okcvwit] Actually it is more of the anti-Wilpon/Phillips and/or pro-Doubleday faction of Met fans that believe that rumor more so than any WFAN listener. As Frayed said, even Mike & Chris have down played it over the years. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:56 AM There is apparantly a second rally this week. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:05 AM ="SteveJRogers":1jsdgsxe]There is apparantly a second rally this week.[/quote:1jsdgsxe] That's great. Maybe they can get Piazza to unretire. I hope someone there remembers to rally for better tasting hot dogs, too. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 10:06 AM The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:08 AM ="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

="Nymr83":16qb9hum]come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM.[/quote:16qb9hum] That will piss off the "We Want Manny" fanboys! Then again, they'll probably want Omar to act like the Yankees and say "Hey, why not get both!" Nymr83 Feb 01 2009 09:59 PM I'd rather have Dunn than Ramirez given their respective ages and attitudes. Dunn also has the added ability to play 1B, meaning that at the end of next season we can look to replace Delgado OR shift Dunn to 1B and find an outfielder. If we sign Manny we are locked in to replacing Delgado with a firstbaseman, and options are good to have. I admit that Ramirez's stats are more impressive and wouldn't fault anyone for preffering him. Number 6 Feb 01 2009 10:32 PM The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 12:21 AM ="Number 6":2lro33xa]The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots.[/quote:2lro33xa] "3 huge producers" is a bit optimistic as well. heres what i would consider a reasonable range of OPS+ numbers from our projected lineup, though of course you're free to disagree: SS Reyes (100-120) RF Church (100-135) 3B Wright (130-155) CF Beltran (120-140) 1B Delgado (100-140) LF Tatis/Murphy (90-120 from the LF spot combined) 2B Castillo (75-95) C Schneider/Castro (75-95 from the spot) obviously thats alot of range, but i think only 2 guys (Wright, Beltran) are capable of having a truly huge year, while 3 more (Delgado, Reyes, Church) are at least likely to be a positive force in the lineup. But you've got LF which is really a wild guess at this point, and C and 2B where you can pretty much expect a drag on the lineup. I realize that C is pretty much unaddressable at this point (look whose out there), but LF could be very easily addressed with players who would hit in the top 5 of any lineup (Ramirez, Dunn, Abreu) and 2B could at least be made into a great defensive strength with better offensive production than Castillo (Hudson) Number 6 Feb 02 2009 01:09 AM Yeah, the word "huge" was a bad choice, for several reasons. My fear is that we get significantly less from RF when we're playing back-ups due to injury, and I think we can reasonably expect less than the range you project for LF. Personally, I'd be surprised if the OPS+ we get from our LF platoon, as currently cast, approaches 100. Combine that with 2 other slots which I think you have pretty accurately down as offensive black holes, and it could get ugly. Yeah, it's a bad-case scenario, but I'd argue it's at least as likely as other probable outcomes. Even if we assume that Delgado, Wright, Reyes and Beltran are nearer to the upper bound of your ranges, can we expect that production to carry what could be some pretty hideous drag? Meanwhile, Dunn has averaged an OPS+ of 133 for the past 5 seasons. If it winds up being true that his price could come down to 1 year and $7 million or so, that's value, and it keeps us from needing to bank on the improbable. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 01:57 AM It would be nice to acquire Manny's next two seasons without having to pay for the two after that. But Manny and Dunn want long term deals. And if the price for either of those two drops low enough, then the Mets advantage in being one of baseball's wealthiest teams might be squandered, because at some point, even the Royals will put in a bid. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 02:47 AM Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million (assuming they wanted to) then the Royals sure can't offer 2 years and 20 million either. Right now the Mets have an advantage because there are at least 3 reasonable hitting alternatives out there (Ramirez, Dunn, and Abreu) and it is very unlikely that all 3 of those players find a 3rd year somewhere, the Mets should be able to get one of them, even if its not their first choice, for 2 years. Theres also the pitchers that are still out there... Perez and Sheets are getting nothing right now from what i can tell of the rumor mill, its time the Mets made a "who can jump first" offer to the both of them. It really looks like the bargains are there to be had and now is the time to lock them in for a smart GM. A few teams will be patting themselves on the back next offseason when prices are higher and they've got these guys at cheaper rates for another year. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:09 AM And if all else fails ... Get Wiggy With It!!! batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 09:32 AM ="Nymr83":2s7x82mb]Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million...[/quote:2s7x82mb] This'll probably fall into that vast category of things I believe are true but can't prove, but if Manny can't get more than a two year $20M deal, I'd be very suspicious of a lot of other things besides the economy. And if a team's offering Manny $10M a year, then it can hardly be said that his price has dropped to $7M. metirish Feb 02 2009 09:37 AM Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:15 AM ="metirish":e0gp3ri2]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:e0gp3ri2] Probably. We were only "what iffing" on Manny's price. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 10:21 AM ="metirish":3ko8tdnw]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:3ko8tdnw] Yes, LA put that deal out there early on and is waiting for a counter-offer from Boras but hasn't heard anything. And word leaked out the other day that Manny supposedly let it slip via his buddy A. Pujols that he hasn't received an offer other than that one. The Giants showed some brief interest and continue to stick their nose in every once in a while but that now seems to be more in making sure the Dodgers don't get him cheaply than it is in snagging him for themselves. Presumably that same Dodger offer is still on the table although they might just reduce it themselves. Meanwhile Boras is still talking about wanting 4 years. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 08:35 PM From Jayson Stark - espn.com: A two-year, $45 million offer three months ago didn't get it done. So on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers made a new offer to Manny Ramirez -- for one year and $25 million, according to a major league source. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti confirmed to ESPN.com that he met with Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, on Monday and presented the new offer in person. Colletti declined to confirm any details of the offer. But the offer was confirmed by another source with knowledge of the discussions. It's believed that Ramirez and Boras were given a 48-hour deadline to accept the offer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2009 09:00 PM They stole my idea! metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 09:35 PM That's more than the entire Marlins payroll. Number 6 Feb 02 2009 11:31 PM Of course, he could be referring to talks that happened a while ago, were not substantial, or are dead due to the Perez signing and/or Castillo, but Hudson is still name-dropping the Mets. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200902023793126 Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 06:46 AM Manny/Boras turn down the Dodger proposal ... and the beat goes on. Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2009 07:34 AM Report this morning that the White Sox have offered Abreu one year, $8 million. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM Take it, Bobby.

="metsmarathon":192yr4eq]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:192yr4eq] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!" batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2009 09:24 PM ="SteveJRogers":2p4dcmq4]="metsmarathon":2p4dcmq4]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:2p4dcmq4] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!"[/quote:2p4dcmq4] I believe this story. Well, not really. But it is consistent with my low perception of our owner, Fred Wilpon. Frayed Knot Feb 01 2009 08:14 AM ]Well there is truth to that. Well there is speculation about that. Phillips' line of thing was that with a catcher already under contract the "chips" might be best spent elsewhere or maybe saved for another day. But then the boss whispered (asked?, pleaded?, demanded?) in his ear he changed his tune and started looking into things. Whether Doubleday's action was as the result of the M&MD scream-a-thon is up to interpretation and even the duo never claimed that they were anything other than a small part in it. Centerfield Feb 02 2009 08:29 AM The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day. metsmarathon Feb 02 2009 08:33 AM well, it is steve. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 08:50 AM I think this should be called the "We Want Attention" rally. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:55 AM ="Centerfield":1okcvwit]The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day.[/quote:1okcvwit] Actually it is more of the anti-Wilpon/Phillips and/or pro-Doubleday faction of Met fans that believe that rumor more so than any WFAN listener. As Frayed said, even Mike & Chris have down played it over the years. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:56 AM There is apparantly a second rally this week. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:05 AM ="SteveJRogers":1jsdgsxe]There is apparantly a second rally this week.[/quote:1jsdgsxe] That's great. Maybe they can get Piazza to unretire. I hope someone there remembers to rally for better tasting hot dogs, too. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 10:06 AM The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:08 AM ="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

Kase, why am I looking at Sidd Fynch? It is not April 1st yet. Well, just asking in case there is a reason beyond "random generator."

="Nymr83":jel5ptoj]="Centerfield":jel5ptoj]You know, if we really wanted Manny, we'd ask Mike Francesa to make it happen.[/quote:jel5ptoj] i havent even listened to the fat slob since mad dog left, whats he have to do with anything[/quote:jel5ptoj] I think it is just a reference to him constantly demanding that something SHOULD happen, no debates. metsmarathon Jan 31 2009 08:45 PM or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when. SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 08:50 PM ="metsmarathon":192yr4eq]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:192yr4eq] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!" batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2009 09:24 PM ="SteveJRogers":2p4dcmq4]="metsmarathon":2p4dcmq4]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:2p4dcmq4] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!"[/quote:2p4dcmq4] I believe this story. Well, not really. But it is consistent with my low perception of our owner, Fred Wilpon. Frayed Knot Feb 01 2009 08:14 AM ]Well there is truth to that. Well there is speculation about that. Phillips' line of thing was that with a catcher already under contract the "chips" might be best spent elsewhere or maybe saved for another day. But then the boss whispered (asked?, pleaded?, demanded?) in his ear he changed his tune and started looking into things. Whether Doubleday's action was as the result of the M&MD scream-a-thon is up to interpretation and even the duo never claimed that they were anything other than a small part in it. Centerfield Feb 02 2009 08:29 AM The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day. metsmarathon Feb 02 2009 08:33 AM well, it is steve. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 08:50 AM I think this should be called the "We Want Attention" rally. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:55 AM ="Centerfield":1okcvwit]The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day.[/quote:1okcvwit] Actually it is more of the anti-Wilpon/Phillips and/or pro-Doubleday faction of Met fans that believe that rumor more so than any WFAN listener. As Frayed said, even Mike & Chris have down played it over the years. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:56 AM There is apparantly a second rally this week. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:05 AM ="SteveJRogers":1jsdgsxe]There is apparantly a second rally this week.[/quote:1jsdgsxe] That's great. Maybe they can get Piazza to unretire. I hope someone there remembers to rally for better tasting hot dogs, too. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 10:06 AM The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:08 AM ="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

="RealityChuck":6rlyuypy]Gedankenexperiment: How many people at the "Sign Manny" rally will be booing if we sign him and he goes 0 for 12 in his first three games?[/quote:6rlyuypy] Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much. seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 10:06 AM Centerfield Jan 30 2009 10:22 AM Email that to Wilpon. I heard that Boras (in disguise) was one of the guys heading up the chants. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 10:24 AM Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, they can have their next meeting in my lap. Not sure what I mean by that. Centerfield Jan 30 2009 11:11 AM Probably the same thing I meant when I said that Mets should design a patch featuring my ass. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 01:51 PM Mooks. All of youse. Mooks. http://gothamist.com/2009/01/30/mets_fans_who_want_manram.php Centerfield Jan 31 2009 07:39 AM You know, if we really wanted Manny, we'd ask Mike Francesa to make it happen. MFS62 Jan 31 2009 08:09 AM ="Centerfield":yqwks2q2]Just get him Wilpons. You've already lost $300 million. What's another 25 to 50?[/quote:yqwks2q2] So, there could be another rally. It would be for Mets fans who want the team to get a premier slugger, but are sensitive to the Wilpons' financial situation. Didn't Barry Bonds say that he would work for major league minimum? Well ... ? (I'm taking my tongue out of my cheek now) Later dgwphotography Jan 31 2009 08:11 AM I can't believe someone desecrated a Kelvin Torve jersey like that... Nymr83 Jan 31 2009 02:00 PM ="Centerfield":3e8zl7im]You know, if we really wanted Manny, we'd ask Mike Francesa to make it happen.[/quote:3e8zl7im] i havent even listened to the fat slob since mad dog left, whats he have to do with anything SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 04:41 PM ="Nymr83":jel5ptoj]="Centerfield":jel5ptoj]You know, if we really wanted Manny, we'd ask Mike Francesa to make it happen.[/quote:jel5ptoj] i havent even listened to the fat slob since mad dog left, whats he have to do with anything[/quote:jel5ptoj] I think it is just a reference to him constantly demanding that something SHOULD happen, no debates. metsmarathon Jan 31 2009 08:45 PM or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when. SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 08:50 PM ="metsmarathon":192yr4eq]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:192yr4eq] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!" batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2009 09:24 PM ="SteveJRogers":2p4dcmq4]="metsmarathon":2p4dcmq4]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:2p4dcmq4] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!"[/quote:2p4dcmq4] I believe this story. Well, not really. But it is consistent with my low perception of our owner, Fred Wilpon. Frayed Knot Feb 01 2009 08:14 AM ]Well there is truth to that. Well there is speculation about that. Phillips' line of thing was that with a catcher already under contract the "chips" might be best spent elsewhere or maybe saved for another day. But then the boss whispered (asked?, pleaded?, demanded?) in his ear he changed his tune and started looking into things. Whether Doubleday's action was as the result of the M&MD scream-a-thon is up to interpretation and even the duo never claimed that they were anything other than a small part in it. Centerfield Feb 02 2009 08:29 AM The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day. metsmarathon Feb 02 2009 08:33 AM well, it is steve. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 08:50 AM I think this should be called the "We Want Attention" rally. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:55 AM ="Centerfield":1okcvwit]The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day.[/quote:1okcvwit] Actually it is more of the anti-Wilpon/Phillips and/or pro-Doubleday faction of Met fans that believe that rumor more so than any WFAN listener. As Frayed said, even Mike & Chris have down played it over the years. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:56 AM There is apparantly a second rally this week. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:05 AM ="SteveJRogers":1jsdgsxe]There is apparantly a second rally this week.[/quote:1jsdgsxe] That's great. Maybe they can get Piazza to unretire. I hope someone there remembers to rally for better tasting hot dogs, too. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 10:06 AM The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:08 AM ="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

="Edgy DC":3lhjvaqr]="SteveJRogers":3lhjvaqr]Oh sure he eventually put up numbers that make his place on our rankings warranted, but if a Met historian was going through the totality of Met history, Doc could concievably rank third, fourth or even fifth among all time Met hurlers (eh, only Koosman off hand do I see even being considered to be placed higher but you never know with some Sabermetricians or anyone really).[/quote:3lhjvaqr] That's true. You never know with anyone. ?[/quote:3lhjvaqr] I should really cut out the incoherent part of my ramblings huh? You never know what someone is going to do when justifying reasons for putting Dwight Gooden lower than 2nd on a list of all-time Metly hurlers. Maybe Matlack's and Darling's postseason successes could make someone chose them over Gooden. I wouldn't, but I can see that case being made. Kong76 Jan 28 2009 07:43 PM SJI: I should really cut out the incoherent part of my ramblings huh? <<< I utter this to myself often, but I ramble on. Don't change, Steve ... the only person you can be is you. SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 06:32 PM Kase, why am I looking at Sidd Fynch? It is not April 1st yet. Well, just asking in case there is a reason beyond "random generator." Kong76 Jan 31 2009 07:08 PM Super Bowl Sunday silliness. metsguyinmichigan Feb 01 2009 08:40 PM Brilliant! metirish Feb 02 2009 06:47 AM One of the best stories ever told.....love it. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:37 AM We could definitely use Finch in our rotation this year but he's recently hired Boras as his agent and now there are rumors of a secret monastery in the bidding for his services. Kong76 Feb 02 2009 03:49 PM Going over my lists, I think I messed up a few things ... First, I think I did Eddie Murray twice. This is Dick Selma, right? Frisella and Heilman remain from the top 100 as undone. I did Charlie Neal twice too? I better not quit my day job. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:20 AM Neal's intensity is worth a double dose, though. He looks part Comanche. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 05:23 PM Neal's batting helmet is flocked. Kong76 Feb 03 2009 06:10 PM It is kind of an odd picture. It's cropped from a photo in Tales from the 1962 New York Mets, by Janet Paskin, and the photo credit is Getty Images. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 07:01 AM Getty was born in the nineties. Funny to see them distributing pictures of the early Mets, but I guess they've been buying up old libraries. They're a great business model for the nu economy, by the way. themetfairy Feb 27 2009 06:38 PM themetfairy Mar 02 2009 04:22 PM David Weathers? Kong76 Mar 03 2009 12:35 PM Formality of doing all top 200 ... I got rid of him quick :-) Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2009 12:38 PM Didn't we once calculate that it will take something like 60,000 years for Tom Seaver to fall out of the top 500? I wonder how long it would take for David Weathers to fall out of the top 200? themetfairy Mar 03 2009 06:44 PM ="Kong76":2bnhmr7e]Formality of doing all top 200 ... I got rid of him quick :-)[/quote:2bnhmr7e] It wasn't a complaint. Weathers was actually nice to the kids before a game in Kansas City (shortly before he was traded). I was just trying to identify the photo. Kong76 Mar 04 2009 04:45 AM I didn't think you were complaining. seawolf17 Mar 25 2009 03:09 PM Is that my homeboy, Pistol Pete Harnisch? Kong76 Mar 25 2009 03:43 PM Yup �, from a 1995 program ... soupcan Mar 27 2009 07:36 AM Crazy Pete! SteveJRogers Mar 28 2009 09:34 AM Nicely done! Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 02:06 PM Ray Knight looks like he's squeezing out a fart. metirish Apr 03 2009 02:29 PM Looks a bit like Kevin Appier when I first took notice , Appier featured that stance quite a bit too IIRC. TransMonk Apr 07 2009 03:49 PM Never bitched before, but the banner reads: Everybody in the pool! Joining us for off-season hot stove discussion is easy. Shoot us an email introducing yourself and letting us know what user name you'd like to use. An admin will activate your user name asap, and send you sign-on instructions. Thanks for visiting! Time to update for 2009! Kong76 Apr 07 2009 04:00 PM Thanks for the nudge, I was dosing again. TransMonk Apr 08 2009 09:26 AM As always, the admins do a great job with this site. MFS62 Apr 08 2009 10:07 AM ="TransMonk":34eve5h6]As always, the admins do a great job with this site.[/quote:34eve5h6] Except when they ignore my fervent plea for help. Later Kong76 Apr 08 2009 05:17 PM Trying to make my numbers add up. This was Jeff Reardon, right? ... Kong76 Apr 08 2009 05:28 PM 142 doesn't show up with my chicken scratch list either. Dick Selma? I'm just being lazy, I'll figure it out if no one chimes in. SteveJRogers Apr 12 2009 07:00 PM Whats with the Announcer Troika? Not that I'm complaining of course. Edgy DC Apr 12 2009 07:26 PM Seems self-explanatory. Met Hunter Apr 12 2009 11:34 PM ="Kong76"]Trying to make my numbers add up. This was Jeff Reardon, right? ... This one looks like Neil Allen. Met Hunter Apr 12 2009 11:34 PM ="Kong76"]142 doesn't show up with my chicken scratch list either. Dick Selma? I'm just being lazy, I'll figure it out if no one chimes in. This is Larry Bearnarth. Kong76 Apr 15 2009 06:33 PM Thanks, MH ... I've been busy and haven't been able to look at this much. SteveJRogers Apr 20 2009 06:26 PM So the player's name is going to be linked in the banner going forward, or is this just a random "hey it's Cliff, why not" sort of thing? Kong76 Apr 20 2009 07:19 PM Started with D.J. Dozier over the weekend, no one noticed. Top 200 Mets thing died with ~ 15 left ... the CPF contract with the Ramones has expired too ... everyone hates the new stadium ... David Wright can only hit when no one is on base ... if it weren't for Johan I'd just pull the plug. Random Mets from here on in until further notice. Rockin' Doc Apr 20 2009 07:39 PM Bang! Pow! Cliff Floyd is one of my all-time favorite Mets. Nice to see him making an appearance around the 'pool once again. Edgy DC Apr 20 2009 08:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 20 2009 10:35 PM The Crane Pool Forum has appreciated their relationship over the years with the Ramones, but after recent meetings with Marky, Tommy, and CJ, all agreed that it was best for both parties to go in seperate directions. We wish the Ramones well and hope for opportunities to work together in the future. In the meantime, the Crane Pool Forum is very excited about the new era of linking our introduction statement to our banner, to help people understand who exactly we're looking at. In an age of names which honor corporate relationships trumping names that are meaningful to the fan's and the city's relationship with the team, we feel confident in making a countercultural choice, and hope the fans will be excited to see us zag as other fora continue to zig. Frayed Knot Apr 20 2009 09:14 PM ]Started with D.J. Dozier over the weekend, no one noticed. I did. Elster88 Apr 20 2009 11:43 PM I noticed. I like it. Met Hunter Apr 21 2009 10:00 AM I like to try guessing. I recognized DJ before I saw the name. Now I will just guess without looking to the right. Edgy DC Apr 21 2009 11:34 AM That looks like the photo that produced the BANG! POW! image, but that one had him in the orange jersey. G-Fafif Apr 21 2009 12:04 PM Love the Player ID program. Great touch. The Ramones can go their own way. Or is that Fleetwood Mac? Fman99 Apr 21 2009 12:16 PM ="Elster88":wx56um7b]I noticed. I like it.[/quote:wx56um7b] Ditto. I didn't notice it with Dozier but I did today with Floyd. Even better for us younger sorts, who don't instantly recognize the 1960s-1970s era Mets just by head shots. SteveJRogers Apr 22 2009 06:09 PM Give it up for David Wright's agent! Met Hunter Apr 22 2009 06:59 PM Man, I can still remember when Keith was that thin. Elster88 Apr 28 2009 10:04 PM Looks like the banner has "click here" instead of the player's name. Is that intentional? Kong76 Apr 29 2009 04:24 PM I never know if Elster is serious. But, if you click on "click here" it will bring you to the UMDB page of the player pictured. I figured when I was putting the name some people were disappointed because they liked to guess so click here fixes that. Farmer Ted May 04 2009 03:04 PM I like it. I like it a lot. metsmarathon May 04 2009 03:22 PM ]Intelligent, lively, and provocative discussion of the Mets, Ed Kranepool, and, when we're gettin' on a roll, this guy! Kong76 May 04 2009 04:43 PM Thanks, that flows better. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 04:22 PM Thurman Munson? Rockin' Doc May 05 2009 06:05 PM Damn, I never knew Gorman Thomas played for the Mets. G-Fafif May 09 2009 07:05 AM Bill Denehy's all right, but I really love that view beyond the 358 sign. metirish May 11 2009 01:16 PM I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though. Fman99 May 11 2009 02:17 PM ="metirish":1aprm4tv]I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though.[/quote:1aprm4tv] I attended the game[/url:1aprm4tv] that he debuted as a Met in, in 2000, that was also Mike (A-)Bordick's debut game in which he homered. Rick picked up the win in relief of Rick Reed that day. seawolf17 May 11 2009 06:47 PM ="metirish":2d0fy8i4]I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though.[/quote:2d0fy8i4] You mean "Rick Wheat"? G-Fafif May 11 2009 09:23 PM It was Fran: "Shea will be ricking for Rock White!" I have yet to miss Fran Healy. cooby May 12 2009 06:56 PM I will miss Fran Healy until my bones are dust in the wind.... Who is that now? Rockin' Doc May 12 2009 07:11 PM Robotic Danny Heep! cooby May 12 2009 07:12 PM Izzit? I remember him... Edgy DC May 13 2009 07:34 AM Looking at Heep here, I realize I have a mostly irrational hatred of shaving down the knob at the end of the bat and wrapping one's lower hands around the shaven knob. (grumpy old man)Your hands belong above the knob.(/grumpy) (I'm also not particular to when guys have dimples hollowed out at the end of their bats. (I think Wally Backman was the first guy I noticed with such a bat, but it probably pre-dates him by at least a decade..) Benjamin Grimm May 13 2009 08:12 AM "wrapping one's hands around the shaven knob" That definitely calls for a response from Fman. metsmarathon May 13 2009 08:23 AM i would've expected the knob never to need shaving... MFS62 May 15 2009 07:51 AM I'm seeing the dreaded red x in the box instead of a picture on this morning's banner. EDIT: Never mind, the picture just found its way in there. Later metirish May 19 2009 05:31 PM Castillo looks a bit like Ortiz , yes/no? Edgy DC May 21 2009 04:20 PM Mike Cubbage and his magic leviation glasses. Swan Swan H May 21 2009 05:09 PM See the ball, hit the ball. Met Hunter May 22 2009 06:11 AM Last summer my daughter had a soccer tourney in Va Beach. The last day there, a bunch of us happened upon a Tides game in Norfolk. I noticed Cubbage sitting behind us in a Rays hat and a clipboard. He's a scout. He was so noticeable to me. Between innings we said hello and he was nice as can be. cooby Jun 04 2009 08:16 PM Is that "Sweetness" Luis Lopez? Kong76 Jun 04 2009 08:26 PM Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes! cooby Jun 04 2009 08:28 PM Cool! I thought it still was about the Ramones Kong76 Jun 04 2009 08:34 PM She continues the friend or foe game. Benjamin Grimm Jun 05 2009 06:48 AM ="Kong76":29zavirn]Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes![/quote:29zavirn] I love the addition of the "this guy" link. It's very helpful, since I recognize very few of the players that appeared in 1990 or after. Frayed Knot Jun 05 2009 08:13 PM It's Luis Lopez, but is it 'Super Luis Lopez Ultra'? cooby Jun 06 2009 10:30 AM ="Kong76":15bfr057]She continues the friend or foe game.[/quote:15bfr057] Now Kasey, don't take that the wrong way. It's kind of like the front door to your house. You don't notice all the squished bugs and spider webs and hand prints and stuff on it until after somebody has stopped by and suddenly you realize that you don't even really look at your front door anymore. I know you won't know what I'm talking about. Edgy DC Jun 06 2009 02:23 PM ="Frayed Knot":1q2hkxgb]It's Luis Lopez, but is it 'Super Luis Lopez Ultra'?[/quote:1q2hkxgb] I prefer Luis "Left Eye" Lopez. metirish Jun 06 2009 02:49 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":33ihq0he]="Kong76":33ihq0he]Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes![/quote:33ihq0he] I love the addition of the "this guy" link. It's very helpful, since I recognize very few of the players that appeared in 1990 or after.[/quote:33ihq0he] Me too , never noticed it before. Kong76 Jun 06 2009 03:35 PM coo: I know you won't know what I'm talking about <<< I don't even know what I'm talking about some days. Hopefully if there are more people who didn't realize that was a link, they will read this thread and utilize it. cooby Jun 07 2009 11:12 AM What i kinda meant was you can look at your own front door over and over again and not really see it cooby Jun 14 2009 09:23 AM at last! Kong76 Jun 27 2009 07:02 AM I guess the joke's on me! I posted an invitation on the "this guy" up top (to see if anyone really clicks there) and see if I got any bites. I get one PM from the coobster that his name is Julio and eats iguannas which is where I my brain was going with it but I didn't remember he spent time in the clink for murder?? ---------- Wikipedia: Julio Machado, born Julio Segundo Machado Rond�n (December 1, 1965 in Zulia State, Venezuela) is a former Major League Baseball right-handed relief pitcher who played for the New York Mets (1989-90) and Milwaukee Brewers (1990-91). Machado started his career with the Mets. In the 1990 season, he went to the Brewers in a four-player deal, along with pitcher Kevin Brown, in exchange for catcher Charlie O'Brien and a minor league player. Machado had a decent fastball, good control and willingness to challenge hitters. He also pitched a better-than-average curveball and a slider. Machado was certainly good enough to pitch for a few more years. However, he is a footnote in the ledger of baseball history. Spending the 1991 off-season in his homeland, Machado was arrested for murder being accused of shooting a woman following an auto accident. He was convicted and, following appeals, he was sentenced to 12 years in 1996. In a three-year career, Machado posted a 7-5 record with 151 strikeouts and a 3.12 ERA in 147 innings. Machado went on to play in the Venezuelan winter league and currently coaches in that league. Machado was nicknamed "Iguanaman" for his fondness of eating the meat of iguanas. ---------- Next time our paths cross, coobs ... I owe you a beer! Edgy DC Jun 27 2009 01:08 PM I conflate Julio Machado and Jose Bautista. Benjamin Grimm Jun 27 2009 01:10 PM My newest conflation is Elmer Dessens and Casey Fossum. seawolf17 Jun 27 2009 05:39 PM I loved Julio Machado. Unquestionably in the bullpen of my All-Time Mets 25-Man Roster. Frayed Knot Jul 15 2009 05:32 PM That's either Roy McMillan or Harry Truman

Point? The book wasn't an expose on who cheats on their spouses. The two weren't close at all, and I would hazard a guess that not even Clemens' close friends in the game knew about McCready or whomever else Roger did on the side.

Perfect example, Jose Canseco was dead on accurate in his first book, especially when it came to Rafael Palmerio who was one of the book's ardent critics when he was named in it.

="Frayed Knot":2kobodu9]David Segui, who was named by Radomski in the book and on an ESPN program a few days ago, has not only denied not buying stuff from Radomski but denies ever meeting him ... so somebody's obviously lying. I'll read the Torre book before this one.[/quote:2kobodu9] I'll side with the guy with nothing to lose at this point over any former athlete. In other words, I'll believe what Radomski is selling over anything any one mentioned in his book has to say at this point. SteveJRogers Jan 28 2009 12:56 PM Perfect example, Jose Canseco was dead on accurate in his first book, especially when it came to Rafael Palmerio who was one of the book's ardent critics when he was named in it. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 01:03 PM "Here's something you probably don't know about Roger Clemens: He's one of the very few baseball players I know who never cheated on his wife." --- Jose Canseco, Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big SteveJRogers Jan 28 2009 01:53 PM Point? The book wasn't an expose on who cheats on their spouses. The two weren't close at all, and I would hazard a guess that not even Clemens' close friends in the game knew about McCready or whomever else Roger did on the side. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 02:00 PM Point is that dead-on accurate is dead-on accurate. What's your point in trying to put me on the spot about Gooden's pee? Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 02:03 PM Yeah, really. In quoting Gooden, Edgy never implied that he believed him. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 02:08 PM ="SteveJRogers":1opxjwwi]Perfect example, Jose Canseco was dead on accurate in his first book ...[/quote:1opxjwwi] No he wasn't. One of his first promo gigs was with '60 Minutes' where (Wallace?) read a passage about how he shot up McGwire "numerous times". After several attempts to get him to specify how many "numerous" was he was down to "well ... once, maybe twice". Embellishing a book makes it more notable or - hopefully for the author/publisher - also more sellable. Canseco wanted to pump up his name by making himself into (and got far too much credit for IMO) the 'hero' in the steroids story even as he is now getting around to distancing himself from some of the stuff he said in that book. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 02:11 PM I remember seeing Canseco on Letterman promoting his book, and he claimed to have been the one who introduced steroids to baseball, and that he wrote the book as a way of making amends. I didn't buy the "making amends" part at all, but I did wonder about how much truth there is in his claim about being the first steroid user. I am skeptical, but someone had to be the first. Could it have been him? Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 02:26 PM I'm sure he was among the first users to make drug-taking a full-time habit but the claim that he "introduced them" is probably more self-promotion than actual fact. Prior to that guys had experimented with all kinds of shit. Atlanta pitcher Tom House has admitted that he and several other were using some whacked out crap like horse steroids and that was back at the end of Aaron's era - some 15 prior to Canseco's rookie year. The manufacture and distribution of steroids specifically for athletic purposes was as unsophisticated back them as were the people taking them, but by the time Jose came on the scene in '87 he was at just the right time to be at least among the first to add them to their Wheaties as part of a training regimen from Day 1. Brian Downing was the first guy I remember who went away one winter and showed up the following spring looking incredibly bulked up (mid-'80s.) Whether that was roids or not is speculation ... but I'd bet on it.

="Edgy DC"]Within hours of his book dropping, speed readers found a bunch of clear factual errors. Gooden, who one might expect to lay low, has said that he may have a lot of flaws but he does not borrow another man's piss. So, you are going to take the word of a known cocaine addicted felon, whom may or may not have lied about a well known cat beheading to puff up his own memoirs, over a felon who is coming clean about his own sorid life as a steroid dealer?

="Kong76":3gb03sli]A lot of work went into the rankings, and it's not perfect ... I threw out Harry because looking at who I need to get pics of and when I see him at 130 I scratched my head. I don't really understand the what you mean by rewarding the here and now over the whole picture or whatever. But whatever.[/quote:3gb03sli] I know Kase. What I was going was that the position for a given year hold for that player, they can not move down on their own merit, they can only go up on their merit. To use, eh, Doc Gooden as an example. He built enough of a lead off of his first few seasons that despite his fall off starting roughly in 1987 that he would never falter from his lofty place in Met-dom. Oh sure he eventually put up numbers that make his place on our rankings warranted, but if a Met historian was going through the totality of Met history, Doc could concievably rank third, fourth or even fifth among all time Met hurlers (eh, only Koosman off hand do I see even being considered to be placed higher but you never know with some Sabermetricians or anyone really). Frayed Knot Jan 27 2009 09:09 PM ="SteveJRogers"]I guess that is what you get when you create a system that rewards the here and now over the whole picture of a Metly career. Actually the system specifically takes into account the "whole picture of a Metly career" so I don't know WTF you're talking about. And, no, I don't want an explanation because I don't think you do either so a follow up will probably just make us both more confused. Rockin' Doc Jan 27 2009 09:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2009 11:19 AM Sometimes when I read Steve's posts, I think he's typing in tongues. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 07:03 AM ="SteveJRogers":3k37b4p7]Oh sure he eventually put up numbers that make his place on our rankings warranted, but if a Met historian was going through the totality of Met history, Doc could concievably rank third, fourth or even fifth among all time Met hurlers (eh, only Koosman off hand do I see even being considered to be placed higher but you never know with some Sabermetricians or anyone really).[/quote:3k37b4p7] That's true. You never know with anyone. ? Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 02:04 PM What's funny to me is that when the banner has a photo of someone who played for the Mets 30 to 35 years ago, I recognize him every time. But when it's someone from the last ten to fifteen years, I often don't know for sure who it is. cooby Jan 28 2009 06:25 PM god, I'm glad somebody else said that first. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:29 PM ="cooby":nushvdsi]god, I'm glad somebody else said that first.[/quote:nushvdsi] I'm glad somebody else said that second. Of course, you and I don't have a database of these mugs. SteveJRogers Jan 28 2009 07:19 PM ="Edgy DC":3lhjvaqr]="SteveJRogers":3lhjvaqr]Oh sure he eventually put up numbers that make his place on our rankings warranted, but if a Met historian was going through the totality of Met history, Doc could concievably rank third, fourth or even fifth among all time Met hurlers (eh, only Koosman off hand do I see even being considered to be placed higher but you never know with some Sabermetricians or anyone really).[/quote:3lhjvaqr] That's true. You never know with anyone. ?[/quote:3lhjvaqr] I should really cut out the incoherent part of my ramblings huh? You never know what someone is going to do when justifying reasons for putting Dwight Gooden lower than 2nd on a list of all-time Metly hurlers. Maybe Matlack's and Darling's postseason successes could make someone chose them over Gooden. I wouldn't, but I can see that case being made. Kong76 Jan 28 2009 07:43 PM SJI: I should really cut out the incoherent part of my ramblings huh? <<< I utter this to myself often, but I ramble on. Don't change, Steve ... the only person you can be is you. SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 06:32 PM Kase, why am I looking at Sidd Fynch? It is not April 1st yet. Well, just asking in case there is a reason beyond "random generator." Kong76 Jan 31 2009 07:08 PM Super Bowl Sunday silliness. metsguyinmichigan Feb 01 2009 08:40 PM Brilliant! metirish Feb 02 2009 06:47 AM One of the best stories ever told.....love it. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:37 AM We could definitely use Finch in our rotation this year but he's recently hired Boras as his agent and now there are rumors of a secret monastery in the bidding for his services. Kong76 Feb 02 2009 03:49 PM Going over my lists, I think I messed up a few things ... First, I think I did Eddie Murray twice. This is Dick Selma, right? Frisella and Heilman remain from the top 100 as undone. I did Charlie Neal twice too? I better not quit my day job. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:20 AM Neal's intensity is worth a double dose, though. He looks part Comanche. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 05:23 PM Neal's batting helmet is flocked. Kong76 Feb 03 2009 06:10 PM It is kind of an odd picture. It's cropped from a photo in Tales from the 1962 New York Mets, by Janet Paskin, and the photo credit is Getty Images. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 07:01 AM Getty was born in the nineties. Funny to see them distributing pictures of the early Mets, but I guess they've been buying up old libraries. They're a great business model for the nu economy, by the way. themetfairy Feb 27 2009 06:38 PM themetfairy Mar 02 2009 04:22 PM David Weathers? Kong76 Mar 03 2009 12:35 PM Formality of doing all top 200 ... I got rid of him quick :-) Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2009 12:38 PM Didn't we once calculate that it will take something like 60,000 years for Tom Seaver to fall out of the top 500? I wonder how long it would take for David Weathers to fall out of the top 200? themetfairy Mar 03 2009 06:44 PM ="Kong76":2bnhmr7e]Formality of doing all top 200 ... I got rid of him quick :-)[/quote:2bnhmr7e] It wasn't a complaint. Weathers was actually nice to the kids before a game in Kansas City (shortly before he was traded). I was just trying to identify the photo. Kong76 Mar 04 2009 04:45 AM I didn't think you were complaining. seawolf17 Mar 25 2009 03:09 PM Is that my homeboy, Pistol Pete Harnisch? Kong76 Mar 25 2009 03:43 PM Yup �, from a 1995 program ... soupcan Mar 27 2009 07:36 AM Crazy Pete! SteveJRogers Mar 28 2009 09:34 AM Nicely done! Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 02:06 PM Ray Knight looks like he's squeezing out a fart. metirish Apr 03 2009 02:29 PM Looks a bit like Kevin Appier when I first took notice , Appier featured that stance quite a bit too IIRC. TransMonk Apr 07 2009 03:49 PM Never bitched before, but the banner reads: Everybody in the pool! Joining us for off-season hot stove discussion is easy. Shoot us an email introducing yourself and letting us know what user name you'd like to use. An admin will activate your user name asap, and send you sign-on instructions. Thanks for visiting! Time to update for 2009! Kong76 Apr 07 2009 04:00 PM Thanks for the nudge, I was dosing again. TransMonk Apr 08 2009 09:26 AM As always, the admins do a great job with this site. MFS62 Apr 08 2009 10:07 AM ="TransMonk":34eve5h6]As always, the admins do a great job with this site.[/quote:34eve5h6] Except when they ignore my fervent plea for help. Later Kong76 Apr 08 2009 05:17 PM Trying to make my numbers add up. This was Jeff Reardon, right? ... Kong76 Apr 08 2009 05:28 PM 142 doesn't show up with my chicken scratch list either. Dick Selma? I'm just being lazy, I'll figure it out if no one chimes in. SteveJRogers Apr 12 2009 07:00 PM Whats with the Announcer Troika? Not that I'm complaining of course. Edgy DC Apr 12 2009 07:26 PM Seems self-explanatory. Met Hunter Apr 12 2009 11:34 PM ="Kong76"]Trying to make my numbers add up. This was Jeff Reardon, right? ... This one looks like Neil Allen. Met Hunter Apr 12 2009 11:34 PM ="Kong76"]142 doesn't show up with my chicken scratch list either. Dick Selma? I'm just being lazy, I'll figure it out if no one chimes in. This is Larry Bearnarth. Kong76 Apr 15 2009 06:33 PM Thanks, MH ... I've been busy and haven't been able to look at this much. SteveJRogers Apr 20 2009 06:26 PM So the player's name is going to be linked in the banner going forward, or is this just a random "hey it's Cliff, why not" sort of thing? Kong76 Apr 20 2009 07:19 PM Started with D.J. Dozier over the weekend, no one noticed. Top 200 Mets thing died with ~ 15 left ... the CPF contract with the Ramones has expired too ... everyone hates the new stadium ... David Wright can only hit when no one is on base ... if it weren't for Johan I'd just pull the plug. Random Mets from here on in until further notice. Rockin' Doc Apr 20 2009 07:39 PM Bang! Pow! Cliff Floyd is one of my all-time favorite Mets. Nice to see him making an appearance around the 'pool once again. Edgy DC Apr 20 2009 08:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 20 2009 10:35 PM The Crane Pool Forum has appreciated their relationship over the years with the Ramones, but after recent meetings with Marky, Tommy, and CJ, all agreed that it was best for both parties to go in seperate directions. We wish the Ramones well and hope for opportunities to work together in the future. In the meantime, the Crane Pool Forum is very excited about the new era of linking our introduction statement to our banner, to help people understand who exactly we're looking at. In an age of names which honor corporate relationships trumping names that are meaningful to the fan's and the city's relationship with the team, we feel confident in making a countercultural choice, and hope the fans will be excited to see us zag as other fora continue to zig. Frayed Knot Apr 20 2009 09:14 PM ]Started with D.J. Dozier over the weekend, no one noticed. I did. Elster88 Apr 20 2009 11:43 PM I noticed. I like it. Met Hunter Apr 21 2009 10:00 AM I like to try guessing. I recognized DJ before I saw the name. Now I will just guess without looking to the right. Edgy DC Apr 21 2009 11:34 AM That looks like the photo that produced the BANG! POW! image, but that one had him in the orange jersey. G-Fafif Apr 21 2009 12:04 PM Love the Player ID program. Great touch. The Ramones can go their own way. Or is that Fleetwood Mac? Fman99 Apr 21 2009 12:16 PM ="Elster88":wx56um7b]I noticed. I like it.[/quote:wx56um7b] Ditto. I didn't notice it with Dozier but I did today with Floyd. Even better for us younger sorts, who don't instantly recognize the 1960s-1970s era Mets just by head shots. SteveJRogers Apr 22 2009 06:09 PM Give it up for David Wright's agent! Met Hunter Apr 22 2009 06:59 PM Man, I can still remember when Keith was that thin. Elster88 Apr 28 2009 10:04 PM Looks like the banner has "click here" instead of the player's name. Is that intentional? Kong76 Apr 29 2009 04:24 PM I never know if Elster is serious. But, if you click on "click here" it will bring you to the UMDB page of the player pictured. I figured when I was putting the name some people were disappointed because they liked to guess so click here fixes that. Farmer Ted May 04 2009 03:04 PM I like it. I like it a lot. metsmarathon May 04 2009 03:22 PM ]Intelligent, lively, and provocative discussion of the Mets, Ed Kranepool, and, when we're gettin' on a roll, this guy! Kong76 May 04 2009 04:43 PM Thanks, that flows better. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 04:22 PM Thurman Munson? Rockin' Doc May 05 2009 06:05 PM Damn, I never knew Gorman Thomas played for the Mets. G-Fafif May 09 2009 07:05 AM Bill Denehy's all right, but I really love that view beyond the 358 sign. metirish May 11 2009 01:16 PM I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though. Fman99 May 11 2009 02:17 PM ="metirish":1aprm4tv]I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though.[/quote:1aprm4tv] I attended the game[/url:1aprm4tv] that he debuted as a Met in, in 2000, that was also Mike (A-)Bordick's debut game in which he homered. Rick picked up the win in relief of Rick Reed that day. seawolf17 May 11 2009 06:47 PM ="metirish":2d0fy8i4]I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though.[/quote:2d0fy8i4] You mean "Rick Wheat"? G-Fafif May 11 2009 09:23 PM It was Fran: "Shea will be ricking for Rock White!" I have yet to miss Fran Healy. cooby May 12 2009 06:56 PM I will miss Fran Healy until my bones are dust in the wind.... Who is that now? Rockin' Doc May 12 2009 07:11 PM Robotic Danny Heep! cooby May 12 2009 07:12 PM Izzit? I remember him... Edgy DC May 13 2009 07:34 AM Looking at Heep here, I realize I have a mostly irrational hatred of shaving down the knob at the end of the bat and wrapping one's lower hands around the shaven knob. (grumpy old man)Your hands belong above the knob.(/grumpy) (I'm also not particular to when guys have dimples hollowed out at the end of their bats. (I think Wally Backman was the first guy I noticed with such a bat, but it probably pre-dates him by at least a decade..) Benjamin Grimm May 13 2009 08:12 AM "wrapping one's hands around the shaven knob" That definitely calls for a response from Fman. metsmarathon May 13 2009 08:23 AM i would've expected the knob never to need shaving... MFS62 May 15 2009 07:51 AM I'm seeing the dreaded red x in the box instead of a picture on this morning's banner. EDIT: Never mind, the picture just found its way in there. Later metirish May 19 2009 05:31 PM Castillo looks a bit like Ortiz , yes/no? Edgy DC May 21 2009 04:20 PM Mike Cubbage and his magic leviation glasses. Swan Swan H May 21 2009 05:09 PM See the ball, hit the ball. Met Hunter May 22 2009 06:11 AM Last summer my daughter had a soccer tourney in Va Beach. The last day there, a bunch of us happened upon a Tides game in Norfolk. I noticed Cubbage sitting behind us in a Rays hat and a clipboard. He's a scout. He was so noticeable to me. Between innings we said hello and he was nice as can be. cooby Jun 04 2009 08:16 PM Is that "Sweetness" Luis Lopez? Kong76 Jun 04 2009 08:26 PM Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes! cooby Jun 04 2009 08:28 PM Cool! I thought it still was about the Ramones Kong76 Jun 04 2009 08:34 PM She continues the friend or foe game. Benjamin Grimm Jun 05 2009 06:48 AM ="Kong76":29zavirn]Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes![/quote:29zavirn] I love the addition of the "this guy" link. It's very helpful, since I recognize very few of the players that appeared in 1990 or after. Frayed Knot Jun 05 2009 08:13 PM It's Luis Lopez, but is it 'Super Luis Lopez Ultra'? cooby Jun 06 2009 10:30 AM ="Kong76":15bfr057]She continues the friend or foe game.[/quote:15bfr057] Now Kasey, don't take that the wrong way. It's kind of like the front door to your house. You don't notice all the squished bugs and spider webs and hand prints and stuff on it until after somebody has stopped by and suddenly you realize that you don't even really look at your front door anymore. I know you won't know what I'm talking about. Edgy DC Jun 06 2009 02:23 PM ="Frayed Knot":1q2hkxgb]It's Luis Lopez, but is it 'Super Luis Lopez Ultra'?[/quote:1q2hkxgb] I prefer Luis "Left Eye" Lopez. metirish Jun 06 2009 02:49 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":33ihq0he]="Kong76":33ihq0he]Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes![/quote:33ihq0he] I love the addition of the "this guy" link. It's very helpful, since I recognize very few of the players that appeared in 1990 or after.[/quote:33ihq0he] Me too , never noticed it before. Kong76 Jun 06 2009 03:35 PM coo: I know you won't know what I'm talking about <<< I don't even know what I'm talking about some days. Hopefully if there are more people who didn't realize that was a link, they will read this thread and utilize it. cooby Jun 07 2009 11:12 AM What i kinda meant was you can look at your own front door over and over again and not really see it cooby Jun 14 2009 09:23 AM at last! Kong76 Jun 27 2009 07:02 AM I guess the joke's on me! I posted an invitation on the "this guy" up top (to see if anyone really clicks there) and see if I got any bites. I get one PM from the coobster that his name is Julio and eats iguannas which is where I my brain was going with it but I didn't remember he spent time in the clink for murder?? ---------- Wikipedia: Julio Machado, born Julio Segundo Machado Rond�n (December 1, 1965 in Zulia State, Venezuela) is a former Major League Baseball right-handed relief pitcher who played for the New York Mets (1989-90) and Milwaukee Brewers (1990-91). Machado started his career with the Mets. In the 1990 season, he went to the Brewers in a four-player deal, along with pitcher Kevin Brown, in exchange for catcher Charlie O'Brien and a minor league player. Machado had a decent fastball, good control and willingness to challenge hitters. He also pitched a better-than-average curveball and a slider. Machado was certainly good enough to pitch for a few more years. However, he is a footnote in the ledger of baseball history. Spending the 1991 off-season in his homeland, Machado was arrested for murder being accused of shooting a woman following an auto accident. He was convicted and, following appeals, he was sentenced to 12 years in 1996. In a three-year career, Machado posted a 7-5 record with 151 strikeouts and a 3.12 ERA in 147 innings. Machado went on to play in the Venezuelan winter league and currently coaches in that league. Machado was nicknamed "Iguanaman" for his fondness of eating the meat of iguanas. ---------- Next time our paths cross, coobs ... I owe you a beer! Edgy DC Jun 27 2009 01:08 PM I conflate Julio Machado and Jose Bautista. Benjamin Grimm Jun 27 2009 01:10 PM My newest conflation is Elmer Dessens and Casey Fossum. seawolf17 Jun 27 2009 05:39 PM I loved Julio Machado. Unquestionably in the bullpen of my All-Time Mets 25-Man Roster. Frayed Knot Jul 15 2009 05:32 PM That's either Roy McMillan or Harry Truman

="Centerfield":1gc9mbcl] *I only caught the ninth inning but we had Matt Franco playing third. Who played third in 1997? Anyone remember without looking? [/quote:1gc9mbcl] Easy, Edgardo Alfonzo. metsguyinmichigan Jan 27 2009 09:00 PM That wasn't Butch Huskey? I went to the game the next day. G-Fafif Jan 28 2009 05:38 AM Fonzie was hurt that week, though he toughed it out and entered the third game, one of your less-talked about Mets Classics since it was a loss (the Beez Balk game). Rey-Rey went down a couple of weeks earlier and then Manny Alexander did the same. They brought up Shawn Gilbert and he got injured. Thus, Luis Lopez, nominal fourth-string shortstop, was starting against the defending world champions in the Self Esteem Bowl. I seem to recall Fonzie seeing some shortstop action around this time as well. Lopez did stick, though Gilbert's Mets career was basically over. I liked Alexander and was sorry when he was part of the Lance-McRae (or Turk) trade. In the previous series, against the Red Sox, Kevin Morgan filled in at third, his one and only appearance in the bigs. Pound for pound or on some gut level, 1997 remains my favorite season. Overall, it's a respectable fourth behind '99, '85 and '86. metirish Jan 28 2009 07:10 AM ="G-Fafif":oy3qrwa2] Pound for pound or on some gut level, 1997 remains my favorite season. Overall, it's a respectable fourth behind '99, '85 and '86.[/quote:oy3qrwa2] Definitely one of my favorite years if only because that was the first year as a fan of the Mets that they were good. The derby game really got me into things as well. BTW Greg I think it's wonderful out of all the years that you have followed the Mets you can pick 1997 as your fourth favorite. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 07:22 AM 1985 was definitely my favorite. When the Mets contended when I was a kid (really, just in 1973) I was too young to appreciate the rarity. 1984 was fun, but the Mets faded fairly early. 1985 was my first experience as a seasoned fan with a nail-biting pennant race. 1999 had the same excitement, an equally likable cast of characters, and was very refreshing after a long drought. A terrific, solid year, but it can't top 1985 for me. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 07:26 AM I'm fond of 97 too. If that year didn't happen it's possible none of you would know me. I was nearly divorced from baseball before that team romanced me right back in. I'm an 84 guy. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 07:33 AM I've always stood by eighty three. Lights came on at Shea. themetfairy Jan 28 2009 07:39 AM 1999. That year made me love baseball again, at a time in my life when I truly needed it. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 07:40 AM 1983 is under appreciated. I was always, in the previous years, foolishly optimistic. But in 1983, the optimism started to feel real. Kong76 Jan 28 2009 08:00 AM I think '97 is when I stumbled onto Mets Online and became a baseball internet junkie and I still haven't gotten some stuff done that I should have. Thanks, Bryan! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 08:02 AM ="Benjamin Grimm"]1983 is under appreciated. I was always, in the previous years, foolishly optimistic. But in 1983, the optimism started to feel real. I agree with that. I basically consider June 15 and on to be part of 84 anyway. Centerfield Jan 28 2009 08:17 AM 1984 was when I first noticed the Mets. I was just a kid, didn't know a heck of a lot, I just knew I was experiencing a new set of emotions. Things never got serious in 1984, but there was definitely interest, and the flirting was undeniable. In 1985, the flirting turned into full out dating. We were seeing each other more often. I would think about them when I wasn't with them. Unfortunately, I was too young to really appreciate how great that summer was, but I was in love for the first time. In 1986, our relationship was riding sky high. I never realized things could be so good. And I don't have to tell you what happened that October. 1987: Things just weren't the same. It was still good, but we were having trouble for the first time and we didn't really know how to handle it. In 1988, everything seemed to be getting back to normal. Lots of transgressions were forgiven, and it looked like we had passed the troubled times. Then in October, they ripped out my heart. I found love letters from some guy named Mike in LA. The next spring they traded away Lenny Dykstra, and to be honest, things were really never the same after that. There was bitterness on both sides, and we both decided to let things cool off for a while. We kept in touch during the early 90's, but by 93, we hardly saw each other at all. In '94, I heard they ran into some trouble but I was too busy seeing other hobbies to really care. I didn't see the Mets again until after college. In 1997, I heard (though I didn't watch) that they beat the Yankees in the first ever matchup between those teams, and I realized I still wished them well. In 1998, I started seeing the Mets out more and more. I heard they got Mike Piazza. They had this guy Olerud that you couldn't help but root for. Before long, I started remembering what I liked about them in the first place. Alot of the old wounds were gone. The Mets were different now. I was different now. We had both gone our own way but circled back to where we started. In 1999, it was love rediscovered. It was as great as '85 and '86. Except we were older and better able to handle adversity. '99 ended in the worst way you could imagine, but our relationship was strong. We knew were in this together for good. We've been together since then. Through thick and thin. Through Art Howe and Roberto Alomar. I had one little transgression with the 2004 Red Sox, but the Mets understood and took me back. Our's is not a perfect relationship, but it works. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 08:17 AM Olerud and Baerga were the two highest paid 1997 Mets. Who was third? Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 08:23 AM Back in '86 my little circle of Met fan friends and I would use 1984 as a barometer. If you couldn't talk seriously about that team and that year we basically treated you like a bandwagon jumping newbie not worthy of our time. Yes, I was an elitist even back then. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 08:23 AM Lance Johnson? Fman99 Jan 28 2009 08:27 AM Hundley? Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 08:31 AM Gilkey? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 08:38 AM Franco. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 08:49 AM The answer is so unlikely, that I'd suspect that anyone who gets it right had to have looked. I guess that's a hint, sort of. Kong76 Jan 28 2009 08:51 AM I didn't look, but I figured it was a trick question and that Bonilla's contract was still not spread out into the 2000's? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 08:53 AM Here's another hint: He didn't spend the entire season on the Mets and the Mets surely did not pay his entire salary. Kong76 Jan 28 2009 08:54 AM I just looked, never mind the above. Fman99 Jan 28 2009 09:14 AM ="Fman99":3rtexa93]Hundley?[/quote:3rtexa93] I peeked. Hundley was #4 so I give myself kudos for being close. Gilkey was #6, Johnson #8, Franco #9. seawolf17 Jan 28 2009 09:15 AM ="Centerfield":15o6noox]1984 was when I first noticed the Mets. I was just a kid, didn't know a heck of a lot, I just knew I was experiencing a new set of emotions. Things never got serious in 1984, but there was definitely interest, and the flirting was undeniable. In 1985, the flirting turned into full out dating. We were seeing each other more often. I would think about them when I wasn't with them. Unfortunately, I was too young to really appreciate how great that summer was, but I was in love for the first time. In 1986, our relationship was riding sky high. I never realized things could be so good. And I don't have to tell you what happened that October. 1987: Things just weren't the same. It was still good, but we were having trouble for the first time and we didn't really know how to handle it. In 1988, everything seemed to be getting back to normal. Lots of transgressions were forgiven, and it looked like we had passed the troubled times. Then in October, they ripped out my heart. I found love letters from some guy named Mike in LA. The next spring they traded away Lenny Dykstra, and to be honest, things were really never the same after that. There was bitterness on both sides, and we both decided to let things cool off for a while. We kept in touch during the early 90's, but by 93, we hardly saw each other at all. In '94, I heard they ran into some trouble but I was too busy seeing other hobbies to really care. I didn't see the Mets again until after college. In 1997, I heard (though I didn't watch) that they beat the Yankees in the first ever matchup between those teams, and I realized I still wished them well. In 1998, I started seeing the Mets out more and more. I heard they got Mike Piazza. They had this guy Olerud that you couldn't help but root for. Before long, I started remembering what I liked about them in the first place. Alot of the old wounds were gone. The Mets were different now. I was different now. We had both gone our own way but circled back to where we started. In 1999, it was love rediscovered. It was as great as '85 and '86. Except we were older and better able to handle adversity. '99 ended in the worst way you could imagine, but our relationship was strong. We knew were in this together for good. We've been together since then. Through thick and thin. Through Art Howe and Roberto Alomar. I had one little transgression with the 2004 Red Sox, but the Mets understood and took me back. Our's is not a perfect relationship, but it works.[/quote:15o6noox] CF=Seawolf G-Fafif Jan 28 2009 11:01 AM Mel Rojas? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 11:10 AM Gotta be. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 11:11 AM ="G-Fafif"]Mel Rojas? Yes. Bullpen's Failures Underscore Need for Rojas By BUSTER OLNEY Published: August 11, 1997 Until he shuts a team down, until he holds a lead, Mel Rojas will be treated as the Mets' version of Hideki Irabu. Months of talk about the Mets' need for a late-inning reliever preceded Rojas's arrival to fill that crucial role. And, like Irabu, Rojas needed only one poor outing before earning long and loud jeers from the home crowd. Mets Manager Bobby Valentine said he is sure Rojas, who was the losing pitcher Saturday night in his first game for the Mets, will rebound to pitch well. Yesterday, in a sloppy 11-8 loss to the Houston Astros, the Mets learned again why they needed Rojas in the first place. The Mets, slipping three games behind the Florida Marlins in the race for the National League wild card berth, committed three errors and received seven generally awful innings from their bullpen, which allowed six runs, nine hits and six walks. Juan Acevedo allowed a homer in two innings -- before being optioned to Class AAA Norfolk -- and Cory Lidle gave up five runs in three innings. Rojas merely watched from the bullpen on the other side of the right-field fence at Shea Stadium and, in his mind, reviewed his performance Saturday night, when he gave up five runs in the ninth inning in an 8-3 defeat. Unlike the Yankees' Irabu, Rojas, who was obtained Friday in a six-player trade with the Chicago Cubs, was still in the big leagues. When he strolled into the Mets' clubhouse and began pulling on his uniform before yesterday's game, Valentine walked over and shook his hand. ''You're back,'' Valentine said, jokingly, as if the fans' unfriendly greeting Saturday night might have driven Rojas away. Given his first chance to see Rojas firsthand Saturday night, the bullpen coach Randy Niemann was impressed: big upper body, long arms, good fastball, great split-fingered fastball. Rojas retired the Astros in order in the eighth inning. But Bob Apodaca, the pitching coach, had the same concerns about Rojas as he did about Pete Harnisch last week: that he might get a little too excited and try too hard. Harnisch handled his emotions in pitching six solid innings; Rojas did not, Apodaca thought. ''The trouble wasn't mechanical,'' Apodaca said. ''He was up for the game. He's with a new team, trying to do too much. It's not that uncommon, and it's something that you have to guard against. He was trying to impress, and that's human nature.'' Rojas said he felt comfortable in his first inning. ''And then I lost my concentration,'' he admitted. Apodaca chatted with Rojas about this briefly yesterday, though he felt his advice was almost unnecessary. ''He's aware of it,'' Apodaca said. ''He's a veteran.'' Important to the Mets' hopes for the playoffs, Rojas is bearing a great deal of pressure. Like Irabu. The bullpen was pivotal again yesterday in a game the Mets never led. The Astros pounded Mets starter Rick Reed -- who had been wearing an electrical stimulation apparatus on his right biceps and forearm in recent days and seems to be going through a dead-arm period -- for five runs in the first inning before Reed was taken out for a pinch-hitter in the second. Fighting back against the Houston right-hander Darryl Kile and his vicious curveball, the Mets scored three runs in the second inning and reduced the lead to 5-4 in the third inning on John Olerud's first homer since July 16. Acevedo and Lidle surrendered six runs over the next four innings; Houston's lead was 11-4. Olerud hit his second homer as part of a four-run rally in the seventh. The Mets had a couple of more chances, but all in all, it was the sort of game which, after the first inning, they never really gave themselves a chance to win. ''A real sloppy game, there's no doubt about it,'' Valentine said. INSIDE PITCH Before yesterday's game, CARL EVERETT visited his children SHAWNA, 5, and CARL, 4, who are in the custody of the city child welfare agency because of allegations of child abuse against Everett. A fact-finding hearing in Family Court is scheduled for today. . . . After the game, BOBBY VALENTINE and the Houston hitting coach, TOM McCRAW, engaged in a brief and heated argument over a comment one allegedly made about the other. ''It's dead,'' McCraw said, declining to elaborate. McCraw used to be the hitting coach for the Mets, until Valentine became manager. . . . BERNARD GILKEY's last hit came on July 30. He has no hits in his last 22 at-bats and his average has shriveled to .210. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 11:17 AM Yup Rojas 4.58 Mill I was 14 and the 1973 Mets were big for me...Transistor radio every night in September checking out of towns Watched one playoff game against the Red in my orthodontists chair 83-84 Were fun in that I could see the light at the end of tunnel and the gathering of real talent..It was exciting! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 11:17 AM ]After the game, BOBBY VALENTINE and the Houston hitting coach, TOM McCRAW, engaged in a brief and heated argument over a comment one allegedly made about the other. ''It's dead,'' McCraw said, declining to elaborate. McCraw used to be the hitting coach for the Mets, until Valentine became manager Love this stuff. Bobby fought with everyone back in 97 G-Fafif Jan 28 2009 11:20 AM I was at that game, a birthday present to a friend who was born on August 10, fittingly enough. The Mets gave away, besides eleven runs, the strangest of premiums: a Miller Lite can belt, adults only. It fit three cans of beer (beer not included) inside it and you could strap it around your waist, lest you forget where you put 75% of your four-pack. They actually ran out of them and provided rainchecks. My friend was late in showing up, so I picked his up for him on the final day of the season. I think it was the following year the Mets instituted "first 25,000" and such, as ordering up extra Miller Lite can belts must have struck somebody in promotions as something less than the best use of resources. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 11:29 AM I never understood the limited resources angle, unless it's to encourage advance ordering. Aren't the giveaways 100% underwritten by the sponsor, and doesn't the sponsor want 100% of the fans adorned in their crap? Or is it all about Ralph Kiner saying their name during the broadcast? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 11:32 AM ="Edgy DC":342gxm8d]I never understood the limited resources angle ....?[/quote:342gxm8d] I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing. G-Fafif Jan 28 2009 11:33 AM They used to, I gather, order enough to satisfy what they believed the crowd would be. Then along would come a game where the sale outpaced the forecast and it was raincheck time. The "first 25,000" bit took care of that. I'd have to delve into yearbooks and pocket schedule archives to figure out when these things began to become routinely sponsored. In ye olde days, Batting Helmet Day was just Batting Helmet Day, not Investors Consolidated Batting Helmet Day. I remember reading an article about sponsored giveaways in the WSJ a long time ago that said even something that seemed kinda ritzy (like a transistor radio that the MFYs gave out) was pretty cheap and the sponsor picked up the cost. seawolf17 Jan 28 2009 11:34 AM I think it's advance ordering and advance showing up, so you can buy more concessions once you're there. G-Fafif Jan 28 2009 11:36 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":3h29wbsh]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:3h29wbsh] It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt. It was white and canvassy, Lite logo on one side, Mets script on the other. And it had a zipper. I've yet to figure its real world utility. When offered a beer, is it like, "No thanks, brought my own!"? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 11:40 AM I'm guessing 83-88 as when spornsorship of giveaway days took over. Around that time that every Sunday became a giveaway day. I got a Mets sports bag around 83 that was really a cheap Glad logoed thingie. Tee shirt day around 1985 was a fugly v-neck with "Mets" in script on the left breast and "All-Channel Satellite" in print on the right. Since satellite dishes were prohibitively expensive then, I imagine if the promotion netted three or four sales, they covered their nut. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 11:44 AM Gotta love the SI Vault: July 18, 1977 ] Beer Is Out, Halters In Larry Keith Take me out to the ball game, Take me out to the crowd. Give me some jackets and baseball caps, Free photo albums and sweatbands and bats. Yes, it's step right up for the freebies. If they run out it's a shame. For it's one, two, three giveaways At the new ball game. There was a time when the only pleasures baseball offered were its modest own. Dodgers vs. Reds, Yankees vs. Red Sox. It was all in the game itself. In recent years, though, baseball has decided that the marketplace demands more than hits, runs and errors. Management feels compelled to give you something else. It wants you to leave the stadium with a smile on your face, a song in your heart and a souvenir sweatband on your wrist. Baseball promotions are a means of winning at the gate even if the home team is losing on the field. At times they have all the taste and sophistication of a TV game show. But whether what is offered is a free gift or a cheap thrill, promotions are good business. The payoff comes in increased revenues from attendance, concessions and parking, plus thousands of people walking around town showing off the team logo. "Financially speaking, we just about have to have giveaway days if we're going to make it," says Baltimore Promotions Director Don Shaver. Bill Veeck's Chicago White Sox had 25 promotion or giveaway dates last season. Business Manager Rudie Schaffer says, "The thing you're trying to accomplish is to bring a fresh person into the ball park. Once you get him there, you give him a good show." Most teams enjoy the benefits of giveaway days without having to pay the full cost of the items they are handing out. Because 25,000 bats and jackets at 75? and $1.50 each add up, the expense is often shared by local cosponsors. Businesses also participate by buying up blocks of tickets for their employees. Boeing Aircraft set a major league group-sales record this year by purchasing 65,432 tickets for Seattle's two-game Boeing Weekend. The key to a successful promotion is to turn a profit even while giving something away. Philadelphia was outsmarted a few years ago when cagey Little Leaguers entered Veterans Stadium for the kids' cut-rate 50?, collected a jacket, went outside, returned with another four-bit ticket, collected another jacket, went outside.... "They were starting their own sporting goods store," says the Phillies' executive vice-president. Bill Giles. "Our policy now is that kids have to pay a normal $2.25 for a ticket on special promotion days." But at that price, a ball club better deliver. A team caught short of advertised items usually hands out IOUs. In many ball parks, you have to be 14 or under to get, say, a free jacket. In Kansas City members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes make the age decisions. No team is foolish enough to give sticky chewing gum to the masses, and most take special precautions when handing out bats to kids and beer to adults. Three years ago, a sudsed-up crowd in Cleveland stormed onto the field during a game with Texas, forcing a forfeit, only the eighth in major league history. But it is the Rangers, not the Indians, who have plugged up the keg. Texas discontinued its beer promotions at the request of the Arlington city fathers, who objected to fights in the stands and automobile accidents around the park after the game. The Dodgers do not give away bats because they noticed that constant pounding on the cement stands was creating a potential "structural problem." Montreal discontinued Bat Day after incidents in 1969 and 1974. The first involved empty-handed (and headed) customers who tried to overturn the depleted supply truck. Five years later bat swingers took aim at the windshields of parked cars. Local custom and interest dictate the nature of some promotions. Toronto and Montreal hand out ski caps. Cincinnati schedules a Farmers' Night (farmer/Pitcher Woodie Fryman is favored to win this year's cow-milking contest) and Texas has a combination Farm and Ranch Night. The egg-throwing contest is a messy highlight of both events. Houston attracts thousands for its Louisiana Weekend, which includes a gumbo-cooking contest. On Texas Weekend the featured events are beer-can crushing and cow-chip throwing. Philadelphia and Atlanta lead the majors in all-round originality and sophomoric high jinks. The Phillies set the mood on Opening Day when someone arrives by kite, parachute or cannon to throw out the first ball. Fans cannot wait for Halter Top Night on Aug. 19 when halters will be given away. "If they can fill 'em. they can have 'em." reports SI Correspondent Charlie Frush. Each halter will sport the slogan of the cosponsor Tastykake: ALL THE GOOD THINGS WRAPPED UP IN ONE. Slightly more sophisticated is Music Night, when anyone bringing a musical instrument can join in the playing of Take Me Out to the Ball Game and will receive a certificate authenticating his or her performance in the "world's largest orchestra." Atlanta schedules a promotion of some sort for every game. On Wedlock and Headlock Day 15 couples will be married at home plate before the game, and five professional wrestling matches will take place afterward. The Braves have already held their version of Ladies Night, in which every woman received a cigar (You've come a long way, baby, since the first Ladies Day in 1876). The big winner in the team's $25,000 cash scramble picked up $4,000 in 90 seconds of scurrying after bills scattered all over the field. Which proved once again that in baseball, promotion really does pay. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 01:53 PM I remember when Imus used to say that 'Hand-gun Night' was coming up a Yankee Stadium. All those over 15 got a freebie but only if accompanied by their parole officer. Funny how give-away promotions have increased during a time when stadiums are closer to their capacity than ever in many cases, theoretically making the need for a come-on less necessary. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 01:55 PM It's probably less about filling empty seats than it is about promoting the sponsor. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 02:13 PM Egg-zactly In the old days it was about selling tickets so they figured that having them too often would spoil the novelty and fans would no longer plan their ticket buying around them. Now they don't need them to fill seats so it's all about making money via the underwriting. They'd probably have them 81 times a year if they could find enough gizmos and sponsors. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 02:46 PM I've still got my blond Ron Swoboda model Bat Day Bat from a late sixties promo where they ask everyone to wave their bats at the same time. Quite a sight! batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 03:27 PM ="G-Fafif":s111v9tq]="batmagadanleadoff":s111v9tq]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:s111v9tq] It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt....[/quote:s111v9tq] I was about to question the whole wholesomeness of that promotion, especially given Baseball's traditional connection with children of all ages. But then I remembered the huge Budweiser ads that have been swallowing up Shea's scoreboard for the past 20 years or so. Maybe the Mets'll give one of those away for borscht in 2009.

Speaking of which, Butch Huskey in the Top 100? But hey, I guess that is what you get when you create a system that rewards the here and now over the whole picture of a Metly career.

="Kong76":3kheizku] How did Harry Parker land at #130 on our all time 500 Mets list?[/quote:3kheizku] Because the Mets have had a lot more crappy players and Parker lasted long enough to be considered a "decent piece of crap" or something? SteveJRogers Jan 27 2009 07:57 PM Speaking of which, Butch Huskey in the Top 100? But hey, I guess that is what you get when you create a system that rewards the here and now over the whole picture of a Metly career. Kong76 Jan 27 2009 08:07 PM A lot of work went into the rankings, and it's not perfect ... I threw out Harry because looking at who I need to get pics of and when I see him at 130 I scratched my head. I don't really understand the what you mean by rewarding the here and now over the whole picture or whatever. But whatever. SteveJRogers Jan 27 2009 08:22 PM ="Kong76":3gb03sli]A lot of work went into the rankings, and it's not perfect ... I threw out Harry because looking at who I need to get pics of and when I see him at 130 I scratched my head. I don't really understand the what you mean by rewarding the here and now over the whole picture or whatever. But whatever.[/quote:3gb03sli] I know Kase. What I was going was that the position for a given year hold for that player, they can not move down on their own merit, they can only go up on their merit. To use, eh, Doc Gooden as an example. He built enough of a lead off of his first few seasons that despite his fall off starting roughly in 1987 that he would never falter from his lofty place in Met-dom. Oh sure he eventually put up numbers that make his place on our rankings warranted, but if a Met historian was going through the totality of Met history, Doc could concievably rank third, fourth or even fifth among all time Met hurlers (eh, only Koosman off hand do I see even being considered to be placed higher but you never know with some Sabermetricians or anyone really). Frayed Knot Jan 27 2009 09:09 PM ="SteveJRogers"]I guess that is what you get when you create a system that rewards the here and now over the whole picture of a Metly career. Actually the system specifically takes into account the "whole picture of a Metly career" so I don't know WTF you're talking about. And, no, I don't want an explanation because I don't think you do either so a follow up will probably just make us both more confused. Rockin' Doc Jan 27 2009 09:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2009 11:19 AM Sometimes when I read Steve's posts, I think he's typing in tongues. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 07:03 AM ="SteveJRogers":3k37b4p7]Oh sure he eventually put up numbers that make his place on our rankings warranted, but if a Met historian was going through the totality of Met history, Doc could concievably rank third, fourth or even fifth among all time Met hurlers (eh, only Koosman off hand do I see even being considered to be placed higher but you never know with some Sabermetricians or anyone really).[/quote:3k37b4p7] That's true. You never know with anyone. ? Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 02:04 PM What's funny to me is that when the banner has a photo of someone who played for the Mets 30 to 35 years ago, I recognize him every time. But when it's someone from the last ten to fifteen years, I often don't know for sure who it is. cooby Jan 28 2009 06:25 PM god, I'm glad somebody else said that first. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:29 PM ="cooby":nushvdsi]god, I'm glad somebody else said that first.[/quote:nushvdsi] I'm glad somebody else said that second. Of course, you and I don't have a database of these mugs. SteveJRogers Jan 28 2009 07:19 PM ="Edgy DC":3lhjvaqr]="SteveJRogers":3lhjvaqr]Oh sure he eventually put up numbers that make his place on our rankings warranted, but if a Met historian was going through the totality of Met history, Doc could concievably rank third, fourth or even fifth among all time Met hurlers (eh, only Koosman off hand do I see even being considered to be placed higher but you never know with some Sabermetricians or anyone really).[/quote:3lhjvaqr] That's true. You never know with anyone. ?[/quote:3lhjvaqr] I should really cut out the incoherent part of my ramblings huh? You never know what someone is going to do when justifying reasons for putting Dwight Gooden lower than 2nd on a list of all-time Metly hurlers. Maybe Matlack's and Darling's postseason successes could make someone chose them over Gooden. I wouldn't, but I can see that case being made. Kong76 Jan 28 2009 07:43 PM SJI: I should really cut out the incoherent part of my ramblings huh? <<< I utter this to myself often, but I ramble on. Don't change, Steve ... the only person you can be is you. SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 06:32 PM Kase, why am I looking at Sidd Fynch? It is not April 1st yet. Well, just asking in case there is a reason beyond "random generator." Kong76 Jan 31 2009 07:08 PM Super Bowl Sunday silliness. metsguyinmichigan Feb 01 2009 08:40 PM Brilliant! metirish Feb 02 2009 06:47 AM One of the best stories ever told.....love it. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:37 AM We could definitely use Finch in our rotation this year but he's recently hired Boras as his agent and now there are rumors of a secret monastery in the bidding for his services. Kong76 Feb 02 2009 03:49 PM Going over my lists, I think I messed up a few things ... First, I think I did Eddie Murray twice. This is Dick Selma, right? Frisella and Heilman remain from the top 100 as undone. I did Charlie Neal twice too? I better not quit my day job. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:20 AM Neal's intensity is worth a double dose, though. He looks part Comanche. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 05:23 PM Neal's batting helmet is flocked. Kong76 Feb 03 2009 06:10 PM It is kind of an odd picture. It's cropped from a photo in Tales from the 1962 New York Mets, by Janet Paskin, and the photo credit is Getty Images. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 07:01 AM Getty was born in the nineties. Funny to see them distributing pictures of the early Mets, but I guess they've been buying up old libraries. They're a great business model for the nu economy, by the way. themetfairy Feb 27 2009 06:38 PM themetfairy Mar 02 2009 04:22 PM David Weathers? Kong76 Mar 03 2009 12:35 PM Formality of doing all top 200 ... I got rid of him quick :-) Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2009 12:38 PM Didn't we once calculate that it will take something like 60,000 years for Tom Seaver to fall out of the top 500? I wonder how long it would take for David Weathers to fall out of the top 200? themetfairy Mar 03 2009 06:44 PM ="Kong76":2bnhmr7e]Formality of doing all top 200 ... I got rid of him quick :-)[/quote:2bnhmr7e] It wasn't a complaint. Weathers was actually nice to the kids before a game in Kansas City (shortly before he was traded). I was just trying to identify the photo. Kong76 Mar 04 2009 04:45 AM I didn't think you were complaining. seawolf17 Mar 25 2009 03:09 PM Is that my homeboy, Pistol Pete Harnisch? Kong76 Mar 25 2009 03:43 PM Yup �, from a 1995 program ... soupcan Mar 27 2009 07:36 AM Crazy Pete! SteveJRogers Mar 28 2009 09:34 AM Nicely done! Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 02:06 PM Ray Knight looks like he's squeezing out a fart. metirish Apr 03 2009 02:29 PM Looks a bit like Kevin Appier when I first took notice , Appier featured that stance quite a bit too IIRC. TransMonk Apr 07 2009 03:49 PM Never bitched before, but the banner reads: Everybody in the pool! Joining us for off-season hot stove discussion is easy. Shoot us an email introducing yourself and letting us know what user name you'd like to use. An admin will activate your user name asap, and send you sign-on instructions. Thanks for visiting! Time to update for 2009! Kong76 Apr 07 2009 04:00 PM Thanks for the nudge, I was dosing again. TransMonk Apr 08 2009 09:26 AM As always, the admins do a great job with this site. MFS62 Apr 08 2009 10:07 AM ="TransMonk":34eve5h6]As always, the admins do a great job with this site.[/quote:34eve5h6] Except when they ignore my fervent plea for help. Later Kong76 Apr 08 2009 05:17 PM Trying to make my numbers add up. This was Jeff Reardon, right? ... Kong76 Apr 08 2009 05:28 PM 142 doesn't show up with my chicken scratch list either. Dick Selma? I'm just being lazy, I'll figure it out if no one chimes in. SteveJRogers Apr 12 2009 07:00 PM Whats with the Announcer Troika? Not that I'm complaining of course. Edgy DC Apr 12 2009 07:26 PM Seems self-explanatory. Met Hunter Apr 12 2009 11:34 PM ="Kong76"]Trying to make my numbers add up. This was Jeff Reardon, right? ... This one looks like Neil Allen. Met Hunter Apr 12 2009 11:34 PM ="Kong76"]142 doesn't show up with my chicken scratch list either. Dick Selma? I'm just being lazy, I'll figure it out if no one chimes in. This is Larry Bearnarth. Kong76 Apr 15 2009 06:33 PM Thanks, MH ... I've been busy and haven't been able to look at this much. SteveJRogers Apr 20 2009 06:26 PM So the player's name is going to be linked in the banner going forward, or is this just a random "hey it's Cliff, why not" sort of thing? Kong76 Apr 20 2009 07:19 PM Started with D.J. Dozier over the weekend, no one noticed. Top 200 Mets thing died with ~ 15 left ... the CPF contract with the Ramones has expired too ... everyone hates the new stadium ... David Wright can only hit when no one is on base ... if it weren't for Johan I'd just pull the plug. Random Mets from here on in until further notice. Rockin' Doc Apr 20 2009 07:39 PM Bang! Pow! Cliff Floyd is one of my all-time favorite Mets. Nice to see him making an appearance around the 'pool once again. Edgy DC Apr 20 2009 08:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 20 2009 10:35 PM The Crane Pool Forum has appreciated their relationship over the years with the Ramones, but after recent meetings with Marky, Tommy, and CJ, all agreed that it was best for both parties to go in seperate directions. We wish the Ramones well and hope for opportunities to work together in the future. In the meantime, the Crane Pool Forum is very excited about the new era of linking our introduction statement to our banner, to help people understand who exactly we're looking at. In an age of names which honor corporate relationships trumping names that are meaningful to the fan's and the city's relationship with the team, we feel confident in making a countercultural choice, and hope the fans will be excited to see us zag as other fora continue to zig. Frayed Knot Apr 20 2009 09:14 PM ]Started with D.J. Dozier over the weekend, no one noticed. I did. Elster88 Apr 20 2009 11:43 PM I noticed. I like it. Met Hunter Apr 21 2009 10:00 AM I like to try guessing. I recognized DJ before I saw the name. Now I will just guess without looking to the right. Edgy DC Apr 21 2009 11:34 AM That looks like the photo that produced the BANG! POW! image, but that one had him in the orange jersey. G-Fafif Apr 21 2009 12:04 PM Love the Player ID program. Great touch. The Ramones can go their own way. Or is that Fleetwood Mac? Fman99 Apr 21 2009 12:16 PM ="Elster88":wx56um7b]I noticed. I like it.[/quote:wx56um7b] Ditto. I didn't notice it with Dozier but I did today with Floyd. Even better for us younger sorts, who don't instantly recognize the 1960s-1970s era Mets just by head shots. SteveJRogers Apr 22 2009 06:09 PM Give it up for David Wright's agent! Met Hunter Apr 22 2009 06:59 PM Man, I can still remember when Keith was that thin. Elster88 Apr 28 2009 10:04 PM Looks like the banner has "click here" instead of the player's name. Is that intentional? Kong76 Apr 29 2009 04:24 PM I never know if Elster is serious. But, if you click on "click here" it will bring you to the UMDB page of the player pictured. I figured when I was putting the name some people were disappointed because they liked to guess so click here fixes that. Farmer Ted May 04 2009 03:04 PM I like it. I like it a lot. metsmarathon May 04 2009 03:22 PM ]Intelligent, lively, and provocative discussion of the Mets, Ed Kranepool, and, when we're gettin' on a roll, this guy! Kong76 May 04 2009 04:43 PM Thanks, that flows better. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 04:22 PM Thurman Munson? Rockin' Doc May 05 2009 06:05 PM Damn, I never knew Gorman Thomas played for the Mets. G-Fafif May 09 2009 07:05 AM Bill Denehy's all right, but I really love that view beyond the 358 sign. metirish May 11 2009 01:16 PM I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though. Fman99 May 11 2009 02:17 PM ="metirish":1aprm4tv]I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though.[/quote:1aprm4tv] I attended the game[/url:1aprm4tv] that he debuted as a Met in, in 2000, that was also Mike (A-)Bordick's debut game in which he homered. Rick picked up the win in relief of Rick Reed that day. seawolf17 May 11 2009 06:47 PM ="metirish":2d0fy8i4]I liked Rick White.....was it Kiner or Healy that would always mess his name up? I remember Rick being big for us in 2000 , always seemed to be in trouble though.[/quote:2d0fy8i4] You mean "Rick Wheat"? G-Fafif May 11 2009 09:23 PM It was Fran: "Shea will be ricking for Rock White!" I have yet to miss Fran Healy. cooby May 12 2009 06:56 PM I will miss Fran Healy until my bones are dust in the wind.... Who is that now? Rockin' Doc May 12 2009 07:11 PM Robotic Danny Heep! cooby May 12 2009 07:12 PM Izzit? I remember him... Edgy DC May 13 2009 07:34 AM Looking at Heep here, I realize I have a mostly irrational hatred of shaving down the knob at the end of the bat and wrapping one's lower hands around the shaven knob. (grumpy old man)Your hands belong above the knob.(/grumpy) (I'm also not particular to when guys have dimples hollowed out at the end of their bats. (I think Wally Backman was the first guy I noticed with such a bat, but it probably pre-dates him by at least a decade..) Benjamin Grimm May 13 2009 08:12 AM "wrapping one's hands around the shaven knob" That definitely calls for a response from Fman. metsmarathon May 13 2009 08:23 AM i would've expected the knob never to need shaving... MFS62 May 15 2009 07:51 AM I'm seeing the dreaded red x in the box instead of a picture on this morning's banner. EDIT: Never mind, the picture just found its way in there. Later metirish May 19 2009 05:31 PM Castillo looks a bit like Ortiz , yes/no? Edgy DC May 21 2009 04:20 PM Mike Cubbage and his magic leviation glasses. Swan Swan H May 21 2009 05:09 PM See the ball, hit the ball. Met Hunter May 22 2009 06:11 AM Last summer my daughter had a soccer tourney in Va Beach. The last day there, a bunch of us happened upon a Tides game in Norfolk. I noticed Cubbage sitting behind us in a Rays hat and a clipboard. He's a scout. He was so noticeable to me. Between innings we said hello and he was nice as can be. cooby Jun 04 2009 08:16 PM Is that "Sweetness" Luis Lopez? Kong76 Jun 04 2009 08:26 PM Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes! cooby Jun 04 2009 08:28 PM Cool! I thought it still was about the Ramones Kong76 Jun 04 2009 08:34 PM She continues the friend or foe game. Benjamin Grimm Jun 05 2009 06:48 AM ="Kong76":29zavirn]Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes![/quote:29zavirn] I love the addition of the "this guy" link. It's very helpful, since I recognize very few of the players that appeared in 1990 or after. Frayed Knot Jun 05 2009 08:13 PM It's Luis Lopez, but is it 'Super Luis Lopez Ultra'? cooby Jun 06 2009 10:30 AM ="Kong76":15bfr057]She continues the friend or foe game.[/quote:15bfr057] Now Kasey, don't take that the wrong way. It's kind of like the front door to your house. You don't notice all the squished bugs and spider webs and hand prints and stuff on it until after somebody has stopped by and suddenly you realize that you don't even really look at your front door anymore. I know you won't know what I'm talking about. Edgy DC Jun 06 2009 02:23 PM ="Frayed Knot":1q2hkxgb]It's Luis Lopez, but is it 'Super Luis Lopez Ultra'?[/quote:1q2hkxgb] I prefer Luis "Left Eye" Lopez. metirish Jun 06 2009 02:49 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":33ihq0he]="Kong76":33ihq0he]Click on the the 'this guy' link and find out each and every time the picture changes![/quote:33ihq0he] I love the addition of the "this guy" link. It's very helpful, since I recognize very few of the players that appeared in 1990 or after.[/quote:33ihq0he] Me too , never noticed it before. Kong76 Jun 06 2009 03:35 PM coo: I know you won't know what I'm talking about <<< I don't even know what I'm talking about some days. Hopefully if there are more people who didn't realize that was a link, they will read this thread and utilize it. cooby Jun 07 2009 11:12 AM What i kinda meant was you can look at your own front door over and over again and not really see it cooby Jun 14 2009 09:23 AM at last! Kong76 Jun 27 2009 07:02 AM I guess the joke's on me! I posted an invitation on the "this guy" up top (to see if anyone really clicks there) and see if I got any bites. I get one PM from the coobster that his name is Julio and eats iguannas which is where I my brain was going with it but I didn't remember he spent time in the clink for murder?? ---------- Wikipedia: Julio Machado, born Julio Segundo Machado Rond�n (December 1, 1965 in Zulia State, Venezuela) is a former Major League Baseball right-handed relief pitcher who played for the New York Mets (1989-90) and Milwaukee Brewers (1990-91). Machado started his career with the Mets. In the 1990 season, he went to the Brewers in a four-player deal, along with pitcher Kevin Brown, in exchange for catcher Charlie O'Brien and a minor league player. Machado had a decent fastball, good control and willingness to challenge hitters. He also pitched a better-than-average curveball and a slider. Machado was certainly good enough to pitch for a few more years. However, he is a footnote in the ledger of baseball history. Spending the 1991 off-season in his homeland, Machado was arrested for murder being accused of shooting a woman following an auto accident. He was convicted and, following appeals, he was sentenced to 12 years in 1996. In a three-year career, Machado posted a 7-5 record with 151 strikeouts and a 3.12 ERA in 147 innings. Machado went on to play in the Venezuelan winter league and currently coaches in that league. Machado was nicknamed "Iguanaman" for his fondness of eating the meat of iguanas. ---------- Next time our paths cross, coobs ... I owe you a beer! Edgy DC Jun 27 2009 01:08 PM I conflate Julio Machado and Jose Bautista. Benjamin Grimm Jun 27 2009 01:10 PM My newest conflation is Elmer Dessens and Casey Fossum. seawolf17 Jun 27 2009 05:39 PM I loved Julio Machado. Unquestionably in the bullpen of my All-Time Mets 25-Man Roster. Frayed Knot Jul 15 2009 05:32 PM That's either Roy McMillan or Harry Truman

I sense a comedy pyramid is forming!

Supposedly they are going to use YSII for a movie production, plus the plan was that either the Mets or Yankees would use YSII to play games if either Citi Field or YSIII weren't ready come April. So despite the arrogance, there really are valid reasons why it is still up.

="Edgy DC":2vbscm5i]I think "passionate knowledgeable fan base" has to be in the Crash Davis book of cliches handed out to players by the team publicists, because those exact (or almost exact) words are used way too much (as a euphemism for "abusive arrogant pack of yahoos") for it to be a coincidence.[/quote:2vbscm5i] Especially when describing the Met, Yankee, Phillie and Red Sox fan bases. You hear that quote in a different connotation though when it comes to, say the St. Louis fan base.

="DocTee":2tskhj76]Spoke out against PEDs. [/quote:2tskhj76] Meh, that could be in the methinks thou do protest too much sort of vein. Plenty of suspected roiders did speek out. Hell, Gary Sheffield has spoken out against PEDs! To say nothing about Rafael Palmerio's finger wag at Congress, or Roger Clemens' defense. Fman99 Jan 21 2009 08:09 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":3vmlfqei]Seemed to have issues telling the truth. The whole "got hurt while washing my monster truck" fib is classic.[/quote:3vmlfqei] That was what I thought of also. What a load of crap. I'll miss him and his porntastic moustache and tendency towards Bonds punching. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2009 09:01 PM ]September 15, 1992 BASEBALL; Mets Pull a Little Prank, But Kent Pulls a Big Fit By JOE SEXTON, In another season, the incident might have died without a remark. It might not have escalated to the heated moment it did in the clubhouse in Montreal on Sunday night. On another club, the issue of clubhouse politics might not be such a volatile one. But these are the Mets, the bad, jinxed and endlessly controversial club for whom everything goes wrong. Always. Thus, Jeff Kent, a player with undetermined ability and the scantiest of reputations, found himself at the center of the latest clubhouse storm. Kent, the second baseman acquired in the trade for David Cone last month, effectively squared off with the rest of the Mets Sunday night, refusing to submit to a clubhouse prank and wear the ridiculous outfit the players had substituted for his street clothes in his locker. Not Kent's Style Kent's stand -- the second baseman pitched the clothes onto the floor of the clubhouse before Sunday night's game against the Expos and then again challenged the Mets to produce his regular clothes after the 7-5 loss -- ultimately required the intervention of Manager Jeff Torborg. The manager, in an explosion filled with expletives, ordered an end to the scene. "It wasn't an attempt to air out the club or to protect anyone," said Torborg. "I wanted to get the heck out of there." It appeared today that it was going to be difficult for Kent to extricate himself from his isolated clubhouse position, and, in fact, the 24-year-old, who doesn't bother to disguise his temper or arrogance, appeared determined not to soften his stance. "I paid my rookie dues in Toronto," said Kent, who maintained that he had willingly gone along with similar stunts as a member of the Blue Jays. "I feel I have endured my embarrassments, my punishment." "I felt I was being taken advantage of," Kent added. "They wanted to go overboard. I stuck up for myself. I won't be pushed around." Kent was most emphatic in clarifying that, contrary to the way it might have appeared to the veterans on the club, he did not go to Torborg for help. And Torborg went out of his way to confirm Kent's claim, saying he had been informed of the problem by the club's traveling secretary. "I'm not out to protect Jeff Kent," Torborg said. "He'll have to deal with it all himself." Kent, who struck out twice with the bases loaded during the Mets' 10-8 victory over the Cubs tonight, appears eager to have his hands full, and the specter of problems with umpires and in the clubhouse recalls the experience of Gregg Jefferies, who never found happiness in New York. Kent, barely 72 hours after pledging to reporters that he would be at his locker regardless of his personal fortunes in any game, evacuated the clubhouse in Cincinnati after his misplay of a ninth-inning grounder led to a defeat. "Not tonight," Kent told reporters as he raced to the team bus. Kent argued vehemently with Umpire Bruce Froemming in his first game with the Mets. And Sunday night after being called out on strikes by Jerry Crawford, Kent flung his helmet and bat near the umpire and complained all the way out to second base. He was quoted in a Toronto Globe and Mail article last weekend as saying New York was worse than he had imagined, and was reported to have taken verbal swipes at Toronto third baseman Kelly Gruber, the man he had filled in for in 1992. While standing by his claim that he had lost some respect for Gruber, Kent today again insisted "80 percent of the quotes were misprinted." "He was not well liked in his own clubhouse," a former official with the Blue Jays said of Kent's experience with Toronto's Class AA club. "He's totally oblivious to what it takes to fit in with a team. And he had problems with the umpires within the first month of the season last year." Kent clearly has imperiled his position in the clubhouse. He was savagely ridiculed after Sunday night's episode by the club's veterans, who thought the rookie had deemed himself above standard hazing rituals and who resented the fact that the manager had been drawn into the scene. But Kent remained defiant. "I won't hold it against them," said Kent of his teammates. "What they do, I don't know. Maybe they'll know next time. I'm going to play the game the best I can, good reputation or bad. It was an incident. That's all." Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 07:44 AM That was a pretty balanced article by Sexton. Is he the one that became the metropolitan editor at The Times? I think it's the Kent IncidentTM that has led all clubs to officially haze their rookies at the same time (in the same stupid way), to keep Kents of the future from getting traded and getting hazed twice. Frayed Knot Jan 22 2009 09:52 AM Kent was always a bit of an odd duck in MLB in that he admittedly was never a big fan of the sport of baseball. He played it because he was good at it and could make a lot of money doing so, but otherwise it wasn't a big priority in his life and his friends and interests remained outside the game. Now I've never had a problem with those who admit that they're in it for the money and there's certainly nothing wrong with refusing to let being a pro athlete define everything you are. Plus hunting, ranching, and declaring your wife to be your best friend beats the hell out of what a lot of athletes do in their down-time. But it does tend to keep you from being one of the guys and I'm sure his sometimes prickly personality didn't help there either. Vic Sage Jan 23 2009 11:46 AM is he a HOFer? Borderline-No, to me. He was more Joe Gordon than Ryne Sandberg. Other than those few great seasons hitting behind Bonds (and who wouldnt have great numbers hitting behind Ole Big Head?), he was a very-good-(not great) hitting, less-than-good fielding 2bman. But unlike Gordon, i don't think he'll have many friends on the Veterans committee to vote him in. Nymr83 Jan 23 2009 12:17 PM I'm still on the fence with Kent, perhaps the 5 year wait will give me some beter perspective. Is Roberto Alomar a HOFer to you guys? if Roberto's defense (compared to Kent's) is worth 10 points of OPS+ then he's slightly better than Kent. I think I'd be willing to take that leap. A Boy Named Seo Jan 23 2009 12:32 PM Seems hitting in front of Bonds would be the better place to be. Hitting behind him, you always have someone one base, but you still have to hit well and stuff. Kent's a douche, but a great hitting second baseman. I think he and Alomar both make it. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 23 2009 12:45 PM 75 more HRs than the next second baseman. I think there will be some softening of his image in years to come as a sort-of "anti-athlete" who didn't seek the spotlight and deliberately stood apart from those who cheated and mugged and goofed off. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 12:49 PM I remember when the Mets got Roberto Alomar, he was considered as a sure-thing. One article I remember reading said he'd be in the "inner circle" of the all-time greats. Whoever said that must have been assuming that he'd maintain his level of production for a few more years. Instead he fizzled out earlier than expected, which will hurt his chances, as will flopping in New York when the spotlight was brightest. The most-homers thing will probably get Kent in. I'm not sure about Alomar, though. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 23 2009 02:01 PM Alomar is a Hall of Famer, easy. According to Jay Jaffe's JAWS, he's the fifth best second baseman of all time: WARP PEAK JAWS 1. Eddie Collins 174.0 57.2 115.6 2. Nap Lajoie 164.5 56.7 110.6 3. Joe Morgan 157.7 61.9 109.8 4. Rogers Hornsby 150.7 63.2 107.0 5. Charlie Gehringer 126.7 54.2 90.5 X. Roberto Alomar 126.8 47.3 87.1 6. Rod Carew 111.8 49.4 80.6 7. Frankie Frisch 113.4 40.9 77.2 8. Billy Herman 98.3 47.9 73.1 9. Bobby Doerr 100.8 44.3 72.6 10. Jackie Robinson 84.8 55.0 69.9 11. Bid McPhee 95.0 38.0 66.5 12. Bill Mazeroski 89.2 37.5 63.4 13. Nellie Fox 86.2 38.7 62.5 14. Red Schoendienst 85.8 38.9 62.4 15. Tony Lazzeri 77.8 37.8 57.8 16. Johnny Evers 65.7 31.8 48.8 Not sure if he's that high up on my list, but I'd vote for him if I could. Edgy DC Jan 23 2009 02:05 PM What do those number thingies indicate? Edgy DC Jan 23 2009 02:17 PM Holy crap. Brother choked up. The report said the announcement was accompanied by congratulatory messages from his former teams --- the Giants, Astros, and Mets. Where are the Indians and Blue Jays? Do the Dodgers only have NL teams in thier rolodex? Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 02:22 PM They're all making nice now because they want their team's cap on his HOF plaque. My hunch is that he'll have an SF. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 23 2009 02:31 PM ="Edgy DC":2bo27oq0]What do those number thingies indicate?[/quote:2bo27oq0] Here's the link[/url:2bo27oq0]. It's based off of WARP3[/url:2bo27oq0], which attempts to factor in all contributions a player makes. Frayed Knot Jan 23 2009 02:32 PM Kent & Alomar had almost opposite careers Alomar was the phenom who was so consistently good so early that by age 32 there was no way he could play his way out of it - and yet he almost managed to do exactly that. Kent, a little older coming in to begin with after going the college route, was fairly pedestrian through about age 29 before exploding with an MVP season and a string of 100+ RBI years to the point where it took folks almost until he retired before they realized that the guy put together a 17-year career with HoF-type numbers. I still Alomar is more a lock than Kent. Both will eventually get in IMO and, with time, I think Kent's anti-jock image might cancel out his otherwise prickly self and could even work in his favor over time. I found it surprising that Kent even had a press conference much less an emotional and thoughtful one. Not that I think he's a rock-head, just thought he'd ride off into the Texas sunset barely taking the time to even wave. DocTee Jan 24 2009 10:02 AM A persepective from Bay Area columnist Bruce Jenkins: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/23/SPP215FUV9.DTL Expecting the worst, I sat down for an interview with Jeff Kent in the spring of 1997, his first season with the Giants. I was amazed at his candor, his utterly forthright nature. We'd never met before, but he told me about the harsh lessons delivered by his father, an Orange County cop, and how they shaped his life. "My father watched everything I did, and whatever it was, I had to do it right," he said, gazing intensely into the distance. "He'd let me know if I did something half-ass, and then I'd feel that I let him down. I had two younger brothers, but as the oldest by six, seven years, I was more roughed up, if you will. "So if I went 3-for-4, I'd criticize that fourth at-bat. If I hit .350, I could have hit .400. I could go out and pitch a one-hitter, and he'd say, 'You could have gotten that guy on a curveball.' That's the way it was with my father, and I'm still that way. I have a tremendous fear of failure. I'm afraid of letting even one guy down." After about an hour's conversation that day, I felt I understood Kent, or at least his basic nature. From that moment on, I knew him a little bit less each day. The next time I saw Kent, he brushed past me without making eye contact, as if he'd never seen me in his life. He had no problem with the column I'd written in The Chronicle, or so I heard, but he was done with me until further notice. No hello, no small talk. I was just another face on the baseball landscape, like every teammate he ever had. I'd seen some grouchy guys in my time - Dave Kingman, John Denny, Mike LaCoss - but no one so completely removed from everyone in his profession as Kent. He doesn't have one friend on the team. That's what I heard from sources along every stop in Kent's career, including the last one, Los Angeles. But there was an interesting comment from Bob Milano, his coach at Cal, where Kent helped lead the Bears to the 1988 College World Series. "If something goes wrong with this guy, it's not a team problem," he said. "It's just a problem for Jeff. He always found a way to beat you on the field." I'd like to think that's how Kent will be remembered, along with his genuine display of emotion during Thursday's news conference. He was an exceptional player, solid in the clutch, a winner, the greatest slugging second baseman in history. He played the game with unrelenting desire, and he played hurt. Those attributes should earn him a place in the Hall of Fame (he'll have my vote). Turns out the man has a heart, as well. That was no phony at the podium, trying to win over critics who had ripped him for years. That was the real person inside Kent's uniform, a man only his family and friends (all of them outside the game) recognized. There were times in his career when Kent's brutal honesty served him well, especially after a tough loss, when he'd come out to give reporters his perspective while the rest of his teammates were nowhere to be found. But that hard-line persona never cracked. He had taken it upon himself never to show emotion, vulnerability or weakness. We see those things now, as he walks away. I'm thinking there will be more tears from Kent in the coming days. And here's a nod of admiration to someone who truly gave his life to the game.

It would depend on the circumstances. Tell me the reason WHY they moved and I'd root, or not, for the team. In most cases though, the fans do not go with the team. Oiler and Browns fans did not join the TItans and Ravens bandwagons.

Strange shot of Murray Kase. Plus, ummm the Met logo is quite visable.

I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers.

="MFS62":3grqchiz]Remember when MLB was going to put Spiderman on the bases? There was a tremendoud hue and cry from the fans, and the idea was killed. Maybe the front office will back off on this idea as a result of reactions such as the stories we've seen linked here. At least, we can hope. Later[/quote:3grqchiz] That is probably a reason for the reaction that it is garnering. Basically people with opinions thinking they can get a grass roots movement going. Hey its better than that article in the Post the other day that was bashing the Mets because rust has been forming on Citi Field's exposed steel beams. themetfairy Jan 14 2009 07:10 AM The Dugout rips into the patch[/url:3nnav038]. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 07:21 AM It really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but there would appear to be hope of some kind of a change. The revulsion has been pretty wide-spread, and since the real point of the logo is to move merchandise, then I would think the Mets would have to weigh that very few people will be buying t-shirts, mugs, caps, and beach towels with the boring ugly logo. I don't know whether or not it's too late to make a change. I know that anything that appears on the uniform has to be approved by MLB, and they may have missed a deadline for a new sleeve patch, but maybe they can call an emergency meeting or something. soupcan Jan 14 2009 07:34 AM EMERGENCY SLEEVE PATCH MEETING!!! seawolf17 Jan 14 2009 07:40 AM That Dugout is hilarious. I need to catch up on their stuff. themetfairy Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM This one made me laugh - metirish Jan 14 2009 08:45 AM How about no patch ? dgwphotography Jan 14 2009 09:17 AM They should have a patch designed like the old World's Fair patch from '64 celebrating the demise of the chop shops across the street... Rockin' Doc Jan 14 2009 11:34 AM I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM ="themetfairy"]This one made me laugh - Fantastic! Centerfield Jan 14 2009 11:44 AM ="Rockin' Doc":1ly46k5l]I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve.[/quote:1ly46k5l] Wait, you're not going to obsess over every minute detail of this team from the speaking patterns of our GM to colored dots on hats? Dude, you're like, not going to fit in around here at all. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 02:57 PM ="Rockin' Doc":1brfj8rx]I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve.[/quote:1brfj8rx] It's not just that the design is ugly (or plain, or unimaginative, or whatever adjective you want to throw in there) it's that the design is ugly because it's essentially advertising and they're not wearing it to celebrate the opening of the stadium as much as they're wearing it because they struck a deal with the (broke) company that's paid for the naming rights for the damn thing. soupcan Jan 15 2009 08:30 AM The 'controversy' hits the mainstream media... ] January 15, 2009 Mets� Latest Off-Season Problem? A Dull Patch By TYLER KEPNER The Mets unveiled their primary logo on Nov. 16, 1961, and it has gone virtually unchanged. With the team�s name scripted across a city skyline and above a bridge on an orange-laced baseball, the trademark is timeless. The Mets� most recent design has not been as warmly embraced. The uniform patch that commemorates the opening of Citi Field has caused a stir on the Internet, with ESPN.com calling it �the worst sleeve patch in M.L.B. history.� Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. �Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� The sleeve patch is a variation of the official Citi Field logo introduced last year, with the words Inaugural Season in white letters on a blue square. Below is an orange square that says 2009, also in white. In recent seasons, the Astros, the Phillies, the Cardinals and the Nationals have all used distinctive ballpark elements in their commemorative patches; the Astros showed their roof in silhouette, the Cardinals their arched entryway. The Yankees� 2009 patch prominently features the rooftop facade of the new Yankee Stadium. The Mets� patch seems to take minimalism to the extreme. Baseball forbids teams putting corporate names on uniforms, but Citigroup wanted the patch to evoke the company�s general branding. The Mets did not object. Citigroup itself is in financial distress and is planning to dismantle part of its corporate empire. But the patch remains the patch, for better or worse. �It is compatible and consistent with Citigroup�s overall branding and graphic design elements,� Howard said. �That�s the connection. The Citi logo is a fairly simple logo. It�s �citi� in lowercase, with a red arc. So they have more of a minimalist style to their brand and their logo. Obviously, as our partner for Citi Field, we�re going to give substantial deference to their design and graphic treatment.� The official Citi Field logo has been widely panned as drab and too evocative of the Domino�s Pizza logo. But fans will have to get used to it, because it will be affixed to the side of every other seating row at the ballpark and used extensively in marketing and promotions, assuming the Citi name survives. Howard said the Mets were flattered that Citigroup designed a logo that incorporated the team�s blue and orange colors. That is not always the case; the logo for Petco Park in San Diego has the corporate name in red, even though the Padres do not wear that color. Then again, that logo also includes a Padres insignia and two palm trees, while the Citi Field trademark looks painfully plain. The Mets do have an alternate inaugural season logo that features the windows of the distinctive rotunda at Citi Field. But Howard said that logo would be available only on merchandise sold at the ballpark. He added that the team would not change the sleeve patch, which will be used for all home games. The Yankees� 2009 uniform patch, left, depicts the facade of the team�s new stadium. The Mets� uni- form patch for the season displays ... words. metirish Jan 15 2009 08:36 AM It actually looks somewhat better in cloth form. Farmer Ted Jan 15 2009 08:47 AM Fire Dave Howard NOW!! Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 08:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 15 2009 09:03 AM What's amazing is that they got the Mets to admit two basic truths that --- though as big and glaring as Dave Kingman's feet --- I fully expected them to talk around: ]Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. ]The Mets� patch seems to take minimalism to the extreme. Baseball forbids teams putting corporate names on uniforms, but Citigroup wanted the patch to evoke the company�s general branding. Where Howard is lost is this: ]�Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� No, actually, this time, everyone seems to have the same point of view. The funny thing is that Wilpon put his heart into evoking the aesthetic he wanted, but took the queen's shilling and is now letting her wreck his whole palace. OE: Maybe MLB will step in and end this nonsense. metirish Jan 15 2009 08:57 AM I hadn't thought about it like that , very lame from the Mets. Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 08:59 AM ]"we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� Or, it's good that everyone hates this patch! It shows that they care! Centerfield Jan 15 2009 09:27 AM That MFY Patch is really nice. Dear Dave Howard: My ass is still available if you want to do some last minute revisions. Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 09:31 AM I hope, for their sakes, that they're not printing up too many t-shirts and mugs with that logo on it. It's the New Coke of baseball logos. metsmarathon Jan 15 2009 09:32 AM y'know, they could've at least had the lettering be in lowercase. that way, not only would it be more in line with the citi logo, but it would also appeal to my narrow sensibilities. Fman99 Jan 15 2009 09:42 AM ] Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. �Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� What an ass. They can't even admit that it's a shitty patch. This is like standing pat with a half a lineup full of duds and washed up vets. Oh wait. G-Fafif Jan 15 2009 10:14 AM ]Obviously, as our partner for Citi Field, we�re going to give substantial deference to their design and graphic treatment. Good god, do they ever fucking learn? You tell The Paper Of Record that you're deferring to a discredited corporate fat cat on an issue of what goes on your very own uniforms? Jesus fucking crackers, I swear with this organization. Oh, and this: ]Howard said the Mets were flattered that Citigroup designed a logo that incorporated the team�s blue and orange colors. Gee, that was mighty blue and orange of them! WHY SHOULDN'T THEY? There'd be no Citi FUCKING Field without a team to play in it. Good god, Mets. Pull up your pants and stand up straight for once. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 10:25 AM See, maybe my standards have fallen, but I'm just happy he didn't say, "I am standing, and those, um, aren't my pants." attgig Jan 15 2009 11:42 AM lol that dugout chat was hilarious. Zvon Jan 15 2009 09:55 PM Stephen Colbert took a shot at the patch tonight on his show. I'll link the segment when/if its on the shows site. Should be up sometime tomorrow. http://www.colbertnation.com/home Gwreck Jan 16 2009 12:07 AM ="metirish":2301kyuo]It actually looks somewhat better in cloth form.[/quote:2301kyuo] It's more the angle -- it's not at that ridiculous angle in that picture. themetfairy Jan 16 2009 06:31 AM ="Zvon":1sa3qaqn]Stephen Colbert took a shot at the patch tonight on his show. [/quote:1sa3qaqn] .cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30cTip/Wag - Monkey on the LamColbert at Christmas Colbert Christmas DVDGreen Screen Bill O'Reilly Interview Zvon Jan 16 2009 09:33 PM Thanks for posting that TMF. I really got a kick out of that bit. themetfairy Jan 17 2009 05:22 AM You're very welcome Zvon Farmer Ted Jan 27 2009 05:10 PM Still stuck with this horseshit logo. Embarrassed that the Mets haven't taken another look at this hunk of junk. metsguyinmichigan Jan 27 2009 09:02 PM Not gonna happen. They're already selling patches and jerseys. themetfairy Jan 27 2009 09:05 PM But is anyone buying it? DocTee Jan 27 2009 09:16 PM As Paul Lukas explains today, the Mets might be off the sartorial hook thanks to Texas awful new batting helmet: [url:3aj1ya7j]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/090126&sportCat=mlb[/url:3aj1ya7j] Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:55 AM That's only 15% worse than the Mets two-toner. metsmarathon Jan 28 2009 08:09 AM well, the voting right now has the 1999 future uni's leading the way at 41.3%, with citifield patch holding onto second with 13% of the vote. the devil rays' inaugural duds are currently tied with the rangers' ugly hats for third, at 12.7%. the ugliness of the devil rays' uniforms is the only one of the four that the mets did not directly have a hand in. yay mets.

="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="Edgy DC"] Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. Are the selection criteria at issue here? I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? Because, in reality, standards have been set. A player's "record" has come to mean that there is an accepted level of performance deemed "Hall of Fame-worthy". When someone who falls near those guidelines gets in (or falls short) there will always be those who cry foul. Their point, and I believe your point, is that the voters got it wrong. I agree that the voters can get it wrong. In fact, I think they can be so wrong, they demonstrate they are in no position to be making these types of decisions. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Again, your logic contradicts itself. If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="Centerfield"]Are the selection criteria at issue here? You keep saying that voters broke the rules. I don't think it's cut and dried like that. ="Centerfield"]I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. I'm just responding to what you write. ="Centerfield"]When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. Apparently, we don't know, because what you wrote, to me, does not accurately paraphrase the criteria at all. ="Centerfield"]My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). You're arguing much more than that. You're arguing that voters should be made to justify their votes and that their voting privileges should be rescinded if they don't account for themselves to some star chamber's satisfaction. Certain voters, not all, but ones that trigger your sensitivities. ="Centerfield"]And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. By the same token, you made up your own. ="Centerfield"]You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." That's just the way the world is. We all understand things differently. ="Centerfield"] Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Easy. We say, "You got that wrong, and here's why," make an argument of our own, and lobby them. I didn't say we should always consider them right, I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. ="Centerfield"]Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? By making a rational argument that moves their heart. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. ="Centerfield"]Again, your logic contradicts itself. No it doesn't. And there's no again. Don't you think that would be farcical? I think it would be outrageous in the context of anything called an election. ="Centerfield"]If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. I didn't say anybody can't be wrong. I say the way to establish right from wrong is not to strip the minority of their votes, but to lobby those you disagree with until one side compels enough voters past the designated threshold established to determine an issue. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM i think there are a greater percentage, by an order of magnitude, of unfit voters participating in our presidential elections than there are in the hall of fame elections. ... i have a quick question that perhaps nobody here can answer. i was just reading an article on nytimes.com, and in it, ty kepner mentioned that he did not vote, though he received a ballot, because the times' policy will not allow it. and it got me thinking.. does a ballot unreturned count towards the total? if 25% of the ballots were never returned, would it then be impossible for the hall to elect anybody? and if not, is not the times policy self-defeating? instead of making news by voting for a player, are they not making news by not voting for a player? if there is no abstention, then a lack of a yes vote is a no vote. and this, then, might be the source of some of the "no" (or non-"yes") votes for rickey. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM The Times policy has been in place a while now, and I'm sure the Hall accounts for it. It's also a good retort to the idea that the New York media machine or somesuch inflates the prospect of New York athletes being enshrined in Halls of Fame. metirish Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM In his NY Times blog Kepner has this to say about Dawson. ] The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson�s name � and not just because of childhood impressions. it's not sent in so I doubt it's counted either way. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM from the hall's own rules: ]Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. well, that answers my question. thanks. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM I don't know how many more pages this thread needs to continue before you stop mis-stating my position. ="Edgy DC"]I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. I never said one should be stripped of their vote for being in the minority. Some people elected to keep Rice off their ballot and I have no problem with that. To be clear, my position is the following: Where voting rights are bestowed upon a select group of educated individuals because of their superior knowledge, if an individual within that group demonstrates that he does not have such superior knowledge, he should be stripped of that privilege to vote. He should not be stripped of his vote for being in the minority. He should only be stripped if he is stupid (or refuses to abide by the established criteria). To my understanding, Nobel prizes winners are selected by committees, made up of highly qualified individuals in each field. If, during the selection process, a member of the Physics committee says "Oh, I thought we were selecting psychics", then that guy should be off the committee. Of course, this rescission of votes for the stupid should only take place where the privilege of voting was bestowed upon them based upon an assumption of superior knowledge. So rights like voting for President, which are not based on merit, should not be stripped for being dumb. I'm assuming, here, that the Hall gave the vote to writers, and not to fans, because they wanted voters to be educated. I could be wrong. The Hall could come back and say "Nope. We picked the writers because some are smart, some are stupid, and we wanted a good mix of both." In that case, it makes no sense to get rid of the dumb guys. But if it was the Hall's intent to put this decision in the hands of an educated few, I say get rid of the ones that demonstrate their idiocy. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM maybe fans should get to pick the writers who get to vote. Rob Neyer deserves a vote over some old guy who thinks a "walk" is what you do to get back to the dugout after you strike out Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or not exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one. what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord? if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers. Valadius Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM He was subpoenaed: ]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify NEW YORK (CBS) ― Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM 1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM Why is unanimity so important to you? Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM Are you addressing me? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM Yes, please. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM Unanimity is not important to me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM It does not have nothing to do with what you posted. There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections. And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly. I shall clarify one more time. I want the voters to be 1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers 2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context 3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame 4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM ="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s] Really? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM Great. Good night. metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it. granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees. and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM ="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee. You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by: 1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all) 2. Reading his ballot. By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future. On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.) Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone. And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it. And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage. The criteria are: 1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate." Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM ="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys". If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that. Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two. HahnSolo Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM ="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was, ="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable. ="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up. ="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. ="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. Then I ask you to think about it some more. ="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon! Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought. The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to. ="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. You wrote it and I disagree with it. ="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group. ="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right. It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system. It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM ]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers. Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue. 1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all. 2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one. 3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates. Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately. 4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here: Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced. I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization. Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment. Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree. Nymr83 Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was) I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM ="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance. ="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response. ="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it. Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria. ="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: You don't monitor voters. You debate them. I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility. This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration. And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election. Later metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years? i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention. if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM ]You don't monitor voters. You debate them. Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach. Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

="metsmarathon":1fdxmugo]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... [/quote:1fdxmugo] I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 07:54 PM 162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:59 PM ="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="Edgy DC"] Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. Are the selection criteria at issue here? I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? Because, in reality, standards have been set. A player's "record" has come to mean that there is an accepted level of performance deemed "Hall of Fame-worthy". When someone who falls near those guidelines gets in (or falls short) there will always be those who cry foul. Their point, and I believe your point, is that the voters got it wrong. I agree that the voters can get it wrong. In fact, I think they can be so wrong, they demonstrate they are in no position to be making these types of decisions. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Again, your logic contradicts itself. If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="Centerfield"]Are the selection criteria at issue here? You keep saying that voters broke the rules. I don't think it's cut and dried like that. ="Centerfield"]I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. I'm just responding to what you write. ="Centerfield"]When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. Apparently, we don't know, because what you wrote, to me, does not accurately paraphrase the criteria at all. ="Centerfield"]My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). You're arguing much more than that. You're arguing that voters should be made to justify their votes and that their voting privileges should be rescinded if they don't account for themselves to some star chamber's satisfaction. Certain voters, not all, but ones that trigger your sensitivities. ="Centerfield"]And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. By the same token, you made up your own. ="Centerfield"]You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." That's just the way the world is. We all understand things differently. ="Centerfield"] Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Easy. We say, "You got that wrong, and here's why," make an argument of our own, and lobby them. I didn't say we should always consider them right, I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. ="Centerfield"]Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? By making a rational argument that moves their heart. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. ="Centerfield"]Again, your logic contradicts itself. No it doesn't. And there's no again. Don't you think that would be farcical? I think it would be outrageous in the context of anything called an election. ="Centerfield"]If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. I didn't say anybody can't be wrong. I say the way to establish right from wrong is not to strip the minority of their votes, but to lobby those you disagree with until one side compels enough voters past the designated threshold established to determine an issue. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM i think there are a greater percentage, by an order of magnitude, of unfit voters participating in our presidential elections than there are in the hall of fame elections. ... i have a quick question that perhaps nobody here can answer. i was just reading an article on nytimes.com, and in it, ty kepner mentioned that he did not vote, though he received a ballot, because the times' policy will not allow it. and it got me thinking.. does a ballot unreturned count towards the total? if 25% of the ballots were never returned, would it then be impossible for the hall to elect anybody? and if not, is not the times policy self-defeating? instead of making news by voting for a player, are they not making news by not voting for a player? if there is no abstention, then a lack of a yes vote is a no vote. and this, then, might be the source of some of the "no" (or non-"yes") votes for rickey. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM The Times policy has been in place a while now, and I'm sure the Hall accounts for it. It's also a good retort to the idea that the New York media machine or somesuch inflates the prospect of New York athletes being enshrined in Halls of Fame. metirish Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM In his NY Times blog Kepner has this to say about Dawson. ] The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson�s name � and not just because of childhood impressions. it's not sent in so I doubt it's counted either way. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM from the hall's own rules: ]Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. well, that answers my question. thanks. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM I don't know how many more pages this thread needs to continue before you stop mis-stating my position. ="Edgy DC"]I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. I never said one should be stripped of their vote for being in the minority. Some people elected to keep Rice off their ballot and I have no problem with that. To be clear, my position is the following: Where voting rights are bestowed upon a select group of educated individuals because of their superior knowledge, if an individual within that group demonstrates that he does not have such superior knowledge, he should be stripped of that privilege to vote. He should not be stripped of his vote for being in the minority. He should only be stripped if he is stupid (or refuses to abide by the established criteria). To my understanding, Nobel prizes winners are selected by committees, made up of highly qualified individuals in each field. If, during the selection process, a member of the Physics committee says "Oh, I thought we were selecting psychics", then that guy should be off the committee. Of course, this rescission of votes for the stupid should only take place where the privilege of voting was bestowed upon them based upon an assumption of superior knowledge. So rights like voting for President, which are not based on merit, should not be stripped for being dumb. I'm assuming, here, that the Hall gave the vote to writers, and not to fans, because they wanted voters to be educated. I could be wrong. The Hall could come back and say "Nope. We picked the writers because some are smart, some are stupid, and we wanted a good mix of both." In that case, it makes no sense to get rid of the dumb guys. But if it was the Hall's intent to put this decision in the hands of an educated few, I say get rid of the ones that demonstrate their idiocy. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM maybe fans should get to pick the writers who get to vote. Rob Neyer deserves a vote over some old guy who thinks a "walk" is what you do to get back to the dugout after you strike out Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or not exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one. what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord? if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers. Valadius Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM He was subpoenaed: ]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify NEW YORK (CBS) ― Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM 1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM Why is unanimity so important to you? Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM Are you addressing me? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM Yes, please. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM Unanimity is not important to me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM It does not have nothing to do with what you posted. There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections. And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly. I shall clarify one more time. I want the voters to be 1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers 2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context 3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame 4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM ="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s] Really? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM Great. Good night. metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it. granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees. and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM ="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee. You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by: 1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all) 2. Reading his ballot. By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future. On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.) Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone. And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it. And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage. The criteria are: 1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate." Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM ="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys". If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that. Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two. HahnSolo Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM ="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was, ="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable. ="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up. ="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. ="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. Then I ask you to think about it some more. ="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon! Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought. The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to. ="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. You wrote it and I disagree with it. ="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group. ="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right. It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system. It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM ]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers. Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue. 1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all. 2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one. 3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates. Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately. 4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here: Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced. I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization. Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment. Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree. Nymr83 Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was) I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM ="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance. ="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response. ="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it. Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria. ="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: You don't monitor voters. You debate them. I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility. This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration. And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election. Later metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years? i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention. if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM ]You don't monitor voters. You debate them. Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach. Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.