stevejrogers

metirish wrote: it seems yancy can't get through to some..... Heh, I thought I was trying my darndest to clean some of those photos up, but I guess to no avail, oh well, keep plugging away... Posted that Bochy shot as Yance was posting, but I still love that pic and had to use that caption

Bruce Bochy Hmmmmmm...someday I'll show the Mets! I'll be a BIG LEAGUE MANAGER! And I'll use my big cranium to be the best Manager in my team's history!

Dave Roberts

Couple of early 80 MIAs Dyar Miller And a couple of radio personality Sid Rosenberg's favorite Met, Phil Mankowski

Besides wouldn't you rather NOT hear "Hey, Da Championship still hadda go through Da Bronx this year!" type statements all winter ala 2001-2004?

The rationale it seems from you and Elster is that it makes no difference how the season ends. We could have lost to the Dodgers and watched THEM get smoked by the Cardinals, or we could have lost down the stretch of the season and the Philles (or whomever) could have been smoked in the first round. Or we could be beat by the eventual Champs, and there is no difference. In other words it didn't make a difference that the Bills made it to those Super Bowls or got bounced out by their first round opponent, wheither that team was the eventual SB or AFC champion. But there IS a difference! Its the difference between Marv Levy and Jim Kelly wearing those Yellow Jackets or just being honored by the Bills organization. Its the difference between the Bobby Cox Braves winning or losing to the eventual NL Champion 9 out of 14 times or just being an also ran like the Astros, or even the Cardinals of recent vintage. Its something that really should make you sit back and say "Boy if only..." instead of "Ah we wouldn't have beaten team X anyway, you see how they got creamed by them?" Hell for a player it has to be something to latch on to for the next year. Sure no one plays to be second best, but that is something tangible to build upon. Now clearly I'm not saying the Padres should be feeling "Hey we could have been..." but then again, why wouldn't they. A few good starts by Wells, maybe Piazza's bat comes alive, you never know. Its something to build on, as a fan and as a player, that the championship went through you, and that is the rationale for rooting for the Cardinals to win the World Series.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: If the Mets lose the next four World Series, it would still be a better stretch than the last four years have been. Having said that, I have no idea what Steve's talking about. Trying to explain the rationale about how its a good thing to lose to the eventual champion than not, especially if you do so in a hard fought series

Dick "Dirt" Tidrow

So to sum up we would not want to be like the Buffalo Bills and get to 4 Super Bowls and lose all four, or the Boys of Summer Dodgers and only win the 1 out of 6 Series apperances from 47-56 or the Braves of recent vintage with 1 World Series out of 14 straight trips to the postseason. No, Hey we got to the Fucking postseason huh? BTW Elster, you are going down in Hartford on the 18th!

Give you another example, from College Hoops, don't you think that if your team gave a team all they could handle before bowing out, especially in the first round, that you would continue to root for that team in the tourny? That was me in 1997, nearly upsetting #1 UNC as the #16 seed, be nice for Fairfield to say "Hey, we lost to the National Champs." No shame in that. Didn't happen that way, but I did root for the Tar Heels the rest of that tourny. Course maybe thats because we're not even a mid-major in the MACC rather than a powerhouse like the Big East, but still

Elster88 wrote: ="SteveJRogers"] All mocking of MFY hubris aside, that is a pretty neat bit of trivita though Just stop talking about the Yankees. Just don't do it. Okay, but its still is a feather for the cap though. "Hey, we got beat by the World Champs." Would it be better if I used the Knicks of 1984 who gave the champion Celtics their toughest fight before the finals against the Lakers, or the Golden Years Knick era (69-74)who did win or bow out to the eventual champs 5 out of 6 years? The point shouldn't be that I brought up the recent run by the AL New York baseball team, its the whole "We got beat by the eventual champs or we WERE the champs X out of X years" notion that at least says you got a shot at the brass ring and either got it or lost to the guys that would eventually get it. And if that is done on a consistant basis through a good time span, then I'd say that qualifies as a successfull run.

7-2 Cards BLooper with the final two outs. Well, he did strike out Aaron Boone in a key spot in 2003

Natural and Ivan Rodriguez, words you'd never thought you'd hear ever! BTW Timmy, Ivan's HOF-ness diminished with his "power"

Actually WTF am I talking about, thats the next street over, Roosevelt Ave. Follow the arrow and you got yourself a Korean restaurant IIRC And I call myself a New Yorker (shakes head)

Well follow the arrow and you get this!

Hey Willets, I think I found you! =

The thing that I liked about the Neft and Cohen World Series Encylopedia was that they published the entire roster of a WS team, not just the guys that got into the game the way most books (and websites these days) do when giving the accounts of a playoff series. Sadly they stopped producing those books after the 1989 series though. Ah well (they still produce yearly Sports Encylopedia: Baseball books though) but that means a guy who likes to keep records of such things has to hope to figure it out from postseason programs and whatever was produced on the internet to determine just who was the 23rd, 24th and 25th guy on a roster when only 22 players were used for a postseason team all postseason. So with that in mind, here are your 2006 Met Postseason DNPs: Division Series: C Ramon Castro P Roberto Hernandez P Oliver Perez P Royce Ring LCS: C Ramon Castro (such usually is the case in postseason play, I think the Yankee backup to Bill Dickey, Ardnt Jorgens leads with most WS rosters on without playing in a game) INF Chris Woodward. Nifty that Anderson Hernandez JUST made it with a PR apperance in the 9th of Game 7.

Well except for 1999 you can say the same about the Mets for every postseason they've been in, either winning or losing to the eventual champion in one way or another. Not many teams can actually say that, even in the old 2 teams in each league format

DP

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Those composite shots are great, Zvon. Here's my "old school" take on Endy's catch: http://www.leaptoad.com/mets/jpeg/EndyChavez1972.jpg Sweet! That was a great subset back then, and IIRC on one grouping the backs formed a "poster" of Tom Seaver

Cardinals, longest drought of the two teams (and of all teams in the 2006 playoffs) Funny thing, there is this guy in a class I'm taking who isn't a baseball fan but rooted for the Mets because he "roots for the underdog" I tried to explain that there was no way ANYONE could call the Mets an "Underdog" in 2006. He used the "They haven't won in so long" card to which I said that Detroit and St Louis haven't won since before the last time the Mets won, plus the Cards won only 83 games, so the Cards (yes despite winning 100 in 04 and 05) really were the Underdog team that was trying to end a longer streak of non winning!

That was certaintly an "ARod-esque" moment, but unlike ARod I'm sure his 2006 gave him enough Metly equity, plus an epic 2007 postseason, will erase that image Then again, Met fans did boo Gary Carter in 1988 and 1989 and I knew a professor in Fairfield that never forgave Bill Bradley for missing a shot in the 1971 playoffs, ending the defense of the 69-70 championship, and this is despite the Knicks (with Bradley) winning the championship again couple of years later! Put it this way, this guy is a staunch liberal, if Bradley did run in the general election, he would have voted for some third party canidate (Ralph Nader probably)

1) I'm riffing on Edgy's 4 month prior to the start of the game posting of the 2006 opener and 2) I declared that if the Mets failed to win last night I would not post another IGT on any forum for any team in any sport again, but since we play Game 1 vs the Cards, I couldn't resist having a little fun Completely goofing around post

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I never subscribed to root for the team that beats you. A Cardinal victory won't reflect any glory on the Mets. And I have no allegience to the National League. In fact, except for in the years that the Yankees won the pennant, I think I've rooted for the AL team in every year since 1995. I'm for the Tigers this time around. But I don't think I'll be watching, except for perhaps a stray inning or two. (I'm not going to do my duty, Judy.) Apparantly you don't subscribe to the MFY fans and media rationale that glorified the fact that execpt for last season, every World Champion was either the Yankees or had to go through the Yanks to get to the championship since 1998 (and the 97 Indians even beat the Yanks on their way TO the series) All mocking of MFY hubris aside, that is a pretty neat bit of trivita though I've been an NL fan all my life, and actually have rooted for the NL pennant winner every year, even 1985 and 1988 (begrudgingly in 88)