Centerfield

Jonathan Holder. Was destined to be a middle reliever.

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: Derek Jeter tracked a ball that was hit to his right, caught the ball in fair territory, took two steps, then jumped into the stands. He was a bit shaken up, but returned to the game. Few, if any, comments from network announcers drive me more bonkers than watching a player actually dive into the stands for a catch and saying "just like Jeter" No. It. Isn't. Makes me so angry. How many more times do we have to see the replay before any of these knuckleheads can actually see what happened.

My biggest suspicious involves peeps with no connection to a college -- either as an alumnus or via locality -- who are "fans" of that college's sports teams. Just admit that you latched onto them because they win all the time and would change your 'loyalty' in a heartbeat if and when that program (why is it a 'program' and never just a team?) takes a turn for the worse. Actual radio caller I heard a bunch of years back in a Brooklyn accent so stereotyped that it seemed made up: Yo Mike & Dawg, how do ya t'ink my Soonahs are gonna do dis year? Yeah, YOUR Sooners. It's obvious from your voice that you're not from Oklahoma. I'm just as positive that you didn't attend U of Oklahoma, are quite unlikely to have ever been to the state of Oklahoma, and are no better than even money to be able to spell Oklahoma . And yet you claim them as yours. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they were on TV many Saturdays during the '70s and '80s (when far fewer games overall were televised) which gave you the ability to walk around with your chest puffed out 8 weekends out of 10 crowing about how 'your' team won, now could it? Grow the fuck up! I don't think it's the case anymore, but certainly in my generation (and generations before) if you come from a small town, you had no choice but to root for a bandwagon team. I grew up in Syracuse and the surrounding area. Everyone watched and loved Syracuse University basketball and to a lesser extent, football. These were our only local teams. But outside of that, we were limited to whatever teams played on TV. Baseball was the easiest. We had two channels that played baseball. Channel 9 (Mets) and Channel 11 (Yankees). Everyone picked one or the other. And baseball was always on. I think that's why I'm a bigger fan of baseball than any other sport. Not many people were NBA fans, and basically it's because we got 1, maybe 2 games per week. CBS would always air the Celtics, Lakers or Sixers. Everyone was a fan of one of these teams. The other teams weren't on TV enough for you to get to know them with any regularity. Football was even worse. We would get whatever game was aired regionally. Sometimes it would be the Jets/Giants. Other times it was the Bills, other times it was the 49ers or Miami, or whatever team was good that year. There would be just a handful of games on any Sunday (usually both playing at the same time on different channels). If you saw the Jets in one particular week, you might not seem them again for 3-4 weeks. I think this is partly why I never became a big NFL fan. Later on when the Bills got good, they became kinda the local team, but by then I was older and I guess past the age where one falls in love with a team.

The time he dove into the stands to catch a foul popup. It was largely forgotten within a few days. Meanwhile, the Jeter play still gets air time to this day. Yankee fans will go to their grave saying that Jeter's play was better. These things are subjective, so it's hard to say for sure, but one of the posters here (maybe Edgy or JCL) did a pretty good job of breaking it down. David Wright tracked a ball that was going into the seats, then timed his jump, leapt into the stands, and came out with the ball. He was a bit shaken up, but returned to the game. Derek Jeter tracked a ball that was hit to his right, caught the ball in fair territory, took two steps, then jumped into the stands. He was a bit shaken up, but returned to the game.

Look at these fuckers with the Tomahawk Chop. Still don't hate them?

Ranked. 1. Kansas City Royals. Still too fresh. I've heard Kaufman Stadium is really nice but the thought of going there makes me want to barf. 2. MFY's. For obvious reasons. 3. Atlanta. Spent a decade losing to them. Now it looks like they'll be good for many years. 4. St. Louis. 1985. Yadier Fucking Molina. 5. Washington. Recent nemesis. Though there have been only a few years where we were good enough that it made a difference. 6. Dodgers. 1988. Utley. Everyone else I'm just whatevers.

seawolf17 wrote: Because we mostly dislike both teams? Yeah this. It's funny how short our memories are. After 1988 and Utley we should hate the Dodgers. But when I watch I find myself rooting for them to beat the Braves.

I'd be totally cool with lending them deGrom for tonight. Any objections?

As first reported by NorthJersey.com and the USA TODAY NETWORK New Jersey, the team's pool of candidates appears to be shrinking due to concerns by younger, analytics-oriented candidates that the team is not willing to be a forward-thinking organization. Team owner Fred Wilpon is not a big believer in analytics, and the Mets went against the analytics' staff recommendations last winter. https://www.northjersey.com/story/sports/mlb/mets/2018/10/05/ny-mets-interview-candidates-their-gm-opening-next-week/1536419002/ Maybe that's not a bad thing? We just had a season where there were more strikeouts than hits in MLB (I think for the first time ever). And, we are also at the same time watching game after game after game where guys flat out refuse to slap balls to the opposite field (or drag bunt down the line the opposite way) despite the opposition giving them easy hits due to these overexaggerated shifts. How much of this is due to the "analytics"? In spite of my deep mistrust of the Wilpons, maybe Fred is holding fast to the correct approach here? Um. No. On the laundry list of reasons why Fred sucks, his distrust of analytics is right up there with his inability to spend. Here's an article from February 2015 ranking the MLB teams that have embraced analytics. http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story?id=12331388&_slug_=the-great-analytics-rankings There are 9 teams described as "All In". Six of those teams made the playoffs. Boston, Yankees, Cubs, Cleveland, Oakland, Houston. These six teams include 2 of the last 3 World Champions, and all three teams that won 100 games this year. The other three teams labeled as "All In" were: Tampa Bay (won 90 games, this year's biggest surprise), St. Louis (won 88 games, contends regularly) and Pittsburgh (who was not very good, but performed better than expected). And yes, it's not dispositive (Atlanta is listed as a "Skeptic"), but if the biggest winners subscribe to a theory, maybe there is something to it yes? The Budget Skeptics constantly crow "It's not how much you spend, it's whether you spend it wisely". (It's both. Duh.) Here is Fred refusing information that will allow him to spend wisely. Think about this for a minute. Fred not only refuses to spend, but also refuses to spend wisely. Two winning seasons in the last ten. Two division titles in 30 years. Since 2000, the Mets have won 90 games three times. Maybe it's time to change the philosophy.

Cool bullpen bro.

This pen sucks.

themetfairy wrote: I'll say it here - the hysteria over Conforto's timetable is overblown and, at the very least, premature. I'm basing this on D-Dad's recent surgical experience at HSS, which involved both the labrum and the glenoid. His post-op recovery is going beautifully. I can't believe that a 24-year-old can't recover from capsule surgery (which presumably can also be done arthroscopically) at least as quickly as D-Dad is progressing. Here's why metfairy is a better person than me. If I had written this, no chance I'm not doing a victory lap all over the forum.

Yes, much worse. In order: Good meh garbage Jay Bruce

I never watch regular season Cleveland games. So I look at his numbers and say wow, this guy is amazing. Then I watch him in the postseason and he's garbage.

Yeah, I think this was metfairy’s last flight.

Hey Thad Levine, wanna be our GM? Nah. I'm good. Give it what weight you will, but the prevailing thought on twitter is that bring young execs aren't exactly jumping at the possibility of generally managing the Mets.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Every time I see that stupid red-faced mascot - and they love to trot him out more in the playoffs - I want Cleveland to get their asses kicked. I'm rooting for Houston and the continued curse of Wahoo. This is a fair point.

Who do you choose? The thing is, if I knew the MFY's were out, I'd root for Cleveland. I'd love to see that fan base get a championship. But if the MFY's advance, I'd definitely want Houston to be there waiting for them. THIS IS WHY OAKLAND SHOULD HAVE JUST WON AND MADE IT A STRESS-FREE OCTOBER.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Great work, way to stick through it. I voted 49 times, the first 49 games. Game 50 is when they officially hit .500, completely blowing the 10+ level they'd raced to. I guess you can say that's when my disgust with this group really hit home and a kind of indifference to them set in and really never lifted. Even the SHaMmiest performances of the second half didn't move me much. I'm still kind of down on the Mets and what a mess they made again. I think it's entirely possible they continue to badly screw up this leadership transition and it gets worse before better. Shit. Didn't mean to be a downer at the awards ceremony. I'm with you JCL. In my life, I have never been this down on the Mets. Even through all the bad teams, there was always hope. The next big prospect, the next smart manager, the new GM will fix everything. This year it became clear, more than ever, that the problem is ownership. They are incompetent, they are broke, and they can't help themselves from butting in and fucking everything up. Three analytics guys for the Mets, 20 for the MFY's. I mean, that should tell you everything you need to know. This must be what it's like to be approaching a divorce. I love this team, but I can see how flawed they are, and that they're never going to change. I feel bitter, I resent them for robbing me of what should have been three great years. Then I look back to my younger days and realize it's been like this forever. They've been bad to me for almost 20 years. I mean, yes, we've definitely had our good moments, but right now, they are bringing out the worst in me. I hate that. It's depressing and sad. Plus I've gotten fat.

seawolf17 wrote: bmfc1 wrote: I wonder if MFY management is trying to track down the dope that dumped the beer on the guy. They'll probably retire his number. Hey, did anyone see a loud obnoxious douchebag sitting in this area on Wednesday? Anyone? No?

Problem with bullpen spending is, you don't know which of these guys-- save a scant few with track records-- is a fluke, or due for an off-year. Unless you've already got your championship contender built, you build a team-- including a flexible, fungible bullpen comprised of your guys and/or buy-low additions-- in the offseason, and upgrade your bullpen in-season (see: Oakland, MFYs). This is true. You can get a little better picture with analytics (rather than hey, this guy has a lot of saves and he's a "closer"), but definitely. Greg Holland on one side, Brandon Morrow on the other. Everyone was hot for Brian Shaw last winter and he was pretty doodoo.

This thread is great. Love seeing the old names. Rod Barajas. 5 CitiField HR's. All of them came that one week right?

Amazing work as always BG. I gotta vote more next year.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: He shall be better than Zimmo! He will be XIMMO! 315/405/475 WRITE IT DOWN I think we have a winner.

It occurs to me that deGrom might just be in a position to win Schaefer Mets pitcher of the year, SHaM Young, and be featured on the winning TCD cover. HISTORY IN THE MAKING IN 2018.