Centerfield

Delgado shoulda bunted.

MFS62 wrote: Agreed. Having him bunt not only means that he isn't doing what he does best - hitting dingers, but if he gets on he clogs the bases. If you pinch run, it burns a player (or two) for later in the game. Over his career, Carlos has been a streak hitter. He's been hitting the ball hard. Let him keep his stroke, don't mess with what he's doing. They'll start falling in, and then he'll go on a tear/ be able to carry the team on his back for a while. Later Forgive my tone here, but that is simply idiotic. In the ninth inning of that game, you want him to reach base. A home run or a bunt single is no different. Are you suggesting that you didn't want him to reach base because it would clog the bases? Even if it meant that the tying run would bat? How would a two run HR help you in a situation where you are down three? As far as messing up his stroke, I don't see how laying down a bunt will "mess with" his swing. The two are not even remotely similar. It's like arguing that Carlos should avoid closing car doors, or refrain from itching his back because it will screw up his stroke. I just don't see it. And as far as "what he does best", I don't want to see ballplayers try to pigeonhole themselves as "home run hitters" or "table setters". I expect them to recognize the best way to maximize their odds of success in a situation and capitalize on it. I expect a manager to be able to do this as well instead of just basing his strategy on where the player hits in the lineup. Be adaptable. Only Sith deal in absolutes.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I know one place he could put it where fielders aren't there to get it. Of course. But in situations like the ninth inning on Monday, a Home Run is no different than a walk, or a bunt single, except that the HR is much much less likely to happen. The idea is to reach base so you can bring the tying run to the plate. Declining to pursue an option that would double or triple your chances of accomplishing this is inexcusable. And what about the manager. Why do we have a bunt sign in the first place? It's astonishing that he will call for so many sacrifice bunts, where the result, even if successful, results in an out, but decline to call for a bunt in a situation where a successful one leads to a batter reaching base.

metirish wrote: That's the thing though,if Delgado tried that and got thrown out at first then we might be asking WTF is he doing,how good a bunter is he anyway? With the shift Florida was playing last night, if there is a bunt up the third base line, there is no way he gets thrown out. The third baseman was shaded up the middle. At worst, an unsuccessful bunt is just a foul ball.

If nothing else, even a few attempted bunts makes a team think twice about the shift, and maybe a few successful ones will cause them to abandon it altogether. Willie has talked about how Carlos has hit the ball well, but he's hit it right to a fielder. Well, part of that could be because there are 17 guys standing on that side of the infield. Drop a few down. Take the base when they give it to you. Get off the interstate.

In each of the last two games, Delgado has come up in the late innings with the Mets needing baserunners (he did not represent the tying run). How is it excusable that he is not bunting his way on in those situations? They are GIVING him first base. It's just a step removed from swinging when a team is trying to give you an intentional pass. I think it's time to call out both Carlos and Willie for this. Is it machismo? Lack of awareness of the situation? It's maddening to see a team play then infield that way and watch Delgado line one right into the shift.

Wright 3 Pelfrey 2 Smith 1

Beltran 3 Reyes 3 Green 2 Lo Duca 1 Schoeneweis 1

In the News, it says Valentin has elected to rehab (and is expected to take about 4 wks) instead of surgery. Valentin is candid saying he doesn't want to lose time because of his contract. The article suggests that surgery could wipe out his season, or cost him three months. My question is this, which is it? If it's 3 months, he should get it done. Come back for August, September and October. If surgery means he's done for the season, then I guess there's no harm in trying the rehab first. Does rehab ever work? It's a partialy torn ACL...as far as I know, I don't think they heal themselves.

When was it that the MFY's were 11-19? Was that '05? Even after reading all that, I'd still guess the MFY's will be playing in October.

Ok. No more getting hurt.

Did we ever find out if Alou was hurt?

I never said I didn't support the effort, I just want to see some sort of plan.

I don't like how these reports don't have a timetable accompanying them. On Edit: According to the News, it's a partial teal of the ACL. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2007/04/30/2007-04-30_el_duque_goes_on_dl_replaced_by_park.html

Any word on timetable? Bursitis?

The highlight shows only showed me Julio's great play in the seventh. Tell me about his second play.

I love how their best start (and the only win) came from a guy that Torre had elected to skip. I hope Torre gets fired.

Just read both. I don't ever remember reading such conflicting reports. One has the best case scenario at a month, with surgery likely...ony being delayed for contract reasons. The other has him day-to-day. Of course, the agent might be spewing crap just to make sure his client gets the minimum number of AB's so his option kicks in.

I'm cool with the Pads.

Hearing him speak today, I get the feeling that Gary didn't consider the sock, real or fake, to be a big deal. That's why he didn't mention it for two years, that's why he never followed up to make sure it was accurate. In other words, he didn't think he was breaking a story. Of course, Gary should know better considering how much press it got and considering it sits in the Hall of Fame. Bad job by Gary...even if true, he's publicizing info given to him by Mirabelli that would make Mirabelli look bad. For that reason alone, he should fact-check and make sure Doug is ok with him going public with it. But I like that the 2004 Yankee collapse was in the headlines again. I could talk about that series every day. I'm hoping that tomorrow someone mentions that Arroyo's braids were extensions causing his former teammates to come to bat for him.

I think interference requires a pitch being thrown. The scenarios I had envisioned were: 1. Batter switches from one batter's box to the other when the pitcher goes into his motion. According to rule 6.06(, that batter is out. If three particularly indecisive switch hitters were to do this, causing the pitcher to abandon his delivery, the side could be retired without a pitch being thrown. 2. A batter steps into the batter's box with an altered bat pursuant to 6.06(d). Even though no pitch is thrown, according to the comment, a batter has "attempted" to use an illegal bat upon stepping into the batter's box with it. If three batters attempt this in a row, and are discovered, the side is retired without a single pitch being thrown.

There's another I guess. The other two don't involve a runner reaching base.

There are two other ways (that I know of) the side can be retired without a single pitch being thrown. Name them.

Reyes 3 Green 2

I just noticed I'm quoted in Ira's signature. Cool. At least, I think it's cool. I'm not being mocked am I?