Centerfield

="Bret Sabermetric"] So why do we pay attention to the stuff they're not even trying to do? "Hello, we're talking to Omar Minaya, who's under no obligiation to share his genuine thoughts wth us today--in fact, it probably suits Omar's goals better to deceive us and to tell us stuff that will mislead or confuse us, in hopes of getting disinformation out in public, and you listeners are intended to be used as conduits of Omar's disinformation. Omar, hi. Are you intending to take Helmlan out of the bullpen and make a starter of him?" I realize Bret's quote here is tongue in cheek, but how far is it from the truth? In situations such as trades or free agency, it is in the best interest of the organization to talk as if they have other options, to appear to be leaning in another direction, anything to improve their leverage, or at least, their perceived leverage. So then, why do we bother listening? If I had to guess, I would say we listen because we all think we can read between the lines. We all listen with the hopes that we can judge from Omar's tone "what he is really thinking". You know, because fans like us know Omar so well we can read his inflections or body language. The great part about this is that no matter what our position, anything Omar says always corroborates our ideas. Omar: "No way in hell we are trading Milledge." Apologists: "Hooray! Did you hear that? Lastings is safe!" Cynics: "That's what they said about Kazmir. Milledge is as good as gone."

Poor Robin made 3 outs in 2 innings.

Thanks for the help. I wasn't sure if there was an "official scoring method" or if there is just an "official scorer" who scores the game in whatever way he pleases. Shifting the innings over does make more sense. I think I'll do it that way from now on.

One of the things I want to be able to teach my son is how to score the game. So recently, fearing I had forgotten a lot of it, I started scoring games again. It was then that I realized that I never really learned how to do a lot of things and instead, use a lot of my own little tricks. The problem is, I don't know if what I'm doing is the right thing or not...and I don't want to pass along bad information to my son. So, a couple of questions: 1. When you turn the lineup over in one inning, what do you guys do? What I do (let's say it's the 4th inning) is to continue in the column for the 5th, and then put a line to show where the 4th ended. In the 5th, I just use the same column again. Is this how it's supposed to be done? 2. Advancing on throws: I draw a line and then note it "OT" (on throw). I'm almost certain this isn't right. 3. Runners advancing. If Reyes moves from second to third on a Beltran single, I draw the line, then note between 2B and 3B "1B-8" signifying single by the CF. If Reyes scores from second on a Beltran single, I put the same notation next to third base showing that Reyes went from second to home. Is this right? Thanks for the help.

HahnSolo wrote: - Strike 3 on Matsui. From the replay it looked a little high, but clearly too close to take. Was the ump calling the high strike all game? I should note that on the radio Howie did not make a big deal about it being a bad call, I think he just said it was up in the zone. I disagree. It was clearly high. If Matsui had swung at it, he would be getting skewered for swinging at Ball 4.

What a great find. It's amazing how many of those great moments came in '99. That really was a special year. I don't give a shit they didn't win it all, that was one of my favorite Mets teams ever. On Edit: Just off the top of my head, I can remember these memorable games, all from '99: 1. Mets-Padres - Piazza's HR off Wagner to win it in the 9th 2. The Schilling game 3. Matt Franco beats Mariano Rivera 4. Friday night Pittsburgh game when the Mets were all but done. Franco gets a favorable call on a borderline pitch to keep the Mets alive. 5. Sunday Pittsburgh game where Brad Clontz uncorks a wild pitch. 6. Alfonzo's Grand Slam. 7. Todd Pratt walk-off. 8. Olerud beats Rocker in Game 4 of the NLCS 9. The Grand Slam Single. What a year.

I think I found him. His email address anyway: http://www.rotojunkie.com/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=15786

Martinez 3 Delgado 2 Nady 2

It's almost a given, that after any big Yankee loss, the rags will put a picture of A-Rod.

This game pissed me off. I tuned in after Philly scored their runs, but with the way Pedro was throwing, I know they had no business at all scoring three off him. What is up with these damn umps? First, the non-call on the Reyes blooper that ended up with Pedro being out at second. Burrell short-hopped the ball...there was absolutely no reason there should have been any delay in that call. That is a bad job by the umps. Second, Reyes was safe at second. It's a bonehead play but that doesn't mean he should be automatically out. Third, the strike zone...how high was that pitch to Matsui? It was such a bad call even the Baseball Tonight guys commented about it. Fourth, how that same strike zone magically shrank with Heilman on the mound. I know we got a gift on Opening Day, but haven't we paid the piper by now? What the fuck Reyes. Tying run up at the plate. Stay put. Delgado's HR should have been a 3-run shot. Beltran smoked that pitch from Gordon. And then it ended on that suckass play. As far as I'm concerned, I think we've made up for the Soriano call on Opening Day and Washington's throw-away double play ball. We're due for some more good luck.

Is that 7 hits, 3 runs?

Avi's Top Ten: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=12 This place really needs an FAQ. Frayed did the original one. Care to take a crack at it?

I love how many responses these avi threads get. And it's funny how often it happens on off-days. I think it shows how much we need baseball. Yesterday I was so bored I actually watched a man hold his breath on TV.

The part that Bret is not mentioning is that she can hit better than both Kaz and Hernandez.

At that salary, he could probably be had for Bartolome Fortunado.

Ever notice how these amazing coincidences always involve Yancy?

Holy Oprah Winfrey.

That call was so horrendous, when Gary referenced it on Sunday I remembered exactly what he was talking about. Piazza had the plate completely sealed off. Tucker still has yet to touch home. Awful, awful call.

Watts fans should watch Mulholland Drive.

The one thing that puts me on Johnny's side is Aaron Heilman is far from a proven commodity as a starter. This is not Dennis Eckersley we're talking about here, this is a guy who's record is spotted.

Beltran 1 Feliciano 1 Bradford 1

Oliver 3 Matsui 3 Reyes 2 Delgado 1 Beltran 1

It probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference what the Mets do in the short term, whether it be Gonzalez or Oliver or whoever...they're not going to find any long-term solution there. This team needs to trade for a starter...a #3 if possible. And they'll have to do it eventually if they are going to make a run this year. It doesn't have to be this week, this month, or even before the All-Star break, but they're going to need one. In fact, they probably needed one even before Zambrano went down.

That's weird. I noticed her teeth too...and I never notice teeth. First I was like, is she buc-toothed? Then I realized she wasn't, but that they were nice.

I saw it this weekend...and was pleasantly surprised. I had been told that it sucked. That it was long and drawn out and badly in need of an editor. I still think it needed an editor, but it wasn't that bad. A couple of thoughts.... *The first hour where they were in NY needed the editor more than any other parts of the film. Ann's desperation, Denham's desperation...all of that could have been done a lot more succinctly. It's weird. After cramming all of LOTR into those nice, streamlined movies, it's almost like Jackson decided (starting with the last 45 minutes of Return of the King) "Oh fuck it, I'm going to be indulgent." I mean really, how many "You can't do this Mr. Denham, you don't have papers" scenes did we need? *The second hour of the film, as Norrin says, was the best part of the movie...and I thought it was fantastic. From the boat ride, the terrifying natives, the no-nonsense captain, the introduction of Kong, I thought it was great. And yes, it did go a little over the top with the brontosaurus stampede, leading to the cliff scene, leading to the T-Rex scene, followed by the bug scene, but even if it wandered into ridiculousness for a while, it was still fun. Although at one point, I couldn't help but wonder why 3 T-Rexes would fight so hard for Naomi Watts considering she is like a Tic Tac to them. Especially if they have to split her amongst the three of them? Aren't there a bunch of freshly killed/lame brontosauruses lying around? These are the worst predators ever. *There were lots of interesting characters, though most of them were not developed and just kind of leave you wondering. The relationship between the black sea dude and the kid...Denham's assistant...the sea captain...how the actor buy was a weenie, then brave, then a weenie again. There was potential there in all these characters but Jackson just chose to touch upon all of them rather than develop any of them. Also, I thought the acting went back and forth from stylized to realistic to stylized again. *Adrien Brody was much better than I thought he would be. I'm still not convinced he could have navigated his way around the island by himself, but he was likeable and otherwise believable. You can't help but feel bad for him when he shows up to rescue Ann and Ann gives him this look like "Well, this is kind of awkward, but I'm seeing someone else." *The last part back in New York was pretty much a disappointment. Like Norrin, I thought it got a bit silly when all of the mayhem stopped while Kong and Ann went frolicing in the park. For what it's worth, Naomi Watts did a good job with this scene...and I thought that was the only thing that kept me from actually groaning or laughing. Adrien Brody's character's involvement in this last part is weird too. I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish, or why he's even there...it's just confusing. *The climax on the Empire State Building was nothing like I thought it would be. It wasn't exciting at all, just kind of sad. And maybe Jackson knew he couldn't top the thrill ride he gave us on the island so he took it in a different direction. Anyway, it was just a sad end to a roller coaster of a movie. Six Bananas.