batmagadanleadoff

Best pitcher in the world in a do or die elimination game and he can't go more than six innings. And on those rare times when he does, it's a small miracle.

Frayed Knot wrote: Here's my time to chime in on how this is one of the drawbacks of expanded playoffs. Instead of a 'winner's only' tourney [MLB from '69 thru '93 for example] where each team is considered to be on the same par generally even if not exactly, when you start to add second and third tier clubs (and, in some sports, fourth and fifth) fans of the upper clubs come to expect the early round(s) to be easy or even a given and are therefore not just upset at an ouster but resentful and even betrayed [They didn't want it enough,] But sports, and particularly baseball, don't always work that way. So if you want the extra teams/games/dollars that expanded playoffs bring, do understand the downsides as well. Yes. But even without expanded playoffs, having two baseball teams play a couple of games against each other is no way to determine which of the two teams is the better one. But yeah, baseball's the worst sport to expand playoffs. That head-scratching over-the-top post at the top of this thread is just mind-boggling. All that angst because the Mets lost one game. To a very good team, no less. You'd think the guy wants to jump off a ledge. Anyway, the Mets aren't eliminated and tonight, they'll have baseball's undisputed best pitcher over the last five years (when healthy) starting. If the Mets win, and they're heavily favored to win, the series is tied and the Mets can advance to the next round with just another win.

=whippoorwill post_id=110452 time=1665264619 user_id=79] Elvis is the perfect mediocre for me.

Well Doris Day and little Richard come to mind. Love her; can't stand him. But I guess that makes it a weird twosome in just my eyes. Elvis is the perfect mediocre for me. Maybe it really is a perfect matchup Yeah. This is totally understandable and expected. Everyone has different musical tastes. I myself don't necessarily like all of the songs I included in these cards. I'm simply going for a sampling of the given year's hits. Little Richard and Doris Day had huge top of the chart hits in 1956. I'll say this much: both of those songs still hold up some 60-65 years later. Can't say that for a lot of the "alternative" artsy rock and roll that became popular in the very late 70s and picked up steam throughout the 80s and early 90s.

=whippoorwill post_id=110447 time=1665264096 user_id=79] Some interesting matchups there

I wasn't planning on posting any more of these Starling Marte History of Pop Music cards. But when I didn't post any more of these yesterday, look what happened to Scherzer and the Mets. Causal? Coincidence? I ain't superstitious. But why take a chance again? 1978.4 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413993185_707b90f9f7_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1992.2 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413829089_5bdda33167_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1981.1 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413827974_59a3ce9596_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1956.1 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413994870_451518edf1_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1967.2 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413548896_75860d0127_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1962.2 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413549141_9d64529b59_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1987.2 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413993690_56e96b6f67_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1973.1 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52413572846_03a6a5c97b_h.jpg[/FIMG]

=roger_that post_id=110415 time=1665241746 user_id=128] Maybe in the long run, decades from now, we will all look back at 2022 (if it ends as horribly as I suspect it will, sometime tonight)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Oh, please. It's fun. We have a playoff game to watch tonight. And this is the "most sickening and disheartening" scenario imaginable? This is much better than the last few weeks of 2007. Were you not around for that? This. A million times. You'd think he was bitten by a deadly snake or run over by a train. Edgy MD wrote: The red light forum is, in fact, where ill will for other posters belongs. So if you must use this place to express it, please take it there. Oh please. Take what there? That I disagreed with him? My post was as red-lightable as Grimm's. Which is to say, not at all. What ill will? You're seeing things that you wanna see but aren't there. I'm shocked shocked shocked that you couldn't resist but to have to say something that cuts against me. I can't imagine what you'd do if I was the one who wrote that you have a screw loose. Oh my god! Alonso's gonna make $100mill probably before he turns 30 -- when he could really enjoy all of that money -- like before he gets old and his body starts to break down all over. Sign me up for that and I'll you show you what fun is.

Give me a break. Pete Alonso makes a living playing a child's game with the best baseball players in the world. And he's real good at it. He's only 27 years old and soon enough he's gonna sign a contract worth more than a hundred million dollars. He can afford to live in the heart of the greatest city in the world, no doubt in extreme luxury, and among other things, he has access to food at two in the morning that's better than what most people could get and afford at eight PM. And he's eating all of that great food, too. Why shouldn't he be having fun? At least he's fucking honest. It's a fucking crapshoot. Or do you think the Mets should beat the Padres just by willing it because they won 101 games? They played an excellent team with an ace elite pitcher. If I was in Alonso's shoes, I'd be having the time of my life every single minute even if my Mets were in last place. Why would his fun make you miserable? Hey, maybe you can demand that Edgy red light this post being that I dont agree with you on anything you just wrote. You did it before.

At least we'll know tomorrow that if deGrom doesn't start, there's an injury issue brewing.

=Ceetar post_id=110282 time=1665177561 user_id=102] =vtmet7 post_id=110271 time=1665176367 user_id=80] I'm guessing the thought process behind the game 2 mystery is all about game 1...if the Mets win game 1, then would it make sense to have deGrom pitch game 3 (hoping that we win game 2, and he would then pitch game 1 of the next series)...however, I would imagine that if we lose game 1, then deGrom would be a shoe-in for game 2

If the Mets win the opener against the Padres and then gamble on game two without Scherzer and win that game as well, the Mets could then open against the Dodgers with Scherzer and deGrom both rested up and starting the first two ganes in that order. But nothing ever goes according to plan so the Mets wont gamble and if they do gamble, having won the opener, they wont pull off the sweep. Mets announce their starter for Game #1 against the Padres -- Max Scherzer, but still haven't announced their Game #2 starter. The Blue Jays are the only other Wild Card round playoff team not to announce their Game 2 starter. So what gives when the obvious no-brainer decision is to start deGrom for Game #2 if Scherzer's the opener starter? Are the Mets planning on holding back deGrom if they win the opener -- hoping for a sweep and then two deGrom starts against the Dodgers, including the opener? Or are the Mets giving deGrom more rest, perhaps because of his blood blister, or some other as yet undisclosed health issue? Also, deGrom's been pitching before Scherzer in the Mets end of season rotation. So why is Scherzer pitching the opener? Because deGrom suddenly needs more rest? Or because the Mets are leaving open the gamble play which, if succesful, allows deGrom to open against the Dodgers. That series is a best of five, so it's likely, but not certain, that only the opening game starter would be able to start a second game in that series. Questions, question, questions. Ken Rosenthal, writing for The Athletic, opines that the Mets are overthinking the issue if they're considering holding back deGrom if they win the opener. deGrom should start Game #2 unless there's a health issue, sez Rosenthal. Me, I dunno. If there's no health issue, the Mets could still start deGrom in Game #3 if the gamble fails. Either way, it's not likely that the Game #2 starter will get to start more than one game against the Dodgers. But if the gamble pays off, deGrom could start games one and (if necessary, game five). https://theathletic.com/3666498/2022/10/06/mets-degrom-showalter-starters-wild-card/https://theathletic.com/3666498/2022/10/06/mets-degrom-showalter-starters-wild-card/

Edgy MD wrote: Please don't write that. But he already did. Oh my god! Now what?

[FIMG=555]https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/06161322/Mets-NYC-subway-2.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://static-prod.adweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/mets-train-wrap-exterior-hero-2022.jpg.webp[/FIMG] One of the few cool things about the Wilpon-era Mets was the team's annual commitment to advertising campaigns which included large billboard sized posters throughout the NYC subway system. This tapered off during the last years of the Wilpons rule, no doubt due to their dire cash-strapped situation. The tradition, though, was kicked off when Doubleday ran the Mets and commissioned the "The Magic is Back" campaign. [FIMG=555]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElnUAsCX0AE0WqC.jpg[/FIMG]

Mets All-time HR leaders: Darryl Strawberry 252 David Wright 242 Mike Piazza 220 Howard Johnson 192 (Nate Colbert 163 - Padres all-time HR leader) Dave Kingman 154 Carlos Beltran 149 Pete Alonso 146 with a bullet Michael Conforto 132 Barring a serious injury or a departure, Pete Alonso is on pace to break the Mets franchise HR record at about the all-star break, 2025. Alonso will be 30 years old by then.

Youse seem to be in the mood for some more cards of Sterling Marte against a backdrop of hit pop music singles covering the years 1950-1991. 2022 Typewriter Chewing Gum total Mets set - Code Name: Rock and Roll Part 2; Subset - The History of Pop Music (1950-1985) - 1989.1 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52409686250_eab02c9211_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1950.1 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52409526579_ccc562d762_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1968.2 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52409685685_ab48b61e16_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1983.2 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52409241796_3444a2da87_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1974.1 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52409241131_384f81dc1c_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1960.3 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52409685265_44286c50a1_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1987.3 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52408739727_f00ece0d8c_h.jpg[/FIMG] 1965.3 [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52409527414_bc6d2106f4_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Chad ochoseis wrote: Their all-time home run leader? The immortal Nate Colbert, whom I've only heard of because I remember him from my 1970 season Sports Illustrated Baseball game and because Jim Bouton called him ugly in "Ball Four". I looked it up. Colbert's the all-time Padres HR leader with 163. Wow, is that a a lame record. Even lamer, way lamer, than the Mets all-time HR record, which Alonso is on pace to make mincemeat out of. But Colbert was a star in his day. How could you not remember him? [FIMG=333]https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/4qQAAOSwlEFiubRY/s-l1600.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=333]https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*BjYVwj0HHoBCwqtaX4SweA.jpeg[/FIMG]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: No, I think he was asking if there would be a Game 163 if one of the two teams, unlike with the Mets and the Braves, wasn't already guaranteed a playoff spot anyway. And the answer is no. This makes more sense to me than my own take. Maybe Rogers will eventually chime in here.

I I think I figured out what Rogers was trying to ask. I think he meant to ask if there'd be a tiebreaker game to settle a two-way tie, implying that three-way ties would take too many days to resolve and so, accepting that three-way ties would be broken by formula.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Under last seasons' rules, if the Phillies and Brewers had finished tied for the last Wild Card spot, they would have had to play a Game 163, and the loser would have gone home. This makes sense. Rogers wrote it up as if the going home part happens before the 163rd game. Plus, the loser always goes home after a tiebreaker. So it also makes no sense to ask if the tiebreaker applies only if the loser goes home, either.

Granted after last weekend I would not be filled with as much Kahnfidence as I'd hope to have in an NLCS matchup, but are 163rd games a thing of the past, or only if the loser goes home (ie if the Phillies and Brewers wound up flat footed tonight)? I have no idea what your parenthetical i.e. or "loser goes home" means, but there are no more regular season 163rd games. Every regular season tie with playoff consequences is now broken by pre determined mathematical formulas. Under last season's rules, had the Phillies and Brewers finished with the same record, the loser would not have gone into the postseason. In the case of the Mets and Braves, the loser would still have entered the postseason as the top seeded Wild Card team. Who, between the Phillies and Brewersz would be the loser? Loser of what? You seem to be saying that if the Brewers and Phils end up tied, one of those teams is a loser (of something, what, I dunno) and goes home. So if one of those teams goes home, there's no need for a tiebreaker game. So why do you ask if there's gonna be a tiebreaker if one of those teams goes home?

Granted after last weekend I would not be filled with as much Kahnfidence as I'd hope to have in an NLCS matchup, but are 163rd games a thing of the past, or only if the loser goes home (ie if the Phillies and Brewers wound up flat footed tonight)? I have no idea what your parenthetical i.e. or "loser goes home" means, but there are no more regular season 163rd games. Every regular season tie with playoff consequences is now broken by pre determined mathematical formulas.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=110135 time=1665020831 user_id=68] If the Mets win the opener against the Padres and then gamble on game two without Scherzer and win that game as well, the Mets could then open against the Dodgers with Scherzer and deGrom both rested up and starting the first two ganes in that order.

If the Mets win the opener against the Padres and then gamble on game two without Scherzer and win that game as well, the Mets could then open against the Dodgers with Scherzer and deGrom both rested up and starting the first two ganes in that order.

=kcmets post_id=110066 time=1665000845 user_id=53] Well, I guess Michael Kay was my small issue. And I was fine to leave it at that. Until someone brought up Bonds* in a thread about a guy who broke a 61 year HR record. It's really not that hard to 'get' if you go back and re-read. That's all you get, so make it last.