batmagadanleadoff

And every now and then he'd flash a glimpse of what a deceptively superb athlete he was—the classic nimble chunky guy, a favorite varietal of mine, the Chris Farleys of sports. Colón's teammates fell for him just as hard, just as fast. He acquired a nickname—“Big Sexy”—a tribute to both his size and his humble mug. According to the mythology, Bartolo was thin as a rookie in Cleveland and then over two decades he gradually got swole with joy, but this isn't true. His face was long and slender and unironically sexy back then, but his frame was already dense, and by the time he arrived in New York he looked like a Dominican Big Pussy Bonpensiero. I'm definitely getting this book. [FIMG=444]https://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/003/578/834/3ca47f3ee8ff5089c910b30e77ff4bd8_crop_north.jpg?1456874347&w=3072&h=2048[/FIMG][FIMG=377]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvfYjXzp0EdfUcxmzAFhOBLKM2L1Xo0HfoMQ&usqp=CAU[/FIMG]

Jake 'n Stro', then pray for snow!

Carpio reminds me of Kurpiel. [FIMG=555]https://i1.wp.com/www.metspolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_7691-e1515785234567-400x300.jpg?resize=400%2C300&ssl=1[/FIMG] Some Ed Kurpiel stuff: Acquired by the Mets 1n 1976 from St. Looey for Leon Brown and Brock Pemberton; A local boy, Kurpiel graduated from Archbishop Molloy HS, (so did ex-Met Mike Baxter); Was a phantom major-leaguer, called up by the Cards at the end of the '74 season, but never appeared in a major-league game. Was on the 25 man roster when Lou Brock broke Maury Wills' single season stolen base record; Rumored to have hit perhaps the longest HR in professional baseball history. Really. Look it up if youse don't believe me. Carpio also sounds like "Carpy", (Private Caparzo), the solider played by Vin Diesel in Saving Private Ryan who is gunned down by a German sniper while trying to rescue a little French girl from a destroyed residence.

Carpio reminds me of Kurpiel. [FIMG=555]https://i1.wp.com/www.metspolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_7691-e1515785234567-400x300.jpg?resize=400%2C300&ssl=1[/FIMG] Some Ed Kurpiel stuff: Acquired by the Mets 1n 1976 from St. Looey for Leon Brown and Brock Pemberton; A local boy, Kurpiel graduated from Archbishop Molloy HS, (so did ex-Met Mike Baxter); Was a phantom major-leaguer, called up by the Cards at the end of the '74 season, but never appeared in a major-league game. Was on the 25 man roster when Lou Brock broke Maury Wills' single season stolen base record; Rumored to have hit perhaps the longest HR in professional baseball history. Really. Look it up if youse don't believe me.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not sure what the answer is, refer to the made-up rules) but maybe fucking with the number of strikes and balls (which was done A LOT until the late 19th century) oughta be tried. My first thought was the playground rule, four fouls and you're out. But maybe instead six fouls and you walk? Never heard of that four foul playground rule. Is that a Long Island thing? The six foul walk rule is a bad idea because, I think, batters would be able to exploit that rule easily.

On Jackie Robinson Day, all the major leaguers have to wear latex masks of Jackie Robinson. All the players on the winning teams from Jackie Robinson Day have to wear latex masks of Jackie Robinson for their next game, etc., etc., and for as long as they continue to win games uninterrupted by a loss. Baseball games are scored like boxing matches, which are scored round by round. Each team gets one point for each inning won. Innings in which both teams score the same number of runs are considered ties. So a team that wins 8-4 under the current scoring rules could lose that game under the new rules if it scores all eight of its runs in one inning. But a team that outscores its opponent by ten runs wins automatically, even if, for example, it scored all 12 of its runs in one inning and its opponent scored one run in two separate innings. The 10 run lead is the equivalent of a knockout. So going into the ninth inning, if the visitors scored 8 runs in the 5th inning, and the home team scored one run in each of the first three innings, the home team is ahead three innings to one heading into the last or ninth inning. Therefore, the visiting team would have to score five runs in the ninth to take a 13-3 total run lead to have a chance at winning. Winning the 9th inning is no longer enough to win under these hypothetical facts. The ten run automatic knockout rule favors the visitor as it bats first. Sexy girls, practically naked, come out before the start of each half inning with a huge sign indicating the inning number and top or bottom half that is about to get underway.

=Ceetar post_id=57831 time=1615590910 user_id=102] Baseball doesn't even _really_ have defensive players. The guy designated as 'RF' can play between third and the pitcher if he wants, on one pitch, and then hang out with his buddy in LF the next one. It's a group of 9 guys defending....

Carpio reminds me of Kurpiel. [FIMG=999]https://i1.wp.com/www.metspolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_7691-e1515785234567-400x300.jpg?resize=400%2C300&ssl=1[/FIMG]

dinosaur jesus wrote: The problem with these ideas isn't that you shouldn't be messing with the game. There's been messing all along, often much more radical than anything that's being proposed here.... And the one proposal that seems to stand up for baseball tradition, banning extreme shifts, is the dumbest of all. Shifts are completely within the logic of the game; they exploit something that's been there all along but rarely utilized. They're fun as hell to watch. And they work, which turns out to be the real problem with them. What's wrong with these people? Screed over. I've highlighed the beginning and end of your post. On the one hand, I tend to agree with both excerpted points, very much so. But then I wonder if those points contradict each other. Why are shifts completely within the logic of the game? And why does shift equal baseball tradition? Isn't that mainly arbitrary? What if defenders were barred ever since the beginning of baseball - by official rule - from straying from their designated fielding areas? What if defensive shifts were prohibited ever since the beginning of baseball? Wouldn't we now be attacking new proposed rules permitting defensive shifts as some radical and uncalled for tinkering -- a gimmick?

=nymr83 post_id=57811 time=1615578220 user_id=54] I'm not a fan of all the proposed rules about defensive positioning - but sure, lets see how it goes in Low-A.

Sports Illustrated bestows its blessing and hopefully not curse on your highest-profile 2021 Met. https://twitter.com/sinow/status/1370377056253583362?s=21https://twitter.com/sinow/status/1370377056253583362?s=21 What a beautiful cover. Didn't think SI had it in 'em anymore. Here's the full cover - uncropped: [FIMG=666]https://www.si.com/.image/t_share/MTc5NTA3ODExNTg2MTU1NTk5/april-2021-cover.jpg[/FIMG] And here's the last time a major leaguer made the cover of SI in a Mets uniform before ever appearing in a game for the franchise: [FIMG=666]https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/new-york-mets-johan-santana-february-25-2008-sports-illustrated-cover.jpg[/FIMG]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: There are going be a ridiculous number of stolen bases if they limit pickoff attempts. Maybe that's what baseball wants. More offense without more HR's. And also, shorter games. /rollseyes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits. I assumed that larger bases were proposed to reduce injuries by allowing the fielder to step on one portion of the base while still leaving more base for the runner. I remember larger, rectangular shaped painted first bases on some of the asphalt or concrete softball fields I played on, growing up. What JCL said.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits. I assumed that larger bases were proposed to reduce injuries by allowing the fielder to step on one portion of the base while still leaving more base for the runner. I remember larger, rectangular shaped painted first bases on some of the asphalt or concrete softball fields I played on, growing up.

Resauranted in Amityville [FIMG=666]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51026758476_5092b0cf75_o.jpg[/FIMG]

What I remember most about Sherry from this forum is that he came up some in the comments to a quiz I one ran about naming all the Mets players who went on to manage a MLB team. (Backman wasn't included, and I wouldn't include Beltran if I re-ran that quiz in the future). Love this baseball card: [fIMG=444]https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1961/Topps---Base/521/Norm-Sherry-Larry-Sherry.jpg?id=b8aaa0c2-d81e-4365-8a9c-45c44d688b02&size=original[/fIMG]

The black unis were officially retired for the 50th anniversary 2012 season. Still, the home all black top version was worn twice in 2012. I guess ending bad habits is hard to do. They were worn on June 3, 2012, probably at John Franco's request as that was John Franco Day -- and the Mets celebrated Franco's induction into their HOF. The all-black home tops were also worn on July 21, 2012. Edgardo Alfonzo bobblehead day. As with Franco's big night, it was thematically on point. They were also worn once or twice in 2013 and 2014, but right now, I can't figure out exactly when and I'm not putting in the time to get those answers. I don't believe they've been worn since 2012. Maybe that's why I'm having trouble coming up with the evidence. I knew there was something about the Mets black unis and the years 2013 and 2014. From UniWatch: The Mets dropped most of the black elements -- the drop shadows, caps, undersleeves, socks, and belts -- and returned to their classic look in 2012 to coincide with the team's 50th anniversary. The black alternate home jersey was worn twice in 2012 and technically remained part of the team's wardrobe for the following two years despite not being worn during those seasons. It was officially retired this year [i.e., 2015]. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/13934889/uni-watch-friday-flashback-new-york-mets-bet-black-their-uniformshttps://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/13934889/uni-watch-friday-flashback-new-york-mets-bet-black-their-uniforms

=G-Fafif post_id=57546 time=1615155285 user_id=55] =batmagadanleadoff ] The black unis were officially retired for the 50th anniversary 2012 season. Still, the home all black top version was worn twice in 2012. I guess ending bad habits is hard to do. They were worn on June 3, 2012, probably at John Franco's request as that was John Franco Day -- and the Mets celebrated Franco's induction into their HOF. The all-black home tops were also worn on July 21, 2012.

And Ron Hodges was a base on balls machine. What do you want from a 1970s-early 1980s backup catcher? I'd diss Alex Trevino and Junior Ortiz way before I ever got to Hodges.

Anybody who gets on base 40% of the time can play on my team even if he shits his pants constantly and has to wear diapers. 40% OBP? That's the stuff of HOF'ers. Doug FLynn? He was the worst hitter in Mets franchise history. Flynn made Rey Ordonez look like Rod Carew. And his fielding was way overrated. Fans talk about Flynn like he was some second-base version of Mark Belanger or Ozzie Smith. Jeez, and all the Mets had to do to get Flynn was to trade Tom Seaver. Still-in-his-prime Tom Seaver.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted "abomination" but I can accept them being worn infrequently. https://i.stack.imgur.com/UkfCl.jpg> This guy's always beating me to what I would've said exactly. Loathsome, those unis are. But I could tolerate them being rarely worn. But to me, rarely means two, maybe three times a year -- not 10 times. And for one year only. For better or worse, those hideous unis are a part of franchise history, so that's a reason to wear them, I guess. But like I said, rarely. The black unis were officially retired for the 50th anniversary 2012 season. Still, the home all black top version was worn twice in 2012. I guess ending bad habits is hard to do. They were worn on June 3, 2012, probably at John Franco's request as that was John Franco Day -- and the Mets celebrated Franco's induction into their HOF. The all-black home tops were also worn on July 21, 2012. [FIMG=555]https://www.sportsnet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/niese_jonathon640.jpg[/FIMG] They were also worn once or twice in 2013 and 2014, but right now, I can't figure out exactly when and I'm not putting in the time to get those answers. No way on a new re-design. That'd be an excuse to wear black unis 20 or 30 times a year instead of just a few times -- and for many years.

dinosaur jesus wrote: Willets Point wrote: I remember getting the Strat-O-Matic board game and recreating the 2000 World Series. I used the exact same lineups, pitchers, and substitutions as the actual games. The Mets won the series 4 games to 1. In fact they Strat-O Mets won all the games the real Mets lost and they lost the game they won. I never played Strat-O-Matic again. Strat-O-Matic was right. It was reality that was wrong.The team with the better record lost in every single round that year, in both leagues. That's true. And the WS winning Yankees had the worst record (87-74) of all of the 2000 post-season teams. The 2000 WS was an all wild-card WS.

We should ask that Greg to make the same chart, but going in reverse order, as if the Mets last game was the first and the first game, last. Then, Duda and Hindley and Oledud and Conforto would've all made the list at some point. Alonso, too.

Edgy MD wrote: Biggest Mets names to retire without ever seeing time on the list: Gary Carter Dave Kingman Dave Magadan Gregg Jefferies Cliff Floyd Curtis Granderson Umm ... Robin Ventura? Lenny Dykstra? John Olerud

Oh, I thought Greg made that chart.