batmagadanleadoff

T.J. Rivera

Conforto.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Are you saying that a cuddlesome chick is your bag? I don't know what you mean. Can you provide helpful explanations in parentheses? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/76/49/e976490f57f2c2192c8c21ec7d390730.jpg>

If he doesnt want the TM, he should withdraw his claim. Or else just shut the fuck up about how he doesn't really want the TM as if the whole wide world is putting a gun to his head to force him to get that TM against his will. Because we're all stupid. Fucking ********** who wants it both ways. He wants the TM but suddenly wants everyone to believe that at the same time, he doesn't want it.

Yeah sure. Because red-lighting my wrist-cock technique posts is not abuse. Or suspending me for using the "count" word is not abuse when there were dozens of instances of posters using that word throughout the whole history of this forum before me. Instead, you invent a rule after the fact that applies only to me, and then execute it retroactively. No, abuse is when someone challenges your posts. Don't make me laugh. Like anyone here was even remotely treated with the level of malicious and unjustified abuse that I had to endure when I first joined this forum. It's a wonder why I ever bothered to stay this long. I guess this is the part where you'll call me a martyr now.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the seven years for which his data exists. Is there anything I write — anything at all — that doesn't really get up your ass and burn? I'd really like to spare you that. Oh c'mon. There's nothing going on here. You debate my posts at least as often as I debate yours, and probably more. I didn't make it a personal thing when a few days ago, you spent several posts challenging my idea that a 36 year old who misses the last half of the last season might bring about his decline, even if that hiatus wasn't injury related. I didn't make it personal when you ended the dispute with a non-responsive post that you then weaseled out of explaining. I just let it go and walked away. Because what's the point? Like you would ever concede any point to me. And I didn't make it personal a month or two ago when you raised the absurd challenge to my statement that the Dodgers tend to have the highest team payrolls. You wanna know what really burns me? When my posts about Travis d'Arnaud's wrist-cock technique get red-lit and then, altogether disappeared -- when I never even heard of a thing called the wrist-cock technique in the first place until I read it in one of your own posts.

Shutouts are the new no-hitters.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the seven years for which his data exists.

The Occam's Razor move was to pursue Manny Machado. Machado's a third baseman and the Mets have a hole at third. But that would require lotsa money. Which the Mets don't have even though they play in the nation's largest market. Plus, the Mets aren't an Occam's Razor kind of team. They're more of a Rube Goldberg contraption sort of team. So instead, true to their Rube Goldberg ways, they went after a 36 year old second baseman who missed the last half of the last season to fill their third base hole. This deal also involved moving some Mets out of position so that the second baseman could fill the third base hole. The Madoff fraud scandal is now ten and a half years old. There's a whole generation of Mets fans who came on board after the Madoff scandal broke, who've rooted for the Mets all their lives and who've never seen the Mets play a single game in live real time at Shea Stadium. The only version of the Mets this generation of fans has ever witnessed is the Madoff defrauded financially ravaged version that exists today. The oldest of this generation of Mets fans are already in college, or maybe even married. Or both. Ten and a half years of this and with no end in sight. And the only reason the Wilpons are permitted to remain as owners of what should be the flagship NL franchise is because of baseball's cronyism and favoritism and because MLB chooses to bury this disgraceful scandal under the carpet and pretend that the Mets are just fine. I now turn over this thread to Ceets so he can tell me how Machado's not having an MVP season so far and how dare I diss eff Wilpon.

=kcmets post_id=12045 time=1559703198 user_id=53] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=12042 time=1559702668 user_id=68]What were your expecting when JD Davis is your fucking clean up hitter and there are at least two guys in the lineup who are even worse hitters than Amed Rosario? This is about as good as it was gonna get: A Met loss but an Alonso homer.

=kcmets post_id=12036 time=1559701880 user_id=53] Holy crap, what the fuck happened??

For my next thread: Why is J.D. Davis batting cleanup?

The Mets plead with the US Patents Office to deny Tom Bradys "Tom Terrific" claim. But they're too fucking cheap to pay for a lawyer to officially intervene in the matter. So the Mets took their case to Twitter, instead. I know of at least one orange scumbag who'd love it if a person could simply tweet their way into a legal proceeding.

That his last name is pronounced like Beatty takes the edge off of most of those headlines, I'd think.

The Mets plead with the US Patents Office to deny Tom Bradys "Tom Terrific" claim. But they're too fucking cheap to pay for a lawyer to officially intervene in the matter. So the Mets took their case to Twitter, instead.

18 year olds who played what?.... 25 games this year?

=RealityChuck post_id=11883 time=1559585377 user_id=82] I still can conceive of any reason to pay attention to mock drafts. Other than the first choice (and maybe the second), it's just pure guesswork that is wrong more often than it is right.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know if it means anything, Michael Confoto led off the first third of the season last year, and hit pretty poorly from that position. His season didn't really recover until the second half. Those were also his first at bats coming off a scary injury.

It's a tough call. When the Mets are at full strength, such as it is, Rosario's probably the worst hitter in the lineup. Today, the Mets started two players, Davis and Altherr, who might be worse than Rosario. And by might, I mean probably. And I don't agree that Rosario should be batting lead off because of his potential and all that learning curve jazz. Not with his batting line. He could learn just the same batting sixth or seventh. The pitches come in just as fast and with the same spin whether he's batting 1st or 7th. He can move up when he actually realizes some of that potential.

Edgy MD wrote: McNeil and Nimmo are hurt. So what? Rosario is probably tha worst hitter in the lineup. A guy that should be batting eighth shouldn't ever bat first.

Is this a managerial question? If so, who would you pick to lead off instead? Or is this a GM question (“we should have better options”)? I dunno. I never thought of it that way.. Does it even matter? And if it's a GM question, that wouldn't necessarily make it an "options" question. Plus, with this Keystone Cops operation, don't rule out Jeff Wilpon demanding that there be, above all else, a fast guy at the top of the lineup.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=11832 time=1559497955 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=11831 time=1559497820 user_id=68]Why?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=11831 time=1559497820 user_id=68]Why?

Why?

=smg58 post_id=11712 time=1559346232 user_id=62] There's got to be somebody who can look that up. I would think it happened at least a couple of times when four-man rotations were common. I could picture Seaver facing Gibson, Jenkins, and Carlton in successive starts.