batmagadanleadoff

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Poor Mickey. It wasn't his fault. It wasn't. Just tough to look at the '76 yearbook this week and think about who's not in there. I was at a fever pitch the entirety of the 1975 season. Staub-for-Lolich, as soon as it happened, brought everything down a notch in advance of '76. But not Lolich's fault, just as it's not Mr. Bicentennial Met's. I didn't think you were taking it out on Mickey. (If you wanna pretend that Staub was a '76 Met, pull out his '76 Topps card. It's my favorite Staub Mets card.) I just felt like sticking up for him, some, because Mets fans of that generation sure do have it in for him. Lolich, in '76 was an extremely solid back of the rotation pitcher for what was baseball's best staff. Those '76 Mets were very competitive and gave us fans many thrills, including Koosman's Cy Young caliber showing and the pleasure of hearing or reading the words Kingman and Maris in the same sentence for much of the season. I voted for the '76 cover for pretty much the same reasons already stated.

Poor Mickey. It wasn't his fault. .

Zvon wrote: Too late. He's on my dick list. Dyer was probably asked.

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Rusty's preferred number was 10. He wore it in Houston and in Montreal. He took 4 initially as a Met only because Duffy Dyer wouldn't relinquish 10 for Staub, who would have to wait until 1975 to finally get his 10, when it became available after Dyer was traded to the Pirates. Wow. I did not know this. Thanks for sharing. I didn't know Duffy Dyer was a dick either. Who knows? Maybe Staub never asked Dyer. I should've rephrased my earlier post.

Rusty's preferred number was 10. He wore it in Houston and in Montreal. He took 4 initially as a Met only because Duffy Dyer wouldn't relinquish 10 for Staub, who would have to wait until 1975 to finally get his 10, when it became available after Dyer was traded to the Pirates.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Rusty didn't take with him to the grave, the story of why he didn't appear in the Topps '72 and '73 sets. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25775&p=699914&hilit=+Rusty#p699914 Here's the link to the CPF thread on "that" Staub card. http://archives.thecranepool.net/13100/f1_t13176.shtml On the final day of the Mets 50th anniversary symposium held at Hofstra University, there was a dinner for attendees. A few Mets spoke before the crowd and participated in a Q&A session, including Rusty Staub and Ed Charles. (And don't nobody tell me that Kranepool and Harrelson were the other speakers at that dinner.) I didn't ask any questions. While driving home afterwards, I kicked myself (mentally) for not asking Rusty about his two year absence from the Topps sets. Up until I recently discovered the answer, it was a big mystery and I'd spent a good deal of time over the years searching, unsuccessfully, for the explanation.

Rusty didn't take with him to the grave, the story of why he didn't appear in the Topps '72 and '73 sets. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25775&p=699914&hilit=+Rusty#p699914

You can get a photo of tbis year's version by searching ebay (2018 mets yearbook). The 2018 version features separate photos of various Mets. No Callaway. Just players. I don't know how to grab those pics on my furshlugginer dumb smartphone.

Is that what you're supposed to do on opening day? And does that mean that I shouldn't put any clothes on for a couple more hours?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Zvon wrote: [fimg=500]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/k5LDiAfSHHAo5kIHkCfB0eDhg2XMTG64QhJlTI5ctsdkT23kuMjwhL2e63uWZ7FTBx820-UF5dWqwa_6JdmcvJ7MUGnYh0HTvoGE2ofxRCCpR6aHR6GSvot2XjRnqasop2T4QZyNT9KPSiyIRgsp2EYn5l7xkXoMuMAFmc0Xu3K4J91sYzVB6J4pLZbKy2tQMFZfi4j1s7GbWl7Ob2tHGNSXbn-ZzEVVshqil3rVLIknUxF-5rqLYgfET-4zneVwlpZce9gtgjHqhLW82Xh2JrA4k3FhV0UbTEsAzwCXkb0S-rG0i5bRDccpwIfOc8PlHynz3O25skLFwyx0kVcTH6dIksbFaqjhI0PED2a-5GhqqMpoxeQmx97T9H6earmXyTIKqRE-xdJBeankZUokQYsmb423v3J_mEyjvC-XRw6ryyKtQ9nzs00DeFGyE1zswrAU6LJ3pTSRk8D2LqnlwtGZFn76wqwL4LdOwDYmGDbYifkGopQ0eJxV3N46KA2EWgS9bAgkInLuKACdviOv-3Gek_B9gcU1Vc5gDTRXdh9XuTtNqFBylA_iV9jon3SbAVn7GSfnqe9kohUvLeq8XEm4F900LbHObrER9h37=w692-h488-no[/fimg] Sad day for the Mets family. What I remember most about the footage above of Rusty crashing into the outfield wall is the umpire running into the frame and making the out sign. I like the orange colored armband idea. And this being the Mets, it'd be cheaper than an orange with the numbers 4 and 10 inside. Wow. I've been reading some of Staub's obituary articles out there and I had no idea of the size and scope of his philantrophic contributions.

Zvon wrote: [fimg=500]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/k5LDiAfSHHAo5kIHkCfB0eDhg2XMTG64QhJlTI5ctsdkT23kuMjwhL2e63uWZ7FTBx820-UF5dWqwa_6JdmcvJ7MUGnYh0HTvoGE2ofxRCCpR6aHR6GSvot2XjRnqasop2T4QZyNT9KPSiyIRgsp2EYn5l7xkXoMuMAFmc0Xu3K4J91sYzVB6J4pLZbKy2tQMFZfi4j1s7GbWl7Ob2tHGNSXbn-ZzEVVshqil3rVLIknUxF-5rqLYgfET-4zneVwlpZce9gtgjHqhLW82Xh2JrA4k3FhV0UbTEsAzwCXkb0S-rG0i5bRDccpwIfOc8PlHynz3O25skLFwyx0kVcTH6dIksbFaqjhI0PED2a-5GhqqMpoxeQmx97T9H6earmXyTIKqRE-xdJBeankZUokQYsmb423v3J_mEyjvC-XRw6ryyKtQ9nzs00DeFGyE1zswrAU6LJ3pTSRk8D2LqnlwtGZFn76wqwL4LdOwDYmGDbYifkGopQ0eJxV3N46KA2EWgS9bAgkInLuKACdviOv-3Gek_B9gcU1Vc5gDTRXdh9XuTtNqFBylA_iV9jon3SbAVn7GSfnqe9kohUvLeq8XEm4F900LbHObrER9h37=w692-h488-no[/fimg] Sad day for the Mets family. What I remember most about the footage above of Rusty crashing into the outfield wall is the umpire running into the frame and making the out sign. I like the orange colored armband idea. And this being the Mets, it'd be cheaper than an orange with the numbers 4 and 10 inside.

Right now, I'm naked.

538.com predicts that the Nats will be the only team in the NL East to finish over .500. The site has the Mets and Phillies in a tie for second place, each team finishing with identical 79-83 records. The Mets are given a 1% chance of winning the WS. Pretty optimistic, that 538, eh? Having the Nats as the only winning team in the division is also consistent with the Wilpon strategy for this season: cross your fingers and hope everything holds together until Bryce Harper's out of the division and Daniel Murphy enters the decline phase of his career.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think they'll probably go 86-76, which is sort of a disappointment and also, a big improvement over last year. Somehow, that gets them into the playoffs.... That's the Wilpon plan, most of the time. Assemble a team that, on paper, could win 85, 86 games, and then hope for enough good luck to exceed those paper projections.

538.com predicts that the Nats will be the only team in the NL East to finish over .500. The site has the Mets and Phillies in a tie for second place, each team finishing with identical 79-83 records. The Mets are given a 1% chance of winning the WS.

I was thinking Jesse Duryea, 1891 Red Stockings. 77 IP, 62 ERA +, 1.63 WHIP, and gets himself arrested for using cocaine laced coca-cola to treat a toothache.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: 1970 was my first yearbook, a gift from a relative. I had no advance knowledge that I was about to receive it, and in that moment that I did, I think I might've been the happiest kid in the world. But for all of the warm sentimental value this yearbook holds to me, and the coverage of the Mets most amazin' season, I'm not convinced it should win this round, at least not as handily as most of you do. The design is cluttered and the triptych background doesn't work for me: the three panels don't have enough separation - they seem to melt into each other. I would've preferred just one background image, perhaps the now iconic mound hug including Ed Charles's dance of joy, but there were obviously plenty of pics to choose from. I'm voting almost entirely on design and aesthetics, and so I won't give much extra credit simply because the 1970 yearbook covers such an extremely historical season. Ofherwise, we might as well rank the yearbooks according to the previous seasons' W-L records and stipulate that the 1987's are the best and that the Mullin covers are the worst. Would you all say that the 2010 yearbook cover was terrific if it employed the 1970 design, with Bay and Francoeur among the Mets in the film strips and a three panel background scene that included Sheffield's 500th HR, opening day at the brand new stadium, Castillo's infamous ninth inning error or David Wright wearing his oversized Great Gazoo batting helmet? I changed my vote and gave it to the 1970 yearbook. Not that it'll have much of an impact on this battle. I'm still having internet problems here which is a story and a half. So I'm meanwhile using my smartphone for web access, and on that smaller screen, the yearbooks don't present as well. Condensed for a smartphone, the 1970 yearbook really suffers. The background photos lose much of their detail and look like pixel mush. I realized this when I took a lot at my real world copy, which presents much better in my hands. I'm still sticking, though, to my points about a) not giving extra credit to yearbooks based on the success of the seasons they represent. Which is different from acknowledging that the yearbooks need to do a good job of depicting the seasons they depict; and therefore that I'm not so sure that the 1970 design automatically rates as one of the best. Also, it's absolute murder typing posts on a smartphone. Every single word is a struggle.

Edgy MD wrote: Neither is quite sure what the story of the season is. Which is a shame, because years both had a story to tell. Which season story should a yearbook cover tell: the yearbook's season or the season before? I suppose it depends on the year.

NL Comeback Player of the Year.

1970 was my first yearbook, a gift from a relative. I had no advance knowledge that I was about to receive it, and in that moment that I did, I think I might've been the happiest kid in the world. But for all of the warm sentimental value this yearbook holds to me, and the coverage of the Mets most amazin' season, I'm not convinced it should win this round, at least not as handily as most of you do. The design is cluttered and the triptych background doesn't work for me: the three panels don't have enough separation - they seem to melt into each other. I would've preferred just one background image, perhaps the now iconic mound hug including Ed Charles's dance of joy, but there were obviously plenty of pics to choose from. I'm voting almost entirely on design and aesthetics, and so I won't give much extra credit simply because the 1970 yearbook covers such an extremely historical season. Ofherwise, we might as well rank the yearbooks according to the previous seasons' W-L records and stipulate that the 1987's are the best and that the Mullin covers are the worst. Would you all say that the 2010 yearbook cover was terrific if it employed the 1970 design, with Bay and Francoeur among the Mets in the film strips and a three panel background scene that included Sheffield's 500th HR, opening day at the brand new stadium, Castillo's infamous ninth inning error or David Wright wearing his oversized Great Gazoo batting helmet?

.468 OPS this Spring, for whatever you think that's worth. On hitting alone, he doesn't even deserve to be in the major leagues. But he's good enough for the NL franchise from New York City.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The design on the Revised 1990 looks very 1980s. WTF with the green? Is the photo crop supposed to be a sideways home plate? Who the hell approved this? I think Jeff Wilpon designed that ugly cover.

Vic Sage wrote: Some bad and unnecessary 21st century remakes of great movies: BEDAZZLED (00) SHAFT (00) PLANET OF THE APES (01) ROLLERBALL (02) MR. DEEDS (02) THE IN-LAWS (03) THE LADYKILLERS (04) MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (04) ALFIE (04) LONGEST YARD (05) BAD NEWS BEARS (05) CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (05) THE PRODUCERS (05) THE WICKER MAN (06) ALL THE KINGS MEN (06) THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (08) THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (09) FAME (09) THE KARATE KID (10) ARTHUR (11) CONAN (11) STRAW DOGS (11) THE LONE RANGER (13) SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY (13) CARRIE (13) ROBOCOP (14) POLTERGEIST (15) BEN-HUR (16) MAGNIFICENT 7 (16) DEATH WISH (17) I was about to write that I must have great taste because I haven't seen a single one of these movies. But I just remembered that I gave The Ladykillers a shot, mainly because I can't watch a British movie that isn't subtitled. British is like a foreign language to me. It might as well be Swahili to me.

Buddy trapped inside of a huge net was prophetic symbolism

Balanced article on Matt Harvey linked below. https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/3/21/17147184/matt-harvey-new-york-mets-washed-injury-starting-pitcher