batmagadanleadoff

The guy who I think is the Mets First Half MVP isn't on the list. But if it's the MVP of position players only, then I'd go with Cespedes.

Edgy MD wrote: Can we get a UMDB daiquiri with regard to who are the all-time leaders in RBI against the Mets in a single season? I would bet Daniel's fellow ex-Met Dave Kingman 1979 is the leader, but I'd also expect Muffy to be pretty close. Hank Aaron, 28. 1962.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: How dumb are they? The Mets are so dumb that ___________ _____________ _____________ _____________.

How dumb are they?

Which Mets? I know at least one Met is a dumb motherfucker. [youtube:62gu6l7q]6tqXaz5bD4Q[/youtube:62gu6l7q]

Speaking of things that aren't done until they're done, the NFL channel is showing classic games. I wasn't intending to watch any of this the other day, but I was channel surfing and caught the end of one those games. It caught my interest because it was, naturally, a great game. And it went down to the wire. And I happened to catch like the last 5 minutes of game time. Anyways, so now there's like 10 seconds left in the game and even though the score is close, the team ahead has possession of the ball. This was a Raiders playoff game from the '70s, I forgot to mention. So there's time for one more play, and the Raiders, on the last play, with the lead, in a playoff game no less, elimination ferchrissakes, run a power sweep. They don't sit on the ball. There's no victory formation. What? Before Joe Pisarcik, no one thought of the victory formation? Now that's fucking dumb!

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'm starting to think that re-signing Murphy is something about which Alderson should have thought a little harder. [fimg=444]http://travelwithagingparents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/winner-winner.gif[/fimg] We'll have to look it up, but my guess is most people here were ok with Murph moving on. If I remember correctly, I was OK with Murphy going unless it would turn out that his end of last season newfound skill-set was for real and not just randomness.

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'm starting to think that re-signing Murphy is something about which Alderson should have thought a little harder. [fimg=444]http://travelwithagingparents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/winner-winner.gif[/fimg] We'll have to look it up, but my guess is most people here were ok with Murph moving on. Not anymore. And Sandy's supposed to know better than us.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'm starting to think that re-signing Murphy is something about which Alderson should have thought a little harder. [fimg=444]http://travelwithagingparents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/winner-winner.gif[/fimg]

[fimg=444:oa7kvbnt]https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8791/27567170663_f6be426878_o.jpg[/fimg:oa7kvbnt]

Nobody is saying Werth has to go out of his way to avoid Walker. He just can't go out of his way to hit him. And that's exactly what he did. I feel like this image shows it clearly. When you slide feet first, you point your feet at your target. The reason is simple. Your feet arrive first. It maximizes the chance that you will be safe. No one who is trying to beat out a force play will intentionally slide several feet to the left of the bag, then touch the base with their hand as they pass by. This is a foolish way to reach a base. The only reason to slide in this asinine manner contact with the fielder. (That's why you don't see this slide anywhere else.) And that is what Werth was trying to do. His feet are pointed at Walker, and not second base. It's interference. If he legitimately was intending to slide into second base, his feet would have touched the front of second base and he would have stopped somewhere around the bag. Certainly within arm's length of it. Walker, who was behind the bag and to the left, would not be a factor in his slide. All of these points that you make here are toatally irrelevant. The rule says nothing about what you claim, including sliding to the side of the bag. Also, the rule doesn't ban contact with the fielder. In fact, the rules, which you posted, state the following: A runner who engages in a "bona fide slide" shall not be called for interference under this Rule 6.01, even in cases where the runner makes contact with the fielder as a consequence of a permissible slide. The runner also has rights. He has a right to the base. He has a right to get out of the way of the oncoming throw and has the right to choose how to get out of the way of that throw in order to avoid getting hit in the head with that throw. You're making up things and concerns that aren't expressed anywhere in the rules. Also, Werth is allowed to point his feet at the fielder. In fact, Werth is allowed to overslide the base and come into foot contact with Walker, so long as Werth doesn't raise or elevate his feet to make that contact, and so long as Werth is theoretically able to maintain hand contact with the base. It's in the rules.

Ceetar wrote: It keeps a runner from just barreling over the base and taking out the fielder behind it. What does? What is "it"?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think you are missing the gist of the rule. I agree that in nearly every takeout slide there is a possibility that a runner attempts to contact the bag, but is not able to. The rule is stating you cannot have takeout slides any more. (Directed at batmags) You're just stating the conclusion. I think I'm losing the nuances of this argument. My point is this. Jayson Werth was not sliding to get to second base. He was sliding at Neil Walker with the intent to disrupt his throw. The path he took clearly demonstrates this. Therefore it's interference. A player trying to slide to a base, that attempts (and can) stay on the base does not aim his feet at a fielder then reach back with his hand to touch the bag in passing. Well then the rule permitting the runner to maintain base contact with his hand is meaningless. Jayson Werth should be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants to do slide-wise so long as his slide is within the rules. He was called for interference, I take it, because he slid so far past the bag that he could no longer maintain base contact no matter how hard he tried. He wasn't called for interference because the umps determined -- after getting into Werth's head -- that Werth was trying to disrupt Walker's throw.

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: I think you are missing the gist of the rule. I agree that in nearly every takeout slide there is a possibility that a runner attempts to contact the bag, but is not able to. The rule is stating you cannot have takeout slides any more. (Directed at batmags) You're just stating the conclusion. I think I'm losing the nuances of this argument. My point is this. Jayson Werth was not sliding to get to second base. He was sliding at Neil Walker with the intent to disrupt his throw. The path he took clearly demonstrates this. Therefore it's interference. A player trying to slide to a base, that attempts (and can) stay on the base does not aim his feet at a fielder then reach back with his hand to touch the bag in passing. Well then the rule permitting the runner to maintain base contact with his hand is meaningless.

Is Colon the oldest pitcher all-star ever? Oldest all-star ever?

Edgy MD wrote: It would turn the game into a farce if he got a chance to bat. DO IT, TERRY! Maybe Terry'll start Colon, too.

Centerfield wrote: I think you are missing the gist of the rule. I agree that in nearly every takeout slide there is a possibility that a runner attempts to contact the bag, but is not able to. The rule is stating you cannot have takeout slides any more. (Directed at batmags) You're just stating the conclusion.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think the rule merely requires the possibility of contact with the bag, not actual real contact. Werth couldn't meet any of those two tests in any event. This is a technicality. Name me a situation where a guy is able to, and attempts to, touch the bag and doesn't actually contact the bag. The Werth play is a perfect example because Werth, already having been forced out, has no need to maintain actual contact with the base. And since most takeout slides occur where the double play is in play, I'd say that in almost every takeout slide at second base, there's the possibility that the runner attempts to, touch the bag and doesn't actually contact the bag.

seawolf17 wrote: And Bartolo! https://twitter.com/Mets/status/751492975964876801 Get outta here!

Centerfield wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: well he's out, so no, he walks away. But he has to be able to, which means he has to stop moving. I guess he could pop up and just keep going to the dugout. if you're ABLE to stay on the bag, and you ATTEMPT to stay on the bag, then you're on the bag. Werth was not able to stay on the bag. Why would Werth want to stay on the bag being that he was forced out? Again, I think the rule only requires that Werth make a slide that would allow him to touch the base should he decide to want to touch the base. That is absolutely, positively not what the rule states. I think it does and I disagree with you on this point. Werth didn't have to be on the bag at the end of the play for his slide to be legal. Werth simply had to be able to be in contact with the bag. I think he was called for interference because at the end of his slide he was physically unable to be in contact with the base. I think the rule merely requires the possibility of contact with the bag, not actual real contact. Werth couldn't meet any of those two tests in any event.

dinosaur jesus wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: All of your stills are not where the play concluded. Watch the replay here at the 29 second mark. You can see how far past the bag he is when he finishes sliding. Also no one that is trying to get to second aims their feet three feet wide of the bag. But he's allowed to slide past the bag. And he's allowed to slide three feet wide of the bag so long as he can touch the base with his hand. So long as he can touch it after completion of the slide. Here's where he was at that point. He's not even close to being able to touch it. OK. I see it now. Werth's slide carried him too far past the bag for him to even possibly maintain contact with the base, whether by hand or foot.

Centerfield wrote: All of your stills are not where the play concluded. Watch the replay here at the 29 second mark. You can see how far past the bag he is when he finishes sliding. Also no one that is trying to get to second aims their feet three feet wide of the bag. But he's allowed to slide past the bag. And he's allowed to slide three feet wide of the bag so long as he can touch the base with his hand.

RULE 6.01(j) — SLIDING TO BASES ON DOUBLE PLAY ATTEMPTS If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play, he should be called for interference under this Rule 6.01. A "bona fide slide" for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs when the runner: (1) begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base; (2) is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot; (3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; and (4) slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder. See photo just above. I don't see what portion of the rule Werth violated.

I'll tell you something else: The Mets re-signing of Reyes is another sign that this is more Jeff's and less Fred's team. eff Wilpon would have no part of this version of Jose Reyes. Jeff ain't taking the side of the Leigh Castergines, I'll tell you that.