batmagadanleadoff

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I can't get over how adorably excited Conforto was in the dugout. God, these guys are so young. So far, it's the rookie show, huh?

I don't know that I was opposed to it either, but I do remember going to Shea that first year of the apple and mocking it with my friends.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: 52 years old and totally on Team Apple. From day one?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'd venture to say that any apple unlove that's out there is exclusively the province of Met fans older than, say, 50. I literally don't know a soul firsthand who dislikes it. Hah! I don't say that I unlove the apple, but it did take a few years for it to grow on me. Your demographics are spot on.

http://grantland.com/

[fimg=744:18rbnxrp]http://36.media.tumblr.com/6a6e0002ab73b694ff4330bb6afd1218/tumblr_nx1a1itaU61qz50r6o1_1280.jpg[/fimg:18rbnxrp] �Luke Gasparre, 91, has been an usher for the @mets since Shea Stadium opened in 1964. �Back then, the team was so bad, a lot of people gave up their seats,� he recalled. �They said, �If I wanted to see clowns, I�d go to the circus.� But I told them, �Just have hope, and someday we�ll pull through.� And sure enough, look where we are now.� At his age, Luke is the team�s oldest usher. He has become a fixture at #CitiField stadium the way he was for decades at Shea. Tonight, when the @mets return to New York to play the @kcroyals in #Game3 of the @mlb #WorldSeries, Luke will be standing in his usual spot, taking tickets and leading fans to their seats. @michaeldappleton photographed Luke at home in Queens. #?� By nytimes on Instagram. http://infosnack.net/post/132208035084/luke-gasparre-91-has-been-an-usher-for-the

[fimg=333:3bid5bvo]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/698/22611503992_946037b7e1_o.jpg[/fimg:3bid5bvo] [fimg=333:3bid5bvo]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5770/22601237096_fd42cd008d_o.jpg[/fimg:3bid5bvo]

It's the rookie Conforto who's seemingly the only player on the field that knows to run straight through first base.

Another clean blow. The Mets can score four runs in nine seconds.

It's 3-2 but it feels like the Mets are down by five. That's because the Royals offense is drawn out torture while the Mets homer you to death -- one clean blow.

Can you believe the luck these Royals are having? A botched double play. A fucking slow motion bowling ball roller that Syndergaard can't sccop up. A passed ball. A soft broken bat single and I lost track of how many strikes went as balls.

One good thing about a Mets-Royals WS is that you can be sure there'll be Joe Posnanski pieces throughout the series that you'll have more than a casual interest in reading. Even though, you know ... excerpt: KANSAS CITY � Long after this exhilarating and extraordinary and exhausting World Series game ended, the huge video board in center field at Kauffman Stadium flashed a message again and again and again. �Royals WIN!� it blared. Then there was a blinding yellow light. �Royals WIN!� it said again. More blinding light. �Royals WIN!� It was as if the video board was trying to convince itself that it actually happened that way. The Royals lost Game 1 of the World Series to the New York Mets many times on Tuesday night. They lost it when two-time Gold Glove first baseman Eric Hosmer could not decide whether to charge or back off a chopping groundball. They lost it when their No. 3 hitter Lorenzo Cain inexplicably tried to bunt the tying run from second base to third with nobody out. They lost it when manager Ned Yost decided to pinch run for the team�s best slugger Kendrys Morales, leaving the team with the punchless Jarrod Dyson in the middle of the lineup. They lost it when the Mets sent their unhittable pitcher with his Hollywood name � Jeurys Familia � to close things out. The Royals lost it and lost it, but in the end, as, the video board boomed, �Royals WIN!� because � well � they did. There�s a story about Stanley Ketchel, a staggeringly tough early 20th century boxer who was murdered a few hours up the road in a farm town called Conway, Mo. When his manager and New York man-about-town Billy Mizner was told that Ketchel had been killed, he shrugged. �Tell �em to start counting to 10,� Mizner said. �He�ll get up.� So it goes with these Royals. They kept losing the game but every time the Mets started counting to 10 � the Royals got up. [***] The finality trebled in the bottom of the inning when the Royals failed to score the tying run after Ben Zobrist�s double. The key at-bat in there was Cain�s; the Royals No. 3 hitter decided to bunt Zobrist over even though he has not had a successful sacrifice bunt in almost 2,000 career regular season at-bats. In a way, this reflected the pure unselfishness of this team � the Royals did not ASK Cain to give himself up, he did so on his own. In another way, though, it reflected a strategic void that so often is part of the Kansas City story. The bunt there is a terrible move for any number of fairly obvious reasons. Cain failed twice to get down the bunt, putting himself into a deep hole, and then he struck out. Hosmer followed with a feeble strikeout, continuing his agony and seemingly inextricable path to Game 1 goat. Two batters later, with the Royals still threatening, the Mets put in the indomitable Familia, who coaxed a sickly ground ball that ended the inning. Now there was only the ninth, and Familia had not given up a run in the entire postseason. He had not blown a save of any kind in more than two months. The Mets were counting to 10 and had reached seven or eight. Alex Gordon is the one player who remembers. He more than remembers: He lived the nightmare that was Kansas City baseball a few years ago. He was called up to Kansas City in 2007 to be a savior. The Royals did not put it in those terms, of course, but what else could he be? Gordon was the game�s best prospect AND he was a Midwestern boy who swung the bat like Royals legend George Brett (his brother had been named for Brett) AND he was joining a Royals team that had lost 100 games three years in a row. He might as well have had �Savior� written on the back of his jersey. He seemed exactly the type to handle it. Gordon had a confidence about him, a sense of his own place in the world, and that year just about every baseball analyst in the country predicted he would win the Rookie of the Year Award and lead the way to a moderately better Royals future. Two months into that first season, Gordon was hitting .172 and playing a frightened third base and there was an almost awestruck reaction to it all, something that might be loosely translated to mean: �Wow, the Royals are SO bad they even broke Alex Gordon.� It took a long while for Gordon to find his way. He had to leave third base for left field, where he would become a transcendent defender. He had to figure out how to compensate for a giant hole in his aesthetically beautiful swing, and he became one of the game�s great mistake hitters. He had to accept his place not as a dazzling star who makes all the magazine covers but as a quietly wonderful player who does all the little things at the plate, on the bases and in the field that are so easily overlooked. When he stood in the on-deck circle in the bottom of the ninth inning, he studied Familia. He had never faced the man and, to his recollection, had never even seen him pitch. He knew the situation. He was the Royals� last, best hope. Royals catcher Salvador Perez, who was at the plate, had been so beaten up this whole postseason that he surely had nothing left to give. The man who followed Gordon, Paulo Orlando, was a 29-year-old rookie who had come in as a replacement. The game rested with Gordon and Gordon alone. He watched Familia quick-pitch Perez and took special note of it. Hall of Fame pitcher Warren Spahn once said, �Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing.� Nothing upsets timing more for a hitter than not expecting the pitch. After Perez grounded out, Gordon stepped into the batter�s box fully determined to be ready if Familia quick pitched him. read it all at http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/keeping-it-realm/

Mets Owners Sell 200 W Adams for $168M Chicago Office Oct 28, 2015 Chuck Sudo, Bisnow CHI The Mets may have lost a heartbreaker in Game 1 of the World Series last night, but the team's owners still woke up winners this morning. A [joint venture] led by Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz sold 200 W Adams to an Oregon developer for $200M. Wilpon and Katz's company, Sterling Equities, and Lincoln Property bought the 32-story building for $113.8M in 2006. The sale to Gerling Elden Development marks a 50% return on the JV's investment, according to Crain's. That return would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Wilpon and Katz faced a potential loan default on the property and lawsuits filed by investors who lost money through Bernard Madoff's Ponzi schemes. The sale is the latest nine-figure deal in the CBD and keeps Chicago's year-to-date office sales on pace to shatter the record $5.3B set in 2006. [Crain's] Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/office/oregon-developer-buys-200-w-adams-for-168m-51645?utm_source=CopyShare&utm_medium=Browser https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/office/oregon-developer-buys-200-w-adams-for-168m-51645

Zvon wrote: Those have orange pull strings. AHHHHH, I need two now! The oranges are sold out. You can still get contrasting or secondary color drawstrings for every team -- but not the Mets. I wanted the orange strings, too.

Zvon wrote: I like that hoodie. I need me that hoodie. [fimg=733]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/651/22594557185_ebbdda1f99_o.jpg[/fimg]

Looking Past the World Series, Are the Mets Still Broke? By Joe DeLessio Follow @joedelessio One of the things that's made the Mets' run to the World Series so remarkable is that they've done it while operating under the self-imposed payroll constraints that have kept them from spending like the big-market team they are. The Mets' owners had hundreds of millions of dollars invested with Bernie Madoff before his Ponzi scheme collapsed, and in recent years the team's finances have loomed over virtually everything the club has done. But could a run to the World Series change all that? To get a sense of the financial challenges still facing the team, earlier this week Daily Intelligencer emailed Howard Megdal, a journalist and author of the book Wilpon's Folly, about whether they're truly moving past Madoff, how much this World Series appearance might help, and whether they'll be able to afford to bring back Yoenis C�spedes. Fortune made the case recently that the Mets have moved on from the Madoff situation by making "savvy financial decisions, often galling but necessary." Is that a fair narrative, or is it too optimistic? So, that story missed the forest for the trees, I'm afraid. Mets spending hasn't been affected by the Madoff suit very much, and not at all since the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, Irving Picard, agreed to a hardship settlement with them in March 2012 which guaranteed that they'd be personally liable for a maximum of $29 million. So that number coming down isn't the issue. What's limited team spending is the interest on the more than $700 million in debt against the team and SNY, the sports network Sterling (the parent company) owns 65 percent of, plus the twice-annual debt-balloon payments against the Citi Field bonds � that comes to roughly what the St. Louis Cardinals spend on payroll every year. So Mets ownership has needed to find that money first, and the team comes second. It's been noted that certain things outside of the team's control (Jenrry Mej�a's suspension, David Wright's insurance policy) helped free up some money mid-season. But looking ahead to the next couple of years, how hamstrung are they likely to be because of their finances? Is there any one thing in particular that worries you, or is it more a combination of factors? Well, the thing to be concerned about is the debt didn't go anywhere. It's still there � the owners just refinanced and combined the $250 million due against the team in 2014 and the $600 million-plus due against the network in 2015, and tied them together in due date. And while Josh Kosman over at the Post reported the interest rate is "lower," just how much lower is key. Few I've spoken to think it is much lower, especially if they didn't pay down any of it. Since that's been the issue hamstringing spending, the fact that it remains is a huge problem. Nor are the debt-balloon payments against the stadium going anywhere, either: They run until December 2045. So until the Mets owners prove they are capable of spending despite that annual debt financing, it is a concern. A deep playoff run can mean millions of dollars the team wouldn't have otherwise had. How far can that go toward putting them in a place where they can spend like a real big-market club? Or might it not even go toward payroll? Well, that's the huge question, which I wrote about last month: Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz made this incredible statement that never works � come to the park, and then we'll spend money. Except, incredibly, it happened � the attendance went way up, and the Mets have tens of millions of dollars they didn't have or had reason to believe they'd have on August 1. Then again, if you take it as the $45 million Kosman reports the Mets expect the extra revenue to be, well, that's a couple of Citi Field bond payments. Will the Mets' ownership use the extra money to give themselves a little financial breathing room? Pay down some debt? Or will they use the money on the team, as promised? Considering they've made similar promises for years, you'll only know they are spending that money on the team once it actually happens. But don't mistake the extra money this year for the idea that the Mets/SNY were, in total, a money-losing operation. The Mets have the TV cash coming in everybody else in baseball does, and then some � they started cashing in earlier, thanks in part, again, to a big loan from Bernie Madoff. They've just been siphoning off that revenue since Madoff went bust to keep the parent company afloat, the kind of thing that should bother MLB but so far hasn't. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the Mets would like to bring back Yoenis C�spedes, and that money will be the deciding factor. Right now, how likely do you think it is that he'll be a Met in 2016? Would the outcome of the World Series make a difference? I think the extent to which the Mets have been noncommittal or worse on C�spedes publicly isn't a great sign, nor is the team's track record on large purchases since the day Bernie Madoff and their liquidity went poof in the night. Then again: Has anything Mets-related since the day Wilmer Flores wasn't traded happened the way it used to? It's why you're seeing so many Wilpon stories right now. People are tired of it. I'm as tired of it as anyone. And it's appealing to think everything has changed in Mets land. Too bad Daniel Murphy home runs don't pay down debt. They just make Daniel Murphy more expensive. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/postworld-series-are-the-mets-still-broke.html#

Are The Royals Really This Much Better Than The Mets? 3:15 PMOct 29, 2015 A FiveThirtyEight Chat Today is an off day for the Kansas City Royals and New York Mets, but not for us. As the teams traveled to New York City to resume the World Series on Friday with the Royals leading by two games to none, ESPN.com editor and writer Christina Kahrl joined FiveThirtyEight�s biggest baseball obsessives from her Kansas City hotel to look ahead to Game 3. As usual, the transcript below has been lightly edited. Carl Bialik, lead news writer: Welcome, baseball fans! Historically, five out of six teams down two games to none in a best-of-seven series go on to lose. Can the Mets be the one out of six? Is there anything you see that makes that look likely? Neil Paine, senior sportswriter: Well, according to ESPN Stats & Info, the last time the Mets were outscored by exactly seven runs in the first two games of a World Series was in 1986, and we know what happened then. (But seriously, they are in deep trouble.) Christina Kahrl, ESPN.com editor and writer: Hrm. 1986: John McNamara, Red Sox manager and a model manager if tactical passivity is your thing. 2015: Ned Yost, Royals manager and a model manager if tactical passivity is your thing. I�m sensing a trend. Nate Silver, editor in chief: Well, the Mets are playing at home. They probably have the best of the starting pitching matchups in Games 3 and 4, especially with Chris Young coming into Game 4 with some extra mileage on his arm. Harry Enten, senior political writer: Let me offer this piece of hope for the Mets (because, as Neil notes, they are in trouble): The Royals are hitting at about their average through the small sample size of two games (.721 OPS vs .734 in the regular season), while the Mets are hitting quite below their average (.432 vs. .712 in the regular season). Neil: Yeah, perhaps one ray of sunshine is that the Mets were ?this close? to getting a split in KC, if Jeurys Familia doesn�t make that one mistake. And that was with Mets bats underperforming. Harry: And then, surely Yost is bound to cost the Royals. Right?! Right?! Christina: Actually, the thing you can say for Yost is that, a little like Tony La Russa in 2011 or Bruce Bochy in any World Series, he�s been working with what he�s got this postseason. Chris Young probably won�t have to face the Mets a third time through the order, he�ll be out and the Mets will be dealing with Kris Medlen or Danny Duffy in the middle innings. Harry: Christina, you mentioned that Yost wouldn�t stick with Chris Young. The Mets bullpen is so weak that they had to bring in Jon Niese again in Game 2. And while it worked for one inning, it killed them in that second inning. Carl: The starting-pitching matchups look good for the Mets on paper, and it does seem like the Mets bats are due to regress upward (progress?). So to what extent do we say the first two games were fluky, and to what extent do we reconsider our assessment of the two teams? Is Thor�s fastball advantage neutralized because of what we�ve seen Royals bats do to fastballs in the first two games? Nate: The prior for anything that happened in a two-game series is pretty much ?always? that it was random. These are two fairly evenly matched baseball teams. The coin came up heads twice. There were some interesting strategic decisions in Game 1: I think Yost was smart to bring in Chris Young, for instance, and the Mets might have been better off with Steven Matz or Thor in the game. But basically, this stuff is random. Also, I�m in the Ned-Yost-is-not-a-moron camp. He�s actually pretty laissez-faire, other than using his bullpen fairly aggressively. There are a lot of worse things to be. Christina: The Mets pen � and Terry Collins�s remarkably retro usage pattern of his relievers, because he just hasn�t done the situational specialist thing with a guy like lefty Sean Gilmartin all year � is not really a significant asset. It makes for some interesting stuff to speculate about as far as the aggregate value of a skipper, as Nate just pointed out. Dave Schoenfield and I were both scratching our heads about the decision to pull Niese as quickly as he was pulled in Game 1; he looked great, and if the alternative is feeding Bartolo Colon to that lineup � Nate: The Niese decision also strikes me as having been dumb. Someone out there needs to put together a primer on extra-inning bullpen strategy; teams sometimes seem to forget that the average extra inning starts with a leverage index of 2.0 or so. Carl: Part of the fun of a 14-inning Game 1 was how it generated so many tactical decisions we could debate afterward. We know from more than just the last two games that KC�s bullpen > Mets� bullpen, as Christina mentioned. Were you surprised Yost left Johnny Cueto in for all nine innings in Game 2? How important is it to rest a bullpen after an epic game? And Neil, any evidence Yost and Collins aren�t headed for the Hall of Mediocrity you�ve written about? Christina: I�d also put myself in the �Ned knows what he�s doing� camp. Is it more sort of a Burt Shotton thing, where he�s pretty easygoing? Yes. Are people over-freaked on his sporadic bunting? Yes � the Royals got just 32 sacrifice bunts from non-pitchers this year, which ranked sixth in the AL, behind the smart guys in Cleveland and Toronto, among others. Harry: Soon enough, Yost will be wearing a bow tie in the dugout. Neil: FWIW, I think both managers have squeezed a lot out of their talent this year. For Yost, this is part of a two-year pattern, so there could be something there. Nate: One thing I�ve wondered about, Carl, is how leaving the pitcher in longer affects his next start. Cueto threw 122 pitches in a lopsided game. Is he 3 percent worse in Game 6 as a result? That�s not trivial, on the scale of these things. Maybe Yost was a little too laissez-faire in this case. Christina: I loved Yost�s decision to stick with Cueto, both for what it did for the rest of the pen, but also because it was an endorsement of sorts. Much as he had during his bad patch in August and September, Cueto seemed to struggle with slider location, but he nevertheless did a superb job of keeping the Mets guessing. And remember, he will get an extra day�s rest before his next start, if it ever comes. Neil: Right � maybe in that situation, you see the lead ballooning, so you know you�re on the verge of being up two games to none. The probability of needing another Cueto start goes down, but you can shield the weaker parts of the bullpen for later and simultaneously give Cueto that vote of confidence. Carl: Endgame strategies certainly take a new shape when they could be endseason strategies. Cueto might not throw another meaningful pitch until spring. Christina: I think my other big takeaway from Game 2 was that the Royals gave us a demonstration of one of the other important tactical factors that went into Terry Collins�s Game 1 lineup, which is that a bum wing handicaps Juan Lagares�s arm in center. With nobody aboard, no biggie, but it was part of the problem in that fifth inning. In that, you can feel badly for Collins � he �guessed� wrong in consecutive games, but he had good reasons both times for doing what he did, only to see the Royals exploit both options. Neil: Game 1 showed us what can happen with Yoenis Cespedes in center field. Christina: Exactly. Harry: It�s amazing how that cost the Mets not once but twice. If you look back at the highlight reels of Cespedes� great throws, he often boots it before firing out of his cannon, like he booted it in Game 1. Yet I think Johnny Damon may have a better arm than Juan L. (Kidding.) Nate: I�m still having nightmares of watching Kyle Schwarber in left field. Compared to him, Cespedes looks like Willie Mays out there. Neil: And, in fact, he made a Mays-esque catch last night. Carl: Will it help the Mets to return to the outfield they�re more familiar with? Are there any other ways home field might help? Nate: Citi Field is a quirkier ballpark than you might think � and, sure, it helps the Mets to know the outfield angles pretty well. But it�s also a park that suppresses run scoring, and that could make bullpen and endgame strategy more important, possibly to KC�s benefit. Christina: I wonder if the Royals won�t profit here, as well. The Mets don�t really �do� the situational lefty thing, so the Royals could stack their lefties in the lineup even without Kendrys Morales and not have to worry too much about an in-game tactical penalty. I mean, Alex Gordon batting eighth is � simultaneously silly from our point of view, perhaps, but a reflection of how deep that lineup is in terms of not having one or two guys you can blow away handily. Neil: Also, home-field advantage probably shows up in how the umps call the strike zone as anywhere else. And the Mets need strikeouts. They need to avoid putting KC in hitter�s counts. (Then again, there isn�t much strike-zone home-cooking can do about allowing first-pitch contact.) Harry: The Royals have struck out just 10 times compared to the Mets� 19 through two games. The Mets starting-pitching speciality is pitching the fast ball. Thor, who throws the fastest of any of the starters, is going in Game 3. This is not good. But then again, they play the game for a reason. Christina: Alcides Escobar: Positively ump-proof. Carl: We�ve praised the Royals lineup for handling the Mets heat so well. Why haven�t the Mets been able to hit for the last 16 innings or so? They obviously miss the home-run-a-game pace Murphy couldn�t sustain (to no one�s surprise), but what about everyone else? I mean, when a Lucas Duda infield single is about as good as it gets � Harry: Duda is hitting .444 (or 4 for 9) this series. Every other Met who started both games is hitting .222 or lower. My goodness. Christina: I can totally see a situation where Thor gives the Mets a great six innings, and maybe that�s enough to win with some run support. But the Royals are even better at making good contact against lefties, so I�m not wild about Matz�s chances if that makes the Mets defense a factor again. Harry: Matz has not been very good this postseason. Yes, he hasn�t given up the long ball, but his WHIP is 1.45. I mean, he just doesn�t strike people out. But that may actually be a good thing given the Royals can�t be struck out. But as Christina points out, you can forget about the Mets if they don�t start hitting. That�s their problem right now. I don�t care if you have Sal Maglie going in Games 3 and 4; you don�t hit, you don�t win. Christina: I also wonder if we weren�t oversold on Michael Conforto. His homer against Zack Greinke earlier this month is no small thing, but he fattened up on teams like the Phillies after his call-up. Cespedes is a notorious streak hitter; if tomorrow is the start of a hot streak, he could change up this source of concern in no time flat. And it is supposed to be warmer in New York than it was here in K.C., which ought to help. Nate: One theme I�m picking up in several threads here is that the Royals, top to bottom, are a really hard team to exploit. Which, if you�re into game theory and all that, is one hallmark of having a highly effective strategy. Harry: Here�s another question: How many runs has the Mets defense cost them? At least the first and last runs of Game 1. Beating a team that puts the ball in play like the Royals likely requires a good defense. The Mets defense has been �meh.� Christina: Murphy costs you every time out there; he�s just not a good second baseman. Add that to Wilmer Flores�s inadequacy at short, and it�s hard to see the defense conjuring up anything like a Goins-Tulo ballet on the double play to save somebody�s bacon. Harry: Such a change from the �99 Mets. Neil: Yet the Royals� offensive batting average on balls in play hasn�t been notably great in the series as a whole. (Even if you count that Escobar inside-the-park home run as a �ball in play.�) The Mets haven�t been great situationally on defense, though � they�ve often had their struggles in bunches. Which goes to something KC has done all year: sequencing, bunching hits, etc. Carl: The Mets are struggling at pitching, fielding and hitting; the Royals are looking like a team with no exploitable weaknesses after being two innings from elimination against the Astros. Most sports books have the Royals as 1-4 favorites. Would you take those odds? And how many games do you think we have left in this series? Harry: I would bet on the Mets at those odds because they are a better team than they have shown so far. Now, maybe they end up dropping the next two. It�s happened before. But the pre-series statistics showed the Royals and Mets to be pretty even. If you assume each game is a tossup, then the Mets have a 25 percent chance to win both of the next two games. It�s probably a little higher at home. Then who knows in a best-of-three? Christina: I think if the Mets win Game 3, things get interesting, because I don�t know if anybody knows what to expect from Edinson Volquez in a Game 5. Carl: Yes, when Volquez was last pitching, in Game 1, he hadn�t heard the awful news that his father died just before the game. It�s uncharted territory for Kansas City and for Fox, which didn�t mention it on air until Volquez knew, at the Royals� request. Christina: Indeed. Plus two flights to/from the Dominican Republic for Volquez, and what that does to a body. That�s where we just have to sit and watch, but how much Game 4 is won (or lost) by the Royals pen could be a factor in Game 5. Neil: I think about 4-to-1 odds of a Mets comeback make sense. I think the Royals probably win in 6 now. Christina: I�d subscribe to that line of thought, Neil. I can see the Mets winning two of three to get this back to K.C., but I still see this as a series the Royals ultimately win. Nate: I�ll take Mets in 11. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/are-the-royals-really-this-much-better-than-the-mets/

Strat-O-Matic predicts Mets win next four games of World Series Fear not, Met fans. A World Series title is still in the cards ? and dice. Terry Collins� team may be trailing the Royals, 2-0, as the series shifts to Citi Field Friday, but according to the folks at Strat-O-Matic, the Mets are right on schedule. Strat-O-Matic, whose statistic-based board game has kept baseball nerds hunkered down in their basements for hours on end since 1961, announced that it has played a Mets-Royals World Series simulation that saw the Mets drop the first two games but rally to win the next four � and their first world championship since 1986. According to the game-by-game summaries posted at Strat-O-Matic.com, the series will play out like this from here: The Mets will take Game 3, 3-2, behind seven �electric innings� from Noah Syndergaard; rookie Michael Conforto will crack the decisive longball in a 2-1 victory in Game 4; Matt Harvey will fire seven dominant innings in Game 5 to give the Mets a 2-0 decision and a sweep of the three contests Citi Field; and the Mets will prevail, 7-5, in a wild, 14-inning affair in Game 6 that will see Jeurys Familia start the eighth but stumble in an attempt to notch a six-out save. If you are doubting the reliability of Strat-O-Matic�s projections, keep in mind that the gaming gurus did predict Alex Gordon and Alcides Escobar would hit homers in Game 1 (although in the simulated game, we are left to assume that Escobar�s was not of the inside-the-park variety). And their projected 4-1 final score in Game 2 was right on target in the bottom of the eighth Wednesday night, until Kansas City broke it open. Then again, Strat-O-Matic also says David Wright (.171 average, 0 HR, 14 strikeouts in this postseason) will hit a three-run homer that will prove to be the game-winner on Friday night. Maybe these people should stick to board games after all. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/strat-o-matic-predicts-mets-win-4-games-world-series-article-1.2415801

After reading this thread, I realize that since the WS started I haven't worn this hoodie (below) at all. I bought it near the end of the regular season and I did get to wear it a few times during the remainder of the regular season, the NLDS and NLCS. But I haven't worn it in about a week. I have to do some supermarket shopping tomorrow and I think I'll put on the hoodies while I shop. I ain't superstitious but I do dig that hoodie.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Mets � Willets Point wrote: I just think the Royals are too good. They're practically unbeatable. I don't feel this way. I understand what it means to be down two games to none in a best of seven, and I know that the Mets have been outplayed so far, perhaps badly. But I don't necessarily think this'll automatically carry over to the following games (even though it might). It's just two games. It doesn't wipe out what the Mets, over the past two months or so, have shown they're capable of doing. Momentum is bullshit. Otherwise, the Royals would never lose another game and the Mets would never win another and by now, Cespedes would have already hit 85 homers for the Mets. It's not about momentum, it's about a team that is just clearly the best in baseball this season playing at their peak standing between the Mets and a championship. Get an 0-2 count? No matter they'll get a hit. They have a runner on base and two outs? You're not getting out of the inning without first surrendering a hit and RBI. Or two. Or three. Go into the 9th inning with a lead and your lights out pitcher on the mound? Doesn't matter. The Kansas City Royals are going to score and tie the game and eventually win. On the other the side the pitchers have so thoroughly scouted the Mets batters so that Chris Young becomes Greg Maddux. And if a Mets batter makes good contact the defense is there, perfectly positioned to get the ball and make an out. Every. Damn. Time. The Mets are a great team and they're doing their best. They've just encountered an unstoppable force. I don't see it that way. The only thing that's real here to me is that the Mets are down 2 games to none in a best of seven and that's enough of a hole to dig out of. But I don't get this Royals invulnerability thing. They lost 67 times during the regular season. They needed 14 innings to beat the Mets by a single run in the opener -- if that isn't essentially a coin flip, then nothing is. They won a coin flip in game one, that's what the Royals won. You might think otherwise because you can micro-analyze game one for hours on end, breaking the game down into innings, into plays, into pitches, into micro-minutiae and thus, coming up with reasons for the Royals one-run victory that you think are sustainable and repeatable and will impact every other game to the Royals advantage in the same way. You wouldn't analyze an actual coin-flip in that fashion, but two good teams matched up in a single game is a coin flip. This whole series is a series of coin flips. So even if the Royals truly are better, this wouldn't bear out in one or five games. And what is better? Does that mean that every Royals pitcher is better than every Mets pitcher? That the worst Royals hurler is better than the best Mets hurler? That all of a sudden, Syndergaard is no longer the hottest, most electric pitcher on either team over the past few weeks? I don't know how the series will end, but I'm pretty sure every other game will be unique and follow its own individual script .

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: That 7 train suddenly looks so old. Is that what the 7 train looked like in 2000? Time is flying. Ah, the World's Fair Redbirds. Yeah, they were phased out just after this time (2001 or 2002, IIRC). Train buff, you? Not SO much. I just remembered the retirement, and also, not too long ago, I read a kids' book about them to YoungerPooper, then got curious and did some more research. Ah! The World's Fair. Makes sense. Because when I wrote that that train looked old, I didn't mean that it looked old by today's standard, but that it looked old for 2000. It definitely looks like something out of the Wagner administration.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I just think the Royals are too good. They're practically unbeatable. I don't feel this way. I understand what it means to be down two games to none in a best of seven, and I know that the Mets have been outplayed so far, perhaps badly. But I don't necessarily think this'll automatically carry over to the following games (even though it might). It's just two games. It doesn't wipe out what the Mets, over the past two months or so, have shown they're capable of doing. Momentum is bullshit. Otherwise, the Royals would never lose another game and the Mets would never win another and by now, Cespedes would have already hit 85 homers for the Mets.

[fimg=404:3p9xp6hb]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5629/22694172661_f93ab90649_o.jpg[/fimg:3p9xp6hb]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: That 7 train suddenly looks so old. Is that what the 7 train looked like in 2000? Time is flying. Ah, the World's Fair Redbirds. Yeah, they were phased out just after this time (2001 or 2002, IIRC). Train buff, you?

Centerfield wrote: This is not good. I wonder if we have just seen the end of this series. The Mets look as overmatched as the Cubs. The Mets lost a squeaker Game #1 to Boston in '86 and then got blown out in Game #2.