batmagadanleadoff

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: It was a good solid baseball play. Sure, and if they pinch hit Eric Goeddel and he just went up there and shanked Clayton Kershaw, it would've been a good solid baseball play. Gets him out of the game. Eric is expendable. Mets might win the game against relievers. If by shanked, you mean, I dunno, Goeddel approaches the mound and knocks out Kershaw, that's moronic. That would be so beyond the pale of baseball, Kershaw would actually have grounds to sue Goeddel. That wouldn't be solid. It'd be obviously, unquestionably dirty, even if the Mets gained an edge. (But it'd be interesting to see). It's an exaggeration, but not much. but if you want to keep it along the 'pretend it's baseball' lines.. he could drag bunt down the first baseline and just barrel into Kershaw when he goes to field it. I'd need to know what the bunter's intent was before I could characterize your hypothetical. Intent is everything here. If the bunter's only intent was simply to try and get a hit or to bunt to advance a runner or runners, and the play simply unfolded the way you described it by happenstance, then the play wouldn't be dirty at all, and whether or not it was a solid baseball play would depend on the quality of its execution. OTOH, obviously, a batter who plans that bunt out ahead of time with the main purpose of positioning the opposing pitcher so that he's exposed to an injury that's supposed to look accidental or natural to the game would be executing a very dirty play. This is an easy one. I realize that gauging a player's intent isn't easy, and umps should never be in a position where their calls depend on how they perceive intent. It's not as reliable a method as we'd like it to be. An ump can't prove intent with a video review and an accused player, even one with bad intent will still always have plausible deniability because umps aren't mind readers. But umps still have to make those judgments all the time. It's unavoidable. They're always, for example, gauging a pitcher's intent when a pitch is too close for comfort, or decks the batter. But as I wrote in another post, I believe Utley when he said he didn't intend to injure Tejada. So to me, it was a solid play. Because under those playoff circumstances, I believe that almost every single player would've attempted to take out the second baseman. Tejada's injury is obviously unfortunate and, really, a terrible thing. But I'm not gonna factor Tejada's injury in deciding for myself whether or not the slide was dirty because Tejada's injury is a risk that's natural to the game he plays and Utley's intent shouldn't be based on Tejada's injury. It's not as if Utley pulled out a knife and stabbed Tejada in the eyeballs. It was a screwy play as everyone knows because the umps blew the interference call and Utley never touched the base but that's on the umps and the review system that's in place, not on Utley. The slide was clearly illegal. But not dirty. Utley likely played to the existing rules and the existing protocol and the way umps do things. Or don't do things. Interference isn't usually called, even when it ought to. So in my book, it was a solid play.

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: In 1978, Rose tied the NL-longest hit streak at 44 games at Shea, I believe. This. I was at the game. Holmes happened to be there because he worked for the Mets front office at the time. Holmes published a soft cover book around that time -- it was more like a small pamphlet -- on the art of hitting, or some batting tips book -- or something in that neighborhood. Holmes was pictured on the cover in his Mets uniform instead of in his playing days. I would like to see that picture. I found this picture on the web. This, if I remember, is the photo used for the cover of Holmes's book.

Frayed Knot wrote: The still quirky but less dumb stat of the day from out of the StL/CHC series. The 1986 Mets remain the last NL club to win 100 or more games AND win the WS that same year. 100+ has been reached 15 times since, including this season's 100-win Cardinals team, but none of those teams went on the win the WS 1) 1988 NYM - 100 wins, lost in NLCS 2 & 3) 1993 Braves - 104 wins, lost to PHI in NLCS -- also the SFG that same year who won 103 but didn't even qualify for the playoffs in that final non-WC year 4) 1997 Braves - 101 wins, lost to Marlins in NLCS 5 & 6) 1998 Braves - 106 wins, lost to SDP in NLCS -- also 102 win Astros who lost to SDP in NLDS 7 & 8) 1999 Braves - 103 wins, lost to NYY in WS -- also the 100 win DBacks who lost to the Mets in NLDS 9) 2002 Braves - 101 wins, lost to SFG in NLDS 10 & 11) 2003 Braves - 101 wins, lost to (88 win) Cubs in NLDS -- also the 100 win Giants who lost to Anaheim in the WS 12) 2004 Cardinals - 105 wins, lost to Boston in WS 13) 2005 Cardinals - 100 wins, lost to Houston in NLCS 14) 2012 Phillies - 102 wins, lost to StL in NLDS 15) 2015 Cardinals - 100 wins, lost to Cubs in NLDS No surprise here. That list is comprised almost entirely of wild card era teams. Just another reason why I can't stand expanded playoffs in baseball. It cheapens the season and the game. Did the commentators give any reason for why 100 win teams aren't winning the WS?

Zvon wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: In 1978, Rose tied the NL-longest hit streak at 44 games at Shea, I believe. This. I was at the game. Holmes happened to be there because he worked for the Mets front office at the time. Holmes published a soft cover book around that time -- it was more like a small pamphlet -- on the art of hitting, or some batting tips book -- or something in that neighborhood. Holmes was pictured on the cover in his Mets uniform instead of in his playing days.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It was a good solid baseball play. Sure, and if they pinch hit Eric Goeddel and he just went up there and shanked Clayton Kershaw, it would've been a good solid baseball play. Gets him out of the game. Eric is expendable. Mets might win the game against relievers. If by shanked, you mean, I dunno, Goeddel approaches the mound and knocks out Kershaw, that's moronic. That would be so beyond the pale of baseball, Kershaw would actually have grounds to sue Goeddel. [OE -- And the authorities might even arrest Goeddel and charge him with a crime. There'd be grounds.] That wouldn't be solid. It'd be obviously, unquestionably dirty, even if the Mets gained an edge. (But it'd be interesting to see).

[fimg=744:1u8o7ftb]https://metsinpeace.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ripken.jpg[/fimg:1u8o7ftb] You people don't think Utley's slide was a good solid baseball play? Then you're fucking nuts. Utley got away with it, because the illegal takeout slide is [crossout:1u8o7ftb]rarely[/crossout:1u8o7ftb] usually not ever called as interference. And Utley knew that, as did every baseball player. The Dodgers stole a game. Otherwise, this series would've been over days ago. The Mets would've swept. And today, they'd be resting and setting their pitching rotation for optimal use in the NLCS. Instead, they have to play an elimination game on the road against a rested Greinke and use deGrom, probably guaranteeing that deGrom won't get three NLCS starts should the Mets advance to the next round. It was a good solid baseball play. And, so far, the key play of this NLDS.

Lefty Specialist wrote: In 1978, Rose tied the NL-longest hit streak at 44 games at Shea, I believe. This is probably the game referred to up above. Rose broke Tommy Holmes then NL hit streak record at Shea. A big deal was made of it, with all kinds of hoopla, fanfare and special announcements. Everything but trumpets and trained elephants. Holmes was there also. So was I. Rose's streak was attracting huge national attention by then. That week, Rose's streak made the cover of Sports Illustrated -- the cover photo shot during that Reds @ Mets series. [fimg=444]http://aarontallent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Sports-Illustrated-Cover-on-Pete-Rose-Streak.jpg[/fimg]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Here's me in Lakeland, Florida, the last days of my major league baseball career, posing for what might be the only internet photo of me in a Tiger uniform. Hats off to you if you can figure out who I am. Who am I? [fimg=444]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/762/22116390052_e5710a48fe_o.jpg[/fimg] I woulda gotten more votes than Jack Heidemann for induction into the Mets Porn Star mustache Hall of Fame if only I'da thought to go 'stache during my Mets days. Well, hats off to Jack Heidemann. And Craig Swan. And Luis Rosado, I guess.

dinosaur jesus wrote: Keith called it late (after reviewing the play a few times), but IIRC stopped just sort of calling it dirty on Saturday's SNY post game show. He agreed with the rest of the (biased?) SNY team that the umps should have called a double play. Cool. Seems reasonable to me. Cool. Me and Keith see it the same way: illegal, but not dirty.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: you can search twitter for posts with images too. you could spring for mlb.tv and screencap stuff yourself too. There might be ways to get Getty Images accounts or the like as well. Why would I need mlb.tv (which I have, anyways)? Wouldn't that work for SNY games, too? Or TBS and TNT? well you can't watch SNY/TBS on your computer (well, I guess depending, most people can't though) and you need to be able to scroll back to freeze frame and capture, which you need mlb.tv for (though I guess now that I think about it, that wouldn't work for the Mets because they're still blacked out locally, not live anyway) Sometimes you can get decent pics just taking a photo of your television too. DVR/rewind. Oh, I see. You're talking about getting images off the computer while I was thinking about TV images. Well in that case, I don't have an online version of mlb.tv.

Kids say the darndest things.

Ceetar wrote: you can search twitter for posts with images too. you could spring for mlb.tv and screencap stuff yourself too. There might be ways to get Getty Images accounts or the like as well. Why would I need mlb.tv (which I have, anyways)? Wouldn't that work for SNY games, too? Or TBS and TNT?

Here's me in Lakeland, Florida, the last days of my major league baseball career, posing for what might be the only internet photo of me in a Tiger uniform. Hats off to you if you can figure out who I am. Who am I? [fimg=444:2t752th7]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/762/22116390052_e5710a48fe_o.jpg[/fimg:2t752th7]

It's always a good day for a Mets rout. If I wanted to bitch, though, I'd say that this series should be over and the Mets should be resting their starters and setting up their rotation to optimal advantage for the NLCS. Zvon: how do you get those pics so quickly? Are you getting them off of TV?

A Boy Named Seo wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Clean slides and breaking up DPs are not mutually exclusive terms. This, I get totally. I have trouble seeing Utley's slide as dirty because it's an extremely, extremely rare circumstance when the ump calls interference and enforces the automatic double play. The baserunner almost always gets away with that illegal slide. So if the umps essentially sanction that kind of slide -- which they absolutely do -- and you have a team like the Dodgers with their backs to the wall in a playoff game -- Utley's gonna make that play every single time. The odds are with him that the slide won't be flagged. And he got away with it in the end. Whatever punishment is meted out now will be a total joke in relation to what the Dodgers gained. So there's every incentive for Utley to make that play. Now I know that the slide is illegal. But dirty? Baseball, as it's enforced, essentially encourages that play. I have little anger towards Utley. It's with the umps, especially under Saturday' setting, where the injury and the replay review created a large stoppage in the game, enough for the umps to properly reflect on the play. I also wonder if at least one of the other six umps thought interference should have been called but refrained from discussing the play with the second base ump because of the protocol to defer to the ump who made the call. This, we'll probably never know. As I understand, even if all 6 umps thought it was interference after review, they still couldn't do anything about it because it's a judgement call, which is not reviewable anyway. That is dumb. I get that. They're bound by rules But I was wondering if, on the field, in real time, (not after the game) one of the other six umps thought interference should have been called. I think that the custom and practice among umps is that if the ump who made the call doesn't ask any of his colleagues for help, or for their opinions, the other umps stay out of it. I'm pretty sure that's how they operate but on the other hand, I have a vague and fuzzy memory of an ump making a bad call on one of those foul ball or Home Run plays and then one of the other umps stepped in to make the correct call. But again, I'm fuzzy on that one.

Frayed Knot wrote: Clean slides and breaking up DPs are not mutually exclusive terms. This, I get totally. I have trouble seeing Utley's slide as dirty because it's an extremely, extremely rare circumstance when the ump calls interference and enforces the automatic double play. The baserunner almost always gets away with that illegal slide. So if the umps essentially sanction that kind of slide -- which they absolutely do -- and you have a team like the Dodgers with their backs to the wall in a playoff game -- Utley's gonna make that play every single time. The odds are with him that the slide won't be flagged. And he got away with it in the end. Whatever punishment is meted out now will be a total joke in relation to what the Dodgers gained. So there's every incentive for Utley to make that play. Now I know that the slide is illegal. But dirty? Baseball, as it's enforced, essentially encourages that play. I have little anger towards Utley. It's with the umps, especially under Saturday' setting, where the injury and the replay review created a large stoppage in the game, enough for the umps to properly reflect on the play. I also wonder if at least one of the other six umps thought interference should have been called but refrained from discussing the play with the second base ump because of the protocol to defer to the ump who made the call. This, we'll probably never know.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Sliding hard into second base isn't "dirty". Sliding hard into a fielder who was not at the base: dirty. If Utley had made the same slide, in the same location, but Ruben escaped uninjured and still turned the double play, it would still have been a dirty slide, but nobody would have made an issue of it, because it wouldn't have mattered. That makes sense. But I think I've been watching this brand of baseball, at least in the playoffs, since I was a kid. In the playoffs, especially in a tight game, a player who doesn't try to break up the double play is gonna get murdered by his teammates in the locker room.

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Good quiz. Thanks. You got a thing against the '88 Mets?

] [crossout]Murphy 967[/crossout] 1 Stearns 695 2 Brooks 640 3 Hundley 612 4 Foster 602 5 Youngblood 519 [crossout]Duda 517[/crossout] 6 Henderson, S. 516 7 Kent 510 8 Kingman 509 9 Flynn 500 [crossout]Tejada 493[/crossout] 10 Hunt 474

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Rey McKevnolds? Another '88er.

d'Kong76 wrote: Dude's delusional... http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/10/los_angeles_dodgers_don_mattingly_gives_ludicrous.html This is ironic to me 'cause I was thinking the same as Mattingly yesterday. Here's another thing I thought of: What if Tejada had time to set up at second base, and so Murphy's feed went to second base, and as a result of all of this, Utley didn't have to veer off path and instead went straight for second base, where Tejada was properly set up, but otherwise, with the same slide as Saturday's, with the same force and intensity, resulting in the same collision and the same injury to Tejada? Only this time, the collision happened right over the base, Meaning Utley's slide was totally legal. Would that be a dirty play? Because honestly, I'm struggling to see Utley's actual slide as dirty. Here's another one: Would people be calling Utley's slide dirty if it was the same veered off path slide, leading to the same result, except that Tejada escaped uninjured?

] 1 [crossout]Murphy 967[/crossout] 1 Stearns 695 2 Brooks 640 3 Hundley 612 4 Foster 602 5 Youngblood 519 [crossout]Duda 517[/crossout] 6 Henderson, S. 516 7 Kent 510 8 .............? 9 Flynn 500 Tejada 493 10 Hunt 474 Castillo, Christopher, Huskey (not in the top 10)

Gwreck wrote: Angel Pagan 13th on this list. A lot higher than I would've figured.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: [crossout]Roger F. Cedeno[/crossout] nevermind, a 99 met '99 playoffs. Quirky internet. I didn't see your changes when I responded.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: [crossout]Roger F. Cedeno[/crossout] nevermind, a 99 met '99 playoffs.