batmagadanleadoff

Zvon wrote: Anyone here listening to Josh on the radio? He brought up a Met game vs the Cards that he said was a very important game and that's it's underrated by fans. He was talking about Matlack at the time, but also Gil Hodges. The reception was going in and out--was he referring to a game in 1969 or 1973? Or another year? I'm not watching or listening to this game. Since deGrom went down, I'm getting all my Mets info exclusively from this forum and Google. But Matlack played under Gil only in his pre-rookie season of 1971. I checked the google and Matlack pitched against the Cards twice that season -- 10 days apart -- on the 18th and 28th of July. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLN/SLN197107180.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN197107280.shtml

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I predict that we'll see advertising on baseball uniforms under the next commish. And if so, expect the Wilpons to go all in on that one, with a Pepsi or Citi logo as big as the numbers on the back of the uni. And two new expansion teams. WhaddamItalkinabout with the Pepsi and Citi? If the money's right, the Wilpons'll take it from Chico's Bail Bonds.

I predict that we'll see advertising on baseball uniforms under the next commish. And if so, expect the Wilpons to go all in on that one, with a Pepsi or Citi logo as big as the numbers on the back of the uni. And two new expansion teams.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Or maybe it's a sign that the book might not be worth reading. I bought Millan's book last year, I think. Still haven't gotten past page one.

Frayed Knot wrote: ... I also blame a good deal of my lack of interest on the wild card slots also introduced that year. To my way of seeing things, it cheapened the title considerably. I hate to say this, but I think that baseball is a deeply flawed sport because of the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game -- significantly more so than in any of the other major team sports I'm aware of. The way to counter this is to keep the # of playoff teams at a minimum -- otherwise the sport won't be rewarding excellence as strongly as it ought to. Of course, the powers of the game care about $$ more than anything else, and more playoff teams brings in more $$ -- so whenever it's $$ versus the purity of the game, or $$ versus anything -- well we all know which factor is going to override every other one. The last NINE NFL seasons have produced more Super Bowl winners from the bottom of their playoff structure [Two 4th seeds, One 5th seed, Two 6th seeds = 5] than from the top half [Two 1st seeds, one 2nd seed, one 3rd seed = 4] and remember that those 5 & 6 seeds wouldn't even make the playoffs in MLB's 1995-2011 system. Looked at another way, that's as many LAST seeds as first and 1/3 of the most recent 9 champions were somewhere in the 7th to 12th best team that season. But, as usual, a trait which is cited as an asset in where football is concerned (PARITY!!! ... Oh those wacky playoffs) is treated as a negative in baseball (What a shitty sport, the best teams don't always win!) I don't dispute your point about too many 'post-season' teams having a negative effect that's usually not discussed among playoff-happy leagues and the networks that flog them, only that this is neither unique to baseball nor, IMO, more pronounced. NHL hockey (if you're one who considers that a major sport) is MUCH more random come Stanley Cup tourney time. The NBA is probably less so (even as the playoffs are double the size and length) but that speaks more to the sizable gap between the top shelf teams and the also-rans that make up the back end of the 'non-lottery' gaggle. Roughly half of their playoff teams (and often more) in any given year have no chance to win and everyone knows it going in. -------------------------- I see your points. However, when I wrote that baseball is flawed, I was referring to the dynamics of the game itself --- the way the game is played on the diamond. I believe that there's more luck than there ought to be for the game not to be flawed. So because this imperfection is inherent to the play of the game and stems from the nature of baseball, it would continue to exist no matter how many teams are awarded playoff spots. I wasn't blaming baseball's flaws on the playoff system. I meant to write that the expanded playoff system exacerbates the problem. Keeping playoff teams at a minimum in baseball would, in my opinion, act as a counterbalance against the prevalence of luck in the game. (/pipe dream) Frayed Knot wrote: The NBA is probably less so (even as the playoffs are double the size and length) but that speaks more to the sizable gap between the top shelf teams and the also-rans that make up the back end of the 'non-lottery' gaggle. Roughly half of their playoff teams (and often more) in any given year have no chance to win and everyone knows it going in. I disagree --somewhat-- with this point, at least as it relates to my post. The reason that the elite teams generally win the NBA championship is because, as you say, they are considerably better than their other playoff rivals, but also, because the game is truer ... there's less luck involved ... and therefore, a seven game series between two NBA teams is a fairly reliable way to determine which of two competing teams is the better one. In baseball, there are also considerable gaps between playoff teams. But the prevalence of luck in baseball shrinks that gap. A 100 win in baseball is considerably better than an 85 win team. But in a short series, I wouldn't expect the 100 win team to win as often as its record indicates it should. Also, another factor that has nothing to do with luck is that postseason baseball is markedly different from regular season baseball because teams can skip their 5th starters, and occasionally, even their fourth starters. Often, the gap between teams in the regular season is based on the superior team having a pitching staff that is much deeper than that of its rivals. That advantage is eroded, if not lost entirely in the post season. The last NINE NFL seasons have produced more Super Bowl winners from the bottom of their playoff structure [Two 4th seeds, One 5th seed, Two 6th seeds = 5] than from the top half [Two 1st seeds, one 2nd seed, one 3rd seed = 4] and remember that those 5 & 6 seeds wouldn't even make the playoffs in MLB's 1995-2011 system. Looked at another way, that's as many LAST seeds as first and 1/3 of the most recent 9 champions were somewhere in the 7th to 12th best team that season. It's pointless to have this discussion within the context of the NFL. They play a sixteen game season and the playoffs is a one game elimination tournament. Small. Sample. Size. And it'll never get fixed because the game is too violent for players to play even slightly more than they already do. Didn't we have this discussion once before?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Zvon wrote: This strike changed my entire outlook on baseball and for me the game hasn't been the same since. Or, let me put it this way, my strong feelings for the game changed and have remained that way. Not in relation to the game, which I love on any level, but to major league baseball. I've worked my way back to an extent (it never effected my love of the Mets, but I used to be much more involved in baseball as a whole) but the resentment still lingers. It's not the strike itself that pissed me off. Hey, do what you gotta do. But no World Series? Inexcusable. That's me too, except I don't feel resentment, just detachment. Where I used to be a baseball fan, now I'm strictly a Mets fan. I tried watching the 1995 World Series and it didn't hold me interest. Since then, I've only watched one World Series, in 2000. And I haven't seen a single pitch of a post-season game since Carlos Beltran looked at strike three in 2006. Me too. Though I also blame a good deal of my lack of interest on the wild card slots also introduced that year. To my way of seeing things, it cheapened the title considerably. I hate to say this, but I think that baseball is a deeply flawed sport because of the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game -- significantly more so than in any of the other major team sports I'm aware of. The way to counter this is to keep the # of playoff teams at a minimum -- otherwise the sport won't be rewarding excellence as strongly as it ought to. Of course, the powers of the game care about $$ more than anything else, and more playoff teams brings in more $$ -- so whenever it's $$ versus the purity of the game, or $$ versus anything -- well we all know which factor is going to override every other one.

On second thought, Grimsley was indeed drafted in the 78 NL AS SOM league I played in. But he still wasn't as good as Swannie.

I played '78 Strat O Matic and I can tell you that nobody drafted Grimsley in our NL all star league. He wasn't better than his teammate Steve Rogers that season, and definitely wasn't as good as nine game winner and ERA champ Craig Swan.

Extremely eezy peezy quiz for me. I saved my TSN's from that era. I knew Grimsley won 20 for the Spos - but I didn't know he was their lone 20 game winner. [fimg=444:33lc7hij]http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAyNFg4MDg=/$(KGrHqJHJD!E+UhbEVmWBP2+CCuI5g~~60_35.JPG[/fimg:33lc7hij]

Harvey wasn't as dominant as we'd come to expect in his last few starts right before the injury announcement. Just remembering.

I didn't hate him either. Why would I? But he was exactly the kind of bargain basement scrubby long shot leftfielder you'd expect a team like the Mets to pursue after they cut payroll by $10M after already cutting payroll by an historical amount of tens and tens and tens of millions just before that. .205 /.283/.346 and on pace for 15 HR's over a full season of play. Good grief! He was a corner outfielder ferchrissakes!

Edgy MD wrote: I'm surprised to have provoked a religious reaction. Take it easy, man. I'm only decent intermittently. And definitely not the religious type.

Edgy MD wrote: The FO hoped the story never got out the same way they're hoping the Mets'll win the pennant. I think his point was something along the line of, if the Mets were hoping this story didn't get out, he would conclude that would have explicitly compelled their players not to talk about it. While that's not automatic, it's certainly easier than winning the pennant. Jesus Fucking Christ here. The story was bound to get out eventually no matter what the Mets did. The Mets knew it or had to have known. So does this mean that they can't hope against hope? Edgy MD wrote: I myself would guess that the front office didn't think a whole lot about the potential story one way or the other. A distinct possibility.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think given the long history of abuse the org has taken for various health-related calamities, they'd prefer that they didn't look as though they condone questionable therapies adopted by their players. The fact that the org refused to allow photos and their staff wouldn't answer questions probably says as much. This sounds like a widespread practice that just hasn't gotten out yet because sportswriters in general tend to be complicit in carrying out the what-happens-in-the-clubhouse vibe, and maybe, just hadn't paid as much attention as Diamond did here. The Mets will be made to look foolish for this, just wait. But how could the Mets have hoped for the story never to get out? How? I want answers!!!!!

It's not irrelevant. The FO hoped the story never got out the same way they're hoping the Mets'll win the pennant. Is there a limit as to what someone's allowed to hope for? I don't really know what the FO was hoping for vis a vis that story, if you wanna know the truth about this, if you wanna corner me into saying so. I just made an irreverent, goofy off the cuff remark. Does my remark really merit this kind of scrutiny?

Who cares if 89 Mets talked about it? The Mets could still hope that the story never gets out. The Mets could've also been hoping it never got out before the first Met disclosed it. People hope for unlikely things all the time. I wish I could pitch for the Mets. I wish I could win the Mega Millions lottery. Intermittently Decent.

They probably used leeches to treat David Wright's broken back a few years ago. I bet this cup piece is one story the Mets were hoping wouldn't ever get out.

Mets Latch On to Cupping Therapy, and Have the Marks to Prove It "Zero Evidence" That Practice Is Useful, Says One Doctor By Jared Diamond and Andrew Beaton connect Aug. 5, 2014 10:10 p.m. ET Daisuke Matsuzaka had been attacked by an octopus. At least, that's what it looked like to Mets pitcher Matt Harvey, who peered across the clubhouse one day during spring training and noticed his teammate's bare back covered with purple, baseball-sized bruises. Intrigued, and perhaps a little concerned, Harvey inquired about the circles checkering Matsuzaka's skin. Before long, he was learning about cupping therapy, an ancient Chinese form of alternative medicine that purports to promote healing by increasing blood flow to targeted parts of the body. After conducting a bit of his own research�"Google tells you everything, nowadays," he said�Harvey decided to give it a try. He found that it worked as advertised. "It's something I can feel immediate relief from," said Harvey, who is currently rehabbing from Tommy John elbow-ligament replacement surgery. Four months later, one can hardly walk through the Mets' locker room without seeing the familiar markings of cupping therapy on some player's skin, from 40-year-old veteran Bobby Abreu (who has since been designated for assignment) to 26-year-old rookie Jacob deGrom. [fimg=604]http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-DD407_NYCUPP_G_20140805122405.jpg[/fimg] The sudden proliferation of cupping within the Mets and other major-league teams illustrates the lengths to which professional athletes will go to try to stay in top physical shape. In the case of cupping therapy, that means subjecting themselves to a practice with a questionable scientific foundation. (The Mets organization declined to make its medical personnel available to discuss cupping, and declined to allow photographs of the therapy and its resultant bruises.) "As an athlete, I want to play as long as possible," said Matsuzaka, the 33-year-old right-hander who started cupping about two years ago. "In order to do that, I need to find ways to protect my body. I'm always looking for something that might be better." The millennia-old art of cupping traditionally involves using a flame to create a vacuum inside a glass bulb, which is then applied to the skin for as long as 15 minutes. Blood is pulled to the area, causing bruising and, ostensibly, relief of tight, sore muscles. Some believe that cupping can also help with arthritis, eczema and migraine headaches, among other ailments. Today, teams like the Mets and others that practice cupping use a mechanical suction pump to create the vacuum. Nick Paparesta, the trainer for the Oakland Athletics, said in an interview that virtually the entire A's roster has undergone cupping therapy at some point this season. Paparesta called it a "twofold solution" because it can provide both immediate and long-term relief of lower back or oblique tightness, and can be done post-surgery to help reduce scarring. Yuliya Chernyak, a Manhattan-based licensed acupuncturist who performs cupping therapy on athletes, said the therapy works to relieve muscle stiffness and pain, reduce swelling and even treat illness because it "loosens up the mucous, increases circulation, stimulates lungs and helps to fight the infection." When done correctly, cupping isn't painful, though the patient may feel pressure and residual soreness afterward. "We pull muscles out and increase circulation," Chernyak said. "It removes toxins and brings all the stagnant blood and waste from deep within the tissue to the surface so that it will be easily eliminated." Several Mets have noticed the results. "When you're feeling tight and you do it, you feel better," said 24-year-old reliever Jeurys Familia. DeGrom said that since he began cupping, "After my starts, I haven't really been sore at all." Reliever Vic Black has been a proponent of cupping for more than two years. "You can feel the muscle being drawn to the cup, and all of a sudden halfway through, you feel the release of it," he said. Medical studies, however, don't back up these claims, according to a doctor who has researched alternative treatments. "There's absolutely zero evidence that cupping has any kind of positive role in medicine," said Barrie Cassileth, the chief of integrative medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. She said the post-cupping bruises result simply from the suction on the skin, which may be more harmful to circulation than helpful. "I cannot conceive of any benefit except a psychological benefit," said Cassileth, who has written books on alternative treatments and noted that, unlike cupping, holistic therapies such as acupuncture have been proved effective in medical tests. Not every Met has gotten on board. Injured reliever Bobby Parnell, for one, said he doesn't expect to try it. But the players who have tried it seem unconcerned about the debate. "I've heard that before, too, but I've had it done on myself, and I feel the difference," Matsuzaka said. "I feel that it loosens up my muscles, and I feel that it's effective." Paparesta also recognizes that cupping has its skeptics. He pointed to hyperbaric oxygen chambers and cryotherapy as other examples of alternative treatments that athletes have been willing to try. But for the A's, it doesn't matter much what the outside world thinks, only what the players think. "They're willing to do whatever they can to help them achieve their goal," Paparesta said. "We definitely see people and medical professionals who may feel that a holistic-type approach isn't something for them. Our motto is: 'We never know it all.' " In other words, if the players think cupping works, then cupping works. For the most part, the Mets' players echoed that sentiment. Though they insist that cupping does have a physical effect, they also recognize the mental aspect. Black, one of the team's most ardent supporters of the treatment, said, "The placebo effect is a lot more powerful than people realize." That's why multiple players said that even if a doctor told them definitively that cupping has no benefit, they would continue doing it anyway. "There's more belief in it, and that's why I feel comfortable doing it," Black said. "That's why everything works." Whatever the upside, physical or mental, it's all part of athletes' unending quest to stay fit. They will try almost anything, especially if it comes recommended from one of their peers. Paparesta also recognizes that cupping has its skeptics. He pointed to hyperbaric oxygen chambers and cryotherapy as other examples of alternative treatments that athletes have been willing to try. But for the A's, it doesn't matter much what the outside world thinks, only what the players think. "They're willing to do whatever they can to help them achieve their goal," Paparesta said. "We definitely see people and medical professionals who may feel that a holistic-type approach isn't something for them. Our motto is: 'We never know it all.' " In other words, if the players think cupping works, then cupping works. For the most part, the Mets' players echoed that sentiment. Though they insist that cupping does have a physical effect, they also recognize the mental aspect. Black, one of the team's most ardent supporters of the treatment, said, "The placebo effect is a lot more powerful than people realize." That's why multiple players said that even if a doctor told them definitively that cupping has no benefit, they would continue doing it anyway. "There's more belief in it, and that's why I feel comfortable doing it," Black said. "That's why everything works." Whatever the upside, physical or mental, it's all part of athletes' unending quest to stay fit. They will try almost anything, especially if it comes recommended from one of their peers. http://online.wsj.com/articles/mets-latch-on-to-cupping-therapy-and-have-the-marks-to-prove-it-1407291031

[youtube:hbu601di]-A2zB-e3mro[/youtube:hbu601di]

I didn't even know this award existed. Jacob deGrom of the New York Mets voted National League Rookie of the Month for July New York Mets starting pitcher Jacob deGrom has been voted the National League Rookie of the Month for July. The 26-year-old went 4-1 last month and posted a Major League rookie-best 1.39 ERA (5 ER/23.1 IP) and 38 strikeouts while tying for the overall N.L. lead in wins. His ERA was the League's third-lowest mark overall and ranked fifth among all Major League pitchers. deGrom held opposing hitters to a .225 batting average, which was the lowest mark among qualifying N.L. rookies, while walking just seven. On July 8th, deGrom tossed 7.0 shutout innings while tying a career-high with 11 strikeouts (also May 31st) as the Mets defeated the visiting Atlanta Braves, 5-2. The Stetson University product followed that performance with another 7.0-inning gem on July 13th, helping the Mets cruise to a 9-1 victory over the Miami Marlins at Citi Field. deGrom allowed just a single earned run in the contest and fanned eight en route to his third win of the season. On July 22nd, deGrom was similarly effective, allowing a single run across 7.0 innings of work as the Mets took a 3-1 decision against the Seattle Mariners at Safeco Field. The youngster fanned seven in the outing while issuing one free pass. deGrom capped his stellar month with his fourth consecutive victory on July 27th at Milwaukee, going 6.1 shutout innings in a 2-0 win over the N.L. Central leaders. In doing so, he became the first rookie in franchise history to record a win in four straight starts while pitching at least 6.0 innings and allowing no more than one run. The streak broke a record set by Jerry Koosman, who had three such starts from April 11-23, 1968. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, since 1982, only three other Major League rookie pitchers have won four straight such starts (6.0 innings with one earned run or less) in one season: Houston's Roy Oswalt (2001), L.A. Angels of Anaheim right-hander Jered Weaver (2006) and San Francisco's Matt Cain (2005). This is deGrom's first career Rookie of the Month Award. Other rookies receiving votes included Arizona's David Peralta (.314, 11 R, 27 H, 4 2B, 4 3B, 12 RBI); Atlanta's Tommy La Stella (.309, 29 H, 6 2B, 10 RBI, .381 OBP); San Diego's Jesse Hahn (3-1, 2.08 ERA, 18 SO, 26.0 IP); Philadelphia's Ken Giles (0-0, 0.66 ERA, 18 SO, 13.2 IP); and Kolten Wong (.284, 13 R, 19 H, 5 HR, 9 RBI, .567 SLG) of the St. Louis Cardinals. The National League Rookie of the Month for July, Jacob deGrom, will receive a specially designed trophy, suitably engraved, to commemorate his performance. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140804&content_id=87953934&vkey=pr_mlb&c_id=mlb

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Anybody remember what the back page headline was in one of the NY tabloids the day after Mitch shaved Strawberry's head during the '86 season? "BALD-BERRY" [fimg=555]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SFJ3A5BB--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/17rqdvz92smd0gif.gif[/fimg][fimg=555]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--o9TTjA5f--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/17rqdl6k6wuhpgif.gif[/fimg]

[fimg=733:hedjd7p9]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1892665.1407264551!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/straw6s-1-web.jpg?enlarged[/fimg:hedjd7p9] Anybody remember what the back page headline was in one of the NY tabloids the day after Mitch shaved Strawberry's head during the '86 season?

OK. Then we're good.

Edgy MD wrote: Hesitant to post a standings update after a lousy series, but it's modestly heartening to find the team still in control of their fates It's only August 5th. Why wouldn't the Mets still control their destiny? Even the '62 Mets were still alive mathematically on August 5th.

I taut he killed a puddy cat. He did! He did! He did kill a puddy cat. _______________________ A baseball urban legend confirmed: Mets all-star Kevin Mitchell DID decapitate girlfriend's cat, says ex-teammate The rumor started in 1999, when formers Mets pitcher Doc Gooden talked about witnessing the horrifying incident in his autobiography Mitchell went on to refute the claims, saying Gooden made the story up However, former teammate and friend Darryl Strawberry said the incident happened, in an interview he gave while promoting a new book By Ashley Collman Published: 19:49 EST, 5 August 2014 | Updated: 19:49 EST, 5 August 2014 View comments A wide-spread rumor that retired baseball all-star Kevin Mitchell decapitated his girlfriend's cat has been further substantiated after ex-Mets teammate Darryl Strawberry confirmed the incident. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2717334/A-baseball-urban-legend-confirmed-Mets-star-Kevin-Mitchell-DID-decapitate-girlfriends-cat-says-ex-teammate.html#ixzz39ZMbZxKz Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook _____________ The cat came back: Darryl Strawberry revisits story of Kevin Mitchell killing girlfriend�s cat While promoting his book on HuffPost Live, the Mets legend confirmed the tale which was told by Doc Gooden in his 1999 autobiography 'Heat.' BY Bernie Augustine NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Tuesday, August 5, 2014, 2:59 PM The Kevin Mitchell cat story has nine lives. Darryl Strawberry addressed the infamous story � where Mitchell allegedly cut the head off of a cat during a tense dispute in the mid-1980s � again on Tuesday during a promotional appearance for his new book on HuffPost Live. Asked to confirm the story from the Mets� wild days in the 80s � which was first made public in Doc Gooden�s 1999 autobiography, �Heat� � Strawberry said it was all true. �That�s a pretty good story. I think it�s pretty accurate. Kevin Mitchell did do that,� Strawberry said. �You know, Kevin Mitchell was a different type of guy � great guy. Super teammate, great person, plus he was from San Diego and he was affiliated with gangs quite a bit and I guess he figured his girlfriend was acting a little crazy so he thought, �I�ll kill her cat.�� Mitchell has denied the story on many occasions but, like a cat, it keeps coming back. �How could I cut off a cat�s head with a kitchen knife? Hell, I love animals,� the 1989 NL MVP told Jeff Pearlman in 2002 for the book. Strawberry and his wife, Tracy, were promoting their own book Tuesday, �The Imperfect Marriage: Help For Those Who Think It�s Over.� http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/strawberry-revisits-story-kevin-mitchell-killing-girlfriend-cat-article-1.1892666