batmagadanleadoff

seawolf17 wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Mike Jacobs? YES! This. I knew we had a Kevin Maas-firstbase-type guy who had a big month, but I couldn't remember who. Big debut month for Jacobs. But not big enough to make that list.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Willie Montan-YES Willie Montan-NO!

G-Fafif wrote: Richard Hidalgo. Hidalgo's best OPS month (1.486 with 11 HR's) ranks 28th all-time on that list. For the Astros in Sept/Oct of 2000.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Jay Payton. Payton did not place on that list.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Carlos Delgado? Carlos Delgado ranks 233rd on that list with an OPS of 1.311 in July of 2000. For the Toronto Blue Jays. What do Carolos Delgado and Willie Randolph have in common? . . . . . . . . . . They're the only Mets who could make Jerry Manuel look like a genius.

Ashie62 wrote: Mike Vail.. I'd bail on Vail. The Mets, instead, bailed on Rusty.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Carlos Delgado? Carlos Delgado ranks 233rd on that list with an OPS of 1.311 in July of 2000. For the Toronto Blue Jays.

Edgy MD wrote: Mazzilli had a crazy June once. 1980? Hit a Mantleload of homers. Like 70% of his season total. I'm guessing Mazzilli. I had a feeling someone was gonna bring up Mazzilli's hot summer month, given how I phrased the question. But there's no Mazz on this list.

There's a baseball piece in cyberspace about the highest monthly OPS totals (50 PA min) in the history of baseball. The top of the list is dominated by Barry Bonds, who has the four highest totals and six out of the top eight. The author ran a query of the 300 highest monthly OPS figures in baseball history, and youse'll never guess which three Mets scored the highest. I'll make this post a quiz, but I'm already gonna assume that anyone submitting a correct answer looked at the list. The first guy on that list that isn't Barry Bonds is former bonus baby Bob Bailey (5th) who OPS'ed 1.593 in July of 1970 for the practically minty new Expos.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I had to dip into the database tables to break that tie between Dillon Gee and David Wright, and while doing so I noticed that some games in 2006 had as many as 35 voters participating! Given our typical vote count this year, that was kind of discouraging, but then I ran some numbers... Average number of Schaefer voters per game, by year. 2006 13.1914 2007 12.5988 2008 10.8025 2009 10.3086 2010 9.1420 2011 10.3704 2012 8.0617 2013 7.9074 2014 9.1351 We're only down by fewer than two voters since 2008, so it's really not all that much of a drop. But it does seem like the pool of non-voters has dropped dramatically. Maybe as an experiment we can have a game where we ask EVERYONE to vote, just to see how high the number can get. I wonder if, during the Citi Field era, voting declines as the season nears end. Maybe if you take out the second half of the season, those historical numbers (post 2008) are even higher --- which would mask the fact that voting might be down.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm getting at this: And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life? It seemed to suggest the Mets will be losing money every year for the next generation or so. I don't think that's true, but I agree such a situation wouldn't continue for long. What situation won't continue for long? I don't think we're understanding each other here. Maybe I made my original post sound more complicated than it should have been. All I was asking is how long is Katz supposed to keep losing money if his family has no interest in controlling the Mets long term? If his family doesn't want to run the Mets, then they'd probably prefer the cash. And I'm referring to Katz's family because Katz ain't no tree, if you know what I mean.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't see any scenario where the Mets lose money for the rest of Jeff Wilpon's life, should he live to a natural age comparable to his father, do you? That's not what I was suggesting, if you're responding to my last post. I was just speculating as to how much more money Saul Katz is willing to lose to prop up the Wilpons. Of course, I don't know how much $$ Katz is losing, I don't know how big Katz's "pie" is, I don't know how many other people have their hands in Katz's pie, and I don't know how much Katz is willing to endure so that Jeff could, one day, own the team. But the question I raised isn't how much $$ the Mets might lose during Jeff's life, but how much $$ the Mets'll continue to lose so long as Saul Katz is still in, and how much of that is Katz willing to lose. So, having now crossed every "t" in my previous post, (I hope) what are you getting at?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As much as they get talked about, multigenerational family businesses are very rare and often blow up. Just thinking things through here, but who knows how much $$ Katz is losing every year? If it's at least $10M or $20M and you multiply that by the five or six bad years since the Madoff Ponzi scheme broke, Katz's losses might be in the nine digits. That's enough to make a lot of grandkids, cousins and nephews all of a sudden antsy about their inheritances and trust funds. And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life?

Big brouhaha in Mets Nation over the Lagares "benching", including double barrel reporting over at Faith and Fear. http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2014/05/18/freedom/ http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2014/05/17/how-juan-lagares-became-immortal/ My crazy theory? Lagares was another Shake Shack food poisoning victim, and his "holiday" was all a big smokescreen by the stupid Mets brass just to protect the burger image.

Animated TC: Lagares was never 'benched' By Adam Rubin | ESPNNewYork.com WASHINGTON -- Juan Lagares is in the starting lineup for a second straight day Sunday, after not starting four of the previous five games. Asked what Lagares had to do to become an everyday player, Terry Collins went on the offensive regarding the line of questioning. "He has been an everyday player. He got into a little bit of a funk," Collins said before the series finale against the Washington Nationals. "You know, it's not like I sat him for seven days. I sat him for two days, for cripes sake. We get a little carried away here. Somebody gets a day off and it's like the sky is falling in. It's not. He's the center fielder. "He had a big day yesterday (homer, three RBIs, homer-saving catch). I hope he has a big day today. It's not going to be easy. Jordan Zimmermann is real good. If he has a rough day today, you know what, you tip your hat and get after it tomorrow. "In my opinion, this is what the market is here. If I give Grandy a day off, he's 'benched.' If I give C.Y. a day off, he's 'benched.' If I give Juan a day off, he's 'benched.' That's not really the case. I know you've got to sell newspapers, so do what you've got to say. But when I come in here every day and figure out who has got to be in the lineup, somebody can't play. And today somebody is not going to play (Chris Young). I don't get too bent out of shape about it, because I know in the long run, after the next 120 games, they're all going to [have] play[ed]." http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/86920/animated-tc-lagares-was-never-benched?ex_cid=espnapi_public

I snuck in a card of someone who never played for (or managed) the Mets.

Omar Quintanilla joins the club of major leaguers who played for the Mets in at least three different seasons without appearing on a Topps Base set card as a Met -- charter member -- Bobby Heise. Omar did appear on those giant sized Topps that are used to highlight the Citi Field starting lineup. Good luck inserting one of those into your nine-pocket card sleeve holder.

Wolves Hiding in Sheeps' Clothing -- 1969 Topps Style Our newest Wolf is a Hawk.

[fimg=263]http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/attachments/ootp-mods-rosters-photos-quick-starts/216850d1305838903-gambo-t_wil1-photopack-donn_clendenon-1969.jpg[/fimg]

Vinegar makes the salad!

I wouldn't mind getting paid like the Commissioner, but that's an owners' stooge job. You want baseball power? Organize the fans. Unionize 'em. Whoever gets to head that union will have the power to bring baseball to it's knees.

[fimg=533:1m1s0dr2]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BntKVK9IEAAqlfE.jpg[/fimg:1m1s0dr2] Never thought I'd see the day when I'd be applauding the Mets cheesiness.

More on Shake Shack Gate Shake Shack founder: 'Highly unlikely' burgers poisoned Mets' Lucas Duda, Phillies' Ryne Sandberg The Case of the Possible Citi Field Shake Shack Food Poisoning may never be solved. But Danny Meyer, who founded the burger chain, says it may not have been his burgers that gave Mets first baseman Lucas Duda and Phillies manager Ryne Sandberg food poisoning after they blamed it on bad meat. "It's highly unlikely," he told The Post. "If you're in a restaurant and one person says they got food poisoning from fish, you can say, 'Well, that was probably one bad fish.' But with hamburger meat, it's an entire batch. And we haven't heard of one other case of food poisoning. We don't know for sure a Shake Shake burger made them sick." Sandberg told reporters he lost six pounds in two days, while Duda -- who a Mets spokesperson said ate at a different Shake Shack other than the one at Citi Field -- was hospitalized. And if you thought the stories of their illnesses would hurt business at Citi Field, you'd be wrong: The Daily News reported the usual long lines at the establishment on Wednesday night. "Actually, it encouraged me to come here," 60-year-old Ben Itri told the Daily News. "I figured once they got sick they tried to clean the place and make sure they cleaned all of the germs. So actually after I read that, this was the first place I had to come: that's my theory. We will verify that after the game." http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2014/05/shake_shack_founder_its_highly_unlikely_citi_field_burger_poisoned_mets_lucas_duda_phillies_ryne_san.html

Ceetar wrote: I know people want to believe the narratives but he's right, he knows more about the finances than anyone else that's written about them. [fimg=444]http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4944/omgwtfeyes.gif[/fimg]

Mets Finances are in Tip-Top Shape. Nothing to see here. Bud Selig is not at all worried about the Mets� finances: excerpt I�ve said this repetitively � I have no concerns about the Mets. I have no reason to have any concerns. Why should I have? That�s the whole point . . . I�m very optimistic about what they�re doing. The only people telling me to have concerns are people who don�t know and haven�t seen any facts . . . I don�t understand these stories because I have all the economic facts � nothing to support (the team is hemorrhaging money). Major League Baseball has all the economic information. This idea that I should have reason to be concerned is just wrong.�