batmagadanleadoff

Edgy DC wrote: metirish wrote: be that as it may in his five year career he hit 2HR and had 26RBI. That's why I like it. If you have a guy who's just good enough to make it to the bigs and consistently fail once he gets there, how do you photograph him? Do you show him in action --- an action that any astute observer will know was likely just another in a string of failures? Or do you get a posed shot --- the figure shown paused on the mound or in the batters box, assuming a stance that, if you're paying any attention at all, you know has never intimidated anybody? This photographer has found a third way --- capturing the real narrative of the fringe player, watching from the (literal) fringes, searching for a clue to the edge that's going to get him over the hump as a big-leaguer, pricking his elven hears hoping to pick up a piece of the magic formula as Dave Kingman and Mike Schmidt guffaw around the batting cage. Your photo link, I'm sorry to say, isn't working for me. I dunno. I bet that the only thing on that photog's mind when he snapped Foster's picture, was whether he was gonna have Pizza or Chinese for dinner.

1. Sideburns. 2. The angle. It's as though Larry is towering over the poor shooter. 3. The expression. It's as though he wants to tell you to fuck off, but knows he doesn't need to. You're gonna get the F out of his grill any second now, and if you don't, well, you might be introduced to this club casually draped over his shoulder. 4. White batting gloves. 5. Last year before the Rainbow Gut jerseys for the Astros. Not the most exciting things out there but some dignity to it. 6. The jersey appears to zip up. 7. There's a Johnny Lunchbucket quality to the whole thing: He's got his safety helmet on and tool of the trade close by. 8. The trophy. First of many for sure. 9. Yet as tough as this card makes Larry Milbourne out to be, he was actually a noodle bat, author of 11 home runs in as many pro seasons. 10. All-Star Rookie sure, but as his expression shows, he'd already seen much. By this point in his career he'd already been property of the Orioles, Giants, and Angels -- and his future would take him to Seattle (twice), the MFYs (twice), Twins, Indians and Phillies. 11. This badass'll steal your Big Kahuna Burger. Or blow your brains out. It's all the same to him.

How long can Mariano (b. 11/29/69) keep up his pace? He's about three strong seasons from Jesse's all-time game mark. At Mariano's age, especially, both talent and baseball health can disappear in an instant. Not that Mariano's shown any hint of slowing down. He's still dominating hitters. Orosco pitched until he was 46 and a half. Rivera'll probably shatter Orosco's record if he pitches that long.

Edgy DC wrote: Oh, I accept that is Shea, in her more-chewed-up, tuftier days. Perhaps a wrestling event had just come through. What other cards are great for ten reasons? It's all good. That Roric's at Shea should enhance your opinion of his card.

Shea's light tower in surrounding context.

Niekro's card was probably shot on the same day as Roric's. You can see Mets in their home unis in the background. And that definitely ain't St. Pete. The Braves are in road blue.

1. The condidtion of the spring training practice field --- no better than your standard 1970s Little League field. Isn't that Shea Stadium? Compare the light tower:

Except the data suggests that Citi Field scoring is pretty neutral. Homer unfriendly, but scoring neutral. Couple that with the thought that fly ball to HR ratios may be pretty random, even for good pitchers, and you've got a park that doesn't inhibit scoring, but minimizes the fly ball bad luck.... I checked out the numbers because I was skeptical about your comment. Large dimensions inhibit scoring. The correlation is almost perfect. (Coors Field, especially pre-humidor was the one exception: the stadium's big playing field was more than offset by the thin air) But back to the numbers. Citi Field reduced run production in every single season of its existence. 2011 Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 647 runs/75 games = 8.63 runs per game Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 711 runs/76 games - 9.36 runs per game. 2010 Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 616 runs/81 games = 7.60 runs per game Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 692 runs/81 games - 8.54 runs per game. 2009 Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 693 runs/81 games = 8.56 runs per game Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 735 runs/81 games - 9.07 runs per game. 2009-2011 --(Three season totals, to date) Runs Scored (Mets and opponents at Citi Field) 8.25 runs per game Runs Scored (Mets and opponents, Mets on road) 8.98 runs per game. ESPN's parks factor page confirms that HR's and scoring in general is suppressed at Citi Field to the point that it's one of the toughest parks in baseball to generate offense. And even if CF's propensity for producing triples offsets, to a degree, HR reduction -- that's an argument to make when discussing overall team scoring. It's not a defense to the idea that individual Mets HR hitters might be screwing up their swings because of the park.

Ceetar wrote: Also, the perception that sluggers wouldn't want to come here, if true, is preferably in my opinion to quality pitchers not wanting to come here. I think you're saying that CF's deep dimensions might encourage quality free agent pitchers to play here. If so, this would be one advantage to having deep dimensions. But provided that CF attracts star pitchers. Like a Lincecum-type, for example. If the idea is to get average or slightly above average pitchers on the theory that CF will mask their flaws, well then I'd guess that Jeff Wilpon is calling the shots after all. But on the other hand, a Lincecum might not be as valuable in Citi Field, as compared to pitching in other parks. CF's deep dimensions might somewhat diminish the star pitcher's edge by making it easier for the opposing pitcher to keep up.

metirish wrote: I'm disappointed not to have heard from Alderson on this, unless I missed it his next comment will be his first.I'm disappointed because this is the sort of thing I thought he would have stood up for, ex marine and all that , it's like he has disappeared. At this point, the Mets should just bury the issue and walk away from it. Which is what I think is happening. It's become so tangled up, so full of incompatible and irreconcilable statements, that no sane person would want to touch it. I don't know how Alderson could publicly address this issue in honest fashion without denigrating either Selig, Torre or the Wilpons.

Frayed Knot wrote: Can we please stop talking about bringing in walls as if: a) that's Jason Bay's problem that it would somehow only benefit our team Agreed with FK above. I don't agree with youse guys. I understand your position(s): that if the Citi Field outfield walls are too far and high for the Mets, then they're too far and high for the visitors, too, and that over time, the would be HR's that CF converts into something less -- outs, or some other non-HR hit -- evens out for both sides. I think that there's more at stake here, and that a Met who plays at CF all season, particularly a HR-hitting Met, is likelier to mess up his swing, timing and rhythm than a visiting player who plays, at most, 10 or so CF games a season, but maybe as little as three games. There's more to this than simply comparing the hit tracker data for the Mets and their visiting opponents. The other point I'd make, (and I might have already made it on this forum before. I'm not sure but if I did, apologies for being monotonous, here) is that wealthy teams should build dimensions that are close to neutral, rather than extreme. The Mets, in the long term, will be wealthy again, notwithstanding their current mess. In due time, the Wilpons either get back on their feet again, or sell to an entity that won't be indebted to Picard for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Wealthy teams can use their financial leverage to buy power hitters. HR's are baseball's best offensive weapon and the most efficient way to score. OF fences that are too far undermine a team's ability to hit HR's, while fences close in squander the team's power advantage by facilitating the opponent's ability to counter with HR's of their own. This stuff about building an offense around speed and line drives is a bullshit pipe dream, and I can't believe that internally, Alderson really believes this crap. To the extent that he says otherwise publicly, I believe that Alderson's just covering up for the baseball morons that own this team. It's hard to win consistently without power and HR's. Not impossible. But harder.

Is that the Mets official 2012 calendar? Or some licensee's calendar? It's possible that the Mets had no input in the creation of this calendar. By next Spring, there'll be many Mets 2012 calendars on the market.

Edgy DC wrote: Or claims to. That's an easy position to claim after the fact. Yeah.

HahnSolo wrote: Oh, Tracksuit... For what it's worth, New Era, which manufactured the American flag hats used in all MLB games Sunday, said it would not have objected to the Mets wearing first responder hats, as the team so memorably did in 2001. That's the only real piece of new info I got out of this story. Good to know New Era at least has some sensibility. I'm not convinced about the truthfulness of New Era's quote. This could be revisionist PR. What the quote probably does mean for sure, though --assuming that New Era has MLB's cap contract for next season-- is that the Mets will be permitted to wear the responder caps in 2012.

Ceetar wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Wright's comments in the Snooze today brought a tear to my eye. Asked if they considered wearing them without an OK he said "of course not. MLB lays out the guidelines and it's up to us to follow them." Good question-asking above Fyrhie That's the only answer, and the correct one. Regardless of what you think he should've done, _Wright_ can't be actively talking about disobeying MLB. Oh c'mon. Jeez, in the name of Curt Flood ferchrissakes. Fuck the Establishment.* *Even though here, the anti-establishment is comprised of pampered and privileged multimillionaires.

I'm gonna go out on a real thin limb and guess that there's gonna be a heavy dose of 1969 and 1973 in the upcoming installments. But what an amazin', amazin' series this is. You must realize that with all the back-story and exposition you provide in the game recounts, you're essentially giving Mets fans a thorough, if not complete, history of the franchise, but without having to re-live any of the Mets' frustrating and heartbreaking losses. Sometimes, life can be a box of chocolates where you know you're gonna get a delicious piece. If I wasn't a Mets fan, I'd hate to be the fact-checker for this project when it gets published. (It will get published. Right?)

G-Fafif wrote: Yeah, they're idiots -- but we're OK. Exactly.

There was no way the Mets were gonna defy Selig and MLB. Only over Fred and Jeff's dead bodies. Or the dead bodies of Fred and Jeff's hat-taking-away goons. This way, the Wilpons continue to play nicey-nicey with Selig and in return, Selig might lend the team some more money.

If it was the MFY's who had the history of wearing responder caps in tribute to 9/11, MLB would've ruled differently. Torre would've ruled differently. The MFY's are larger than the rules. The MFY's don't have to put NOB's on their road unis. The MFY's host an All-Star game in an even numbered NL year. Derek Jeter would've been permitted to wear a responder cap. Or three. Or a different one every inning. Derek Jeter located Osama bin Laden. Derek Jeter saved the world on 9/11.

metirish wrote: "@AdamRubinESPN: Josh Thole said players can't wear the hats. Thole said the fines would be high on club. "They sent out a big memo and were adamant.". Well in that case, I'll root hard for the Mets to defy the ban and wear the NY responder hats. Maybe the fines will bankrupt the Wilpons. But I'm really surprised that this is even an issue with this team. The Mets can afford extra caps?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Vocally and lookswise, Buscemi's MUCH more of a Howie, methinks. Meanwhile, if you were casting this game as a movie, you'd probably have to go with a bunch of dancing bears in Met unis. Here's Howie....

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "Just kill us, please. Yeah, that double-Italian-beef oughta do it." And their portions are too small. http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201109/black-slime-takes-cubs-fans-stomachs

bmfc1 wrote: Fuck Bobby Parnell in his-hard-throwing-but-no-idea-where-the-ball's-going ass. As someone that was at last night's game--I agree. A shame that the great work of the offense coming back from 5-0 and the great bullpen work of Acosta and Shorty was wasted. Don 't forget about all the runs Gee allowed, including the three run homer to the Nats debuting pitcher. Gee doesn't get off the hook in the blame game just because the Mets tied the game and then took the lead. And as for Terry Collins, he may have control of the locker room in a good way, but he's still a ****bunter. Ordering the league's leading hitter to make an out just before your best mashers are due up: moronic.

Daniel Herrera, at 5'6", is the shortest Met ever. So sez Gary Cohen.

Edgy DC wrote: It's also possible that the Mets cut ties with Einhorn from a newly found position of strength, as some believe, but I don't believe that just because the Mets say so, or imply so. I don't think they said so or implied so. Great. You also have an opinion. Edgy DC wrote: If you'll remember, over the past four, five six weeks, both the Mets and Bud Selig were reporting that the closing of the Einhorn deal was a simple formality and that the delays in completing that now ill-fated deal were neither material nor unusual. I don't remember. So whaddya want me to do about your bad memory? Edgy DC wrote: For all I know, the Mets might have moved on because Einhorn was insisting on terms that would increase his likelihood of one day, acquiring majority control of the franchise. Perhaps the Mets want less demanding investors. Which is consistent with the notion that Picard having less leverage over the Wilpons gives them more leverage in protecting their assets. Great. Now you have another opinion. So if Picard has less leverage, what are the Mets so worried about giving Einhorn an option to control that is (right here is where I'd like to say according to you but if I did, you'd deny it and torture me for eleven more posts with the usual bullshit about how I stuffed some more arguments into your mouth when you weren't looking so instead I'll simply say according to who the hell knows even though it sure as hell sounds as if at the very least you're standing by whoever the hell) much less likely to vest than before? It seems that (according to you? apologies otherwise.) all that stood in the Mets way of getting $200M was a stupid option in favor of Einhorn that wasn't ever gonna vest anyway because everyone knows that Picard's lawsuit is gonna get whittled down to manageable damages for Sterling and the Mets recapitalized anyway and it's business as usual as of a day and a half ago. The Wilpons said it so you know that it has to be true. And another thing: I'm not convinced that it was the Wilpons who walked away from and killed the deal, although I recognize the possibility. Einhorn surely signed a confidentiality agreement, so we might not get to hear his side of the story in anything other than superficial and vague soundbites followed by lotsa no comments.