batmagadanleadoff

There was a famous or legendary "throwing-arm" contest at the work-out sessions for the 1977 All-Star game held at the then new Yankee Stadium between the three outfielders that were thought to have the best throwing arms of the day: Dave Winfield, Dave Parker and Ellis Valentine. Witnesses said that Valentine won the contest without doubt and wowed everybody.

Edgy MD wrote: The specific case on the record occurred in the 1970s. I believe Dowd first uncovered the account during his gambling investigation, so that would have been before Rose's eligibility. MLB initially sat on that information, I presume as part of an agreement with Rose that he accept the ban in order to keep the evidence gathered against him suppressed. Dowd revealed it later when Rose attempted to sue him. Yes. But the main point still holds: had Rose never gambled, the statutory rape incident might never have come to light when Rose was first eligible for HOF induction. Rose, presumably, would have then been inducted in his first year of HOF eligibility. If the matter was then discovered, well, there's no process to remove a player from the HOF, once inducted.

Rape. Fucking rape. 14 year old girls. That's the line in the sand. What the fuck is wrong with everyone. If Rose never gambled on baseball, he would've been a first ballot inductee. The "rape" or "pedophilia" would've then occurred while Rose was already in the Hall. Then what?

Frayed Knot wrote: Gary mentioned something about how this will not even come up for the next two+ years (Jan '28?). If accurate (and I'm not sure why that will be) it leaves a LOT of time for this problem to be discussed and analyzed. Hopefully, unlike in politics, it'll be a discussion that deals with the merits of the case rather than just superficial nonsense. This is correct. The Committee that will vote on Rose's HOF eligibility votes once every three years. It last voted in 2024 when it inducted Dick Allen and Dave Parker.

Edgy MD wrote: Also, since nobody has written this yet, I will — while I am not saying I see the president's fingerprints all over this, I certainly think it is worthwhile to dust for them. That's the very first thing I thought of. I also learned a few new words from your post, plus Tanner Scale. Never heard of that, either.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Well this is bad, but not really unexpected. Shoeless Joe was a bit of an innocent rube, but some of the other Sox were in it up to their eyeballs. They knew exactly what they were doing. Not only that but Shoeless Joe tore it up in the 1919 Series. He batted .375 (12 for 32) and OPS'd .956 with three doubles and a home run. That doesn't read like a guy in on a fix.

What's wrong with this, logically, is very simple. Before this point, Rose (for example) had to be thinking "I'm not getting in the HoF as long as I'm alive, and also not getting in after that point, either. I guess gambling is a pretty bad mistake." Any future Roses, though, if tempted to place a bet, get to think, "OK, worst case scenario, I don't get in the HoF while I'm alive, but when I die, I become eligible again like nothing ever happened, so I'll roll the dice, hope I don't caught but if I do, so what?" Maybe your point is not as simple as you make it out to be because your premise is all wrong. Here's what Rose was thinking: “I've come to the conclusion – I hope I'm wrong – that I'll make the Hall of Fame after I die,'” Rose said 10 days before his death in an interview with John Condit, a sportscaster in Dayton, Ohio. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6309907/2025/05/13/pete-rose-baseball-ineligible-list/https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6309907/2025/05/13/pete-rose-baseball-ineligible-list/

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Baty seems to have turned a corner. Either that, or he was this good all along and needed a little playing time to show his ability. No, Baty wasn't as good all along as he's been over his last six games. He was fucking horseshit. Or maybe we have to wait on Baty until he turns 31. That's when Hank Sauer started to hit. I'll go with maybe Baty turned a corner. Emphasis on maybe.

It's recently come to my attention that the Mets' starters qualifying for the league E.R.A. title (basically an inning pitched per team game) can be tracked simply by seeing if each of them is currently qualified, making my noting (in the "On Track" thread) who is and who isn't on track redundant. Yeah. Because I told you that. Read below. Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters. There's no need to calculate anything whatsoever to determine which pitchers are on track to "qualify". Here's how it works: any pitcher that's qualified today is on track to "qualify" at season's end. Any pitcher who isn't "qualified " today is not on track to "qualify" at season's end. No math needed. I hope this was helpful.. https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259 ________________ It's recently come to my attention that the Mets' starters qualifying for the league E.R.A. title (basically an inning pitched per team game) can be tracked simply by seeing if each of them is currently qualified, making my noting (in the "On Track" thread) who is and who isn't on track redundant. My point, however, is a bit more subtle than that simplistic misreading—it's to illustrate how unlikely any Mets' starter is to qualify, as they've all been healthy so far, haven't missed a single start (after tonight's game, all five starters will have gotten exactly 8 starts, with a few going to bullpenners) yet they're all barely qualified (and Megill just dipped below qualifying, 40.2 IP in the first 42 games, and Canning qualifies by the skin of his teeth with exactly 42 IP in 42 games.) It's unlikely they're going to increase their IP/G ratio markedly, and there are two good reasons they'll fall further off the pace: 1) the Mets may go to a 6-man rotation, at least for a while, when Manaea (Blackburn, Montas) is back, and 2) any injury at all, even a skipped start, will pull a starter back, probably permanently. I told you that, too. But without the long-windedness over incredibly obvious things. The Mets haven't had five qualified starters in the same season in almost 40 years. And it was extremely rare even back then. It's a different ballgame today. Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters. Given the reduced innings pitched loads of today's starting pitchers, its a virtual guarantee that the Mets won't have five qualified pitchers at season's end. But do continue to Chiefs and Prospects us. https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259 At this point, though all five starters have very recently pitched more than an inning per scheduled game, I would doubt that any of them finishes the year with 162 IP. Yeah. Because Chiefs and Prospects. But you really went out on a limb there. And that guy that got two hits on Opening Day won't finish the season with 324 hits, either. Wanna know how I got 324 hits? I multiplied two (hits) by 162 (games played in a season). Two times 162 = 324. Oh my god. A whole brand new thread for this.

=roger_that post_id=192282 time=1746981260 user_id=128] Why is Nimmo starting against a lefty? You may ask. It's because he has a small difference against lefty pitching. His OPS against lefties is in fact the same (.769) as his OPS at home.

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Sure seems like whenever Roger posts anything, you jump in to attack or belittle. Almost like stalking. No. Only when he writes idiotic stuff with his usual flair of know-it-all ness. Which is like every day. But hey, are you wondering why Nimmo's in tonight's starting lineup? Because I do and you don't but I'll share what only I know with you. Would you like me to go on a childish frothing at the mouth lunatic weeklong 30 post rant because the Padres took two of three from the Mets which shouldn't have ever happened because the Mets won a coupl'a more regular season games than the Padres?

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Is this a "gag," or a "disagreement to be interesting?" Seems like something else. All of the above. You're kinda new here. I wouldn't say you're a rookie, but you're relatively new here. Don't go by those "joined" dates that appear in everybody's avatar. Most of them are way off. This is an insular fish bowl of a forum, with not very many regular posters. The majority of posters here have been here for more than 20 years. And among regular posters who haven't yet hit the two-decade mark, most of those have been here for more than 15 years. If you wanna know more, feel free to PM me. Also, you might not like my style there, but those posts are informative. And they help to stop the spread of useless, incorrect and bloviating information. I mean, the guy has special insight into why Nimmo was in the starting lineup? When the only games Nimmo's missed this season were due to his health and physical condition, if I recall?

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Is this a "gag," or a "disagreement to be interesting?" Seems like something else. All of the above. You're kinda new here. I wouldn't say you're a rookie, but you're relatively new here. Don't go by those "joined" dates that appear in everybody's avatar. Most of them are way off. This is an insular fish bowl of a forum, with not very many regular posters. The majority of posters here have been here for more than 20 years. And among regular posters who haven't yet hit the two-decade mark, most of those have been here for more than 15 years. If you wanna know more, feel free to PM me.

It's a delicate balancing act, and I think Mendoza is doing a great job of figuring it out. You mean like giving Baty a steady stream of at-bats so that he might improve, but weighed -- balanced, really -- against the possibility that if Baty continues to hit like he always has, he'd be murdelizing the Mets with all of those crappy at-bats? Is that what you mean by "balancing act". Because me, I don't see any downside whatsoever to letting Baty play every day. If I were to fault him, it would be flipping batters around in the order too much. sometimes Vientos is his cleanup hitter, sometimes his #6 guy, McNeil, Nimmo, Alvarez all move around a little too much to suit my taste. But maybe there's reasons Mendoza has (beyond "what the hell") that I'm not privy to. Gee. Because I thought that Mendoza phoned you every morning to run his ideas by you and then to get your approval. Like that time when you gave us the inside scoop on why Mendoza started Nimmo against a lefty pitcher -- it was based mainly on what Nimmo did against righty pitchers, said you. What insight! And if that keen observation wasn't enough, you made a big deal that Nimmo was even starting in the first place. Such a rare start because Nimmo isn't an every day player who has played in all but two Mets game this season.

[FIMG=366]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54517088046_bb4b228823_b.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=366]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54516261902_b707c83b64_b.jpg[/FIMG]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: May is Jerry and Trevor. Together they join Willie in the Mayses [FIMG=333]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54517293084_a9d465f656_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: May is Jerry and Trevor. Together they join Willie in the Mayses [FIMG=333]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54517454755_97720618fd_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: The Marreros--Eli and Deven [FIMG=366]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54517281369_cba3d56fc5_h.jpg[/FIMG]

[FIMG=366]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54517088046_bb4b228823_b.jpg[/FIMG]

Mitchells are Kevin and John.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54515961962_7b643e2401_h.jpg[/FIMG] He hit a HR with a broken foot. [media=youtube]V5RF85VVax8[/media]

Edgy MD wrote: I wonder if the Cory Hotline still works. It did, at least as of 2021. Photo to follow. [FIMG=355]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54512258217_06a120fff8_h.jpg[/FIMG]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=192314 time=1746987534 user_id=68] =roger_that post_id=192282 time=1746981260 user_id=128] Why is Nimmo starting against a lefty? You may ask. It's because he has a small difference against lefty pitching. His OPS against lefties is in fact the same (.769) as his OPS at home.

Mays' OPS+ for 172 was 131, just outside the NL top 10. His 1972 OBP was .400. That would've been good for second place in the NL if Mays was qualified. The year before, Mays led the NL in OBP; the only major leaguer with a higher OBP than Mays in 1971 was Bobby Murcer, who had his career year and might've been the best hitter in the AL in '71. Not only was Mays was not washed up in '72, but he was still an asset. Also, this might be my favorite SI Mets cover of all-time: [FIMG=444]https://vault.si.com/.image/t_share/MTY5MDk4Njg4MDMzNDAwMDk3/43143---toc-cover-image.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: I wonder if the Cory Hotline still works. It did, at least as of 2021. Photo to follow.