batmagadanleadoff

Maybe Pagan took the pitch because it wasn't to his liking. Or are we gonna start blaming Jerry whenever a Met batter takes a called strike?

MFS62 wrote: IIRC, when owner Joan Payson was told that the Mets had scored 19 runs in that game, she asked, "Did they win?" Later Wasn't it some anonymous fan who called the Newspaper sports desk for the score and, when told that the Mets scored 19 runs, asked "Did they win?"

batmagadanleadoff wrote: i find it maddening that baseball "purists" are falling all over themselves trying to defend and protect and reinforce the "human element" of baseball officiating. i'd like to rebrand them "errorists" or "inaccurists" in this regard. Yesterday afternoon I was in my car driving and I put on the "FAN", thinking that perhaps, the station might be carrying the Buffalo game because Strasburg was pitching. Instead, the station was broadcasting its normal programming, which at that moment was Mike Francesca. Mike was browbeating some caller-in who thought that MLB should institute some form of replay. Francesca's argument (harangue, really) against replay was based entirely on the premise that Mike was comfortable with the current state of things. "I'm fine with the way things are" said Mike. And that was that. It was the Mikey Likes It defense. I just remembered Francesca mocking that caller by repeating like three or four times in a row: "Whaddya want? Robots? You want Robots? Robots? Is that what you want?"

metsmarathon wrote: i find it maddening that baseball "purists" are falling all over themselves trying to defend and protect and reinforce the "human element" of baseball officiating. i'd like to rebrand them "errorists" or "inaccurists" in this regard. Yesterday afternoon I was in my car driving and I put on the "FAN", thinking that perhaps, the station might be carrying the Buffalo game because Strasburg was pitching. Instead, the station was broadcasting its normal programming, which at that moment was Mike Francesca. Mike was browbeating some caller-in who thought that MLB should institute some form of replay. Francesca's argument (harangue, really) against replay was based entirely on the premise that Mike was comfortable with the current state of things. "I'm fine with the way things are" said Mike. And that was that. It was the Mikey Likes It defense.

Did you ever try to print any of the cards you create on card stock?

Here are the combined 2009 and 2010 totals and rates for HR's hit at Citi Field by the Mets and their opponents v. HR's hit on the road by Mets and their opponents: Citi Field --- 163 HR/109 games = 1.50 HR/game Road --- 182 HR/107 games = 1.70/HR/game So far, Citi Field suppresses HR's overall, despite last season's splits to the contrary -- even though the team's decision to lower the height of the CF wall should logically increase the Citi Field HR rate.

Fman99 wrote: The Bordick/Mora swap. What a boondoggle that was. Without thinking this one through thoroughly, Mora/Bordick come's to mind immediately as a transaction I'd wish to undo. Or while we're on shortstops, how about the Mets signing A-Rod after the 2000 season?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The day the Mets won the World Series in 1969. I was six years old and wasn't watching; wasn't interested. But I was at my grandparents' apartment, and my grandfather was watching. (I can't believe I was in a room where the game was on TV when Davey flied to Cleon and was completely disinterested!) But when the game ended, my grandfather turned to me and said, "The Mets just won the World Series!" and he was so happy that it made quite an impression on me. From that point on I knew that a Mets win was a good thing. I kept that thought in my head, but didn't actually start watching games until 1971, which is when the kids in my neighborhood discovered baseball cards and I learned that Tom Seaver was a really big deal. I posted that my earliest memories were the JC Martin play and then a 1970 Agee HR, but Grimm's post reminded me that I also remember watching on TV --against my will-- the last inning of Game 5 of the 1969 series. I was at a friend's house watching the afternooon kiddie TV lineup (Speed Racer or perhaps Gigantor, or Popeye?) when some of the older kids in the house commandeered the TV set to watch the end of the Mets clincher. I had little idea about what was going on and privately resented the interruption. But the following morning, when I arrived at my elementary school, I walked into the biggest buzz of excitement I ever experienced to that point in my life and became a Mets fan that same day. I was a front-running bandwagon jumpingoning Mets fan.

"Mets Want Perez to Move Aside for Niese" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/sports/baseball/02citifield.html?src=mv The Mets are working with Scott Boras, the agent for Perez, in the hopes that Perez will accept a temporary demotion by the weekend. General Manager Omar Minaya has been in contact with Boras, who is believed to be open to the idea of trying to help the Mets persuade Perez he should accept the assignment.... Manager Jerry Manuel, the pitching coach Dan Warthen and Minaya have been trying to persuade Perez of the value of going to the minors to try to regain his form. But Perez has not given a clear reason for his desire to stay in the major leagues, where he has been relegated to an almost nonexistent role New York Mets pitcher Oliver Perez is a trainwreck; agent Scott Boras should be a better conductor http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2010/06/03/2010-06-03_plan_for_perez_says_someone_needs_a_shrink.html "He hasn't had the revelation yet that (going to the minors) is the best thing for him and the best thing for the ballclub," Jerry Manuel said early Wednesday afternoon from San Diego. "Sometimes I'm not sure my message is getting through to him. I want to say, 'Have your agent call me, I'll explain it to him.'" Defiant and Prideful, Perez Holds the Mets Hostage http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575283000905321026.html For weeks now, Mr. Perez has in essence held the Mets hostage, refusing to accept another minor-league assignment despite his poor performance, exercising his collectively bargained right as a player with at least five years of major-league experience to remain on the Mets' roster. He is 0-3 with a 6.28 ERA, has walked 33 hitters in 38 2/3 innings, and since manager Jerry Manuel removed him from the starting rotation and moved him to the bullpen in mid-May, Mr. Perez has become an expensive and ineffective pariah. He might as well walk around the clubhouse with a scarlet zero on his uniform, so far is he now from being a valuable contributor to a team still within striking distance of first place. To no small extent, the Mets created this problem themselves in February 2009, when they handed a three-year, $36 million contract extension to Mr. Perez, a pitcher with a history of erraticism. Still, since Mr. Perez has rebuffed the team's repeated suggestion that a stint in the minors might help him, he has become something of a punch line even to the people paid to coax something positive out of him. "Is he hurting the team by staying here?" Mr. Manuel said recently. "Only if we need a long reliever." Mr. Manuel then went a step further before the Mets played the Padres here Wednesday. Starting pitcher Jonathon Niese, who has been on the disabled list because of a bad hamstring, is healthy enough to be activated Saturday, and Mr. Manuel said it would be "ideal" for Mr. Perez to accept a minor-league assignment and open a roster spot for Mr. Niese. Those not-so-subtle shots have a good bit of truth to them. Mr. Perez has made only four appearances since his last start, which was on May 14, and he's shown little progress in those appearances, allowing five earned runs in only 5 1/3 innings. He threw 2 2/3 innings of relief Monday in the Mets' 18-6 loss to the Padres, entering the game only after San Diego had built a nine-run lead, and the only consolation for him was that two other Mets relievers, Raul Valdes and Ryota Igarashi, pitched worse than he did in the game.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: This is the second part of the "Who was managing" thread. What are your earliest memories of a Met game? I have two. I remember J.C. Martin running out of baseline at Shea during the 1969 WS. And I still remember a portion of Lindsey Nelson's call while Agee was trotting around second base after hitting a three run homer. I can still hear Lindsey in my head, 40 years later, still shouting: "a three run-homer, a three-run homer", his voice, his cadence, his intonation. To clarify, your earliest Mets game memories, for the purpose of this thread, need not have been experienced at the ballpark. Televised memories are acceptable. For example, my two earliest memories (JC Martin, WS and a 1970 Agee HR) were off the TV. I did not attend my first Met game until 1971.

This is the second part of the "Who was managing" thread. What are your earliest memories of a Met game? OE -- Televised memories are acceptable. I have two. I remember J.C. Martin running out of baseline at Shea during the 1969 WS. And I still remember a portion of Lindsey Nelson's call while Agee was trotting around second base after hitting a three run homer. I can still hear Lindsey in my head, 40 years later, still shouting: "a three run-homer, a three-run homer", his voice, his cadence, his intonation, his excitement.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Who was managing the Mets when you first became a Met fan? What are some of the earliest details you remember from a Met game, whether you witnessed the events in person of from television? I'll go first. Gil Hodges. J.C. Martin running out of baseline in the 1969 World Series. A Tommie Agee 3-run homer and Lindsey Nelson shouting "a three-run homer, a three-run homer" as Agee rounded second during his home run trot. Hey --- this one's a two parter. I couldn't fit part two into the topic header.

Frayed Knot wrote: But regardless of whether he SHOULD have been out or not, the fact is he was called safe and in order for that 27th Indian batter's AB to be ruled an error and not a hit so as to give Galarraga a no-hitter even if not the perfect game IS a matter for the scorer. I don't see where MLB has any say in that. I see what you're saying. Hasn't that happened before? Haven't there been instances where a hit/error call was changed after the game was over? I'm sure there were.

Who was managing the Mets when you first became a Met fan? What are some of the earliest details you remember from a Met game, whether you witnessed the events in person or from television? I'll go first. Gil Hodges. J.C. Martin running out of baseline in the 1969 World Series. A Tommie Agee 3-run homer and Lindsey Nelson shouting "a three-run homer, a three-run homer" as Agee rounded second during his home run trot.

Frayed Knot wrote: Nymr83 wrote: I'm not sure if MLB has ever over-ruled a scorer to do something like that. they've change hit/error calls in the past and added RBIs, etc. Official scorers have changed their own prior decisions after the fact, but has MLB ever gone over the heads of one and over-ruled an official scorer? This isn't an official scorer's call. A scorer may decide, among other things, whether a batter that has reached base safely, did so as a result of a hit or error. But the scorer does not get to decide whether the batter, as a preliminary matter, has a right to reach base safely. The scorer doesn't decide whether the play is a hit or out. Anyway, I feel bad for all involved. No doubt that if Joyce had the magic wand, he'd reverse his call.

Nothing for nothing but the King of the World Grand Exalted Mystic Ruler of the Kingdom of the Second Baseman .............. Must ..............Bat ...........Second is Willie Small Balls who came to the throne on the sole strength of his 2005 Cairo must bat second if he's replacing Kaz Matui who had to bat second because he's ......... the second baseman campaign.

Edgy DC wrote: But we're in an entirely speculative realm here. We have no idea how excited Omar Minaya is to get Murphy in at second, or if he's more or less-so than Manuel. Speculative? I�ll say! Why we don�t even know if Murphy � you know � can even play 2B. Though I have a feeling that someone�s gonna figure out how to blame Jerry for that, as well. �Why should Murphy report to Buffalo? How does Murphy know that while he�s in Buffalo, Jerry isn�t gonna sublet Murph�s Long Island apartment to a family of goat herders and their nine goats without Jerry guaranteeing not to? And how can Murphy be sure that after playing a game at second for Buffalo, Jerry won�t promote him right back to the big club and insert him into his god-given entitled-to cleanup spot in the batting order? If I was Murphy, I�d insist on learning 2B in the big leagues. This is all Jerry's fault.�

Jerry's not gonna play Chris Carter over Cora either, no matter the power numbers. What's the point? Other than that it's gonna be Jerry's fault if Cora vests and Jerry's fault if Cora doesn't vest because if Cora doesn't vest, it means that Castillo is playing and that's also Jerry's fault. Plus Castillo's hurt so there's that and that's Jerry's fault because if Jerry didn't personally come to all of our homes to tell us what the team's plan is for dealing with Castillo's injury, then that means that there is no plan and that's Jerry's fault. Not having a plan to heal Castillo means that Jerry caused the injury in the first place. Jerry also spilled all that oil that everyone's talking about.

Fman99 wrote: I just think he'd rather live the major league lifestyle than ride on buses and stay at the Best Western in Scranton. Just a hunch. You might be right. Though I'd bet that the Mets offered Ollie a cushie Florida gig where he's based in one city, doesn't travel outside of that locale and pitches against incoming teams. Or the same idea, but substitute Brooklyn for Florida. He wouldn't have to leave the city, and would pitch against Cyclone opponents. Here's a question for the forum: Some think that Ollie's agent, Scott Boras is behind Ollie's unwillingness to be re-assigned. If so, then why? What does Boras gain from the tactic? Or Ollie, for that matter?

First four guys to face Ollie tattoed the ball, whether out or safe. Even David Eckstein gets in on the act, hitting the ball 40 feet over Pagan's head.

15-6. It's Ollie time.

I wonder if it even matters what the anonymous Mets think? Is it even an issue as far as Perez is concerned? Isn't it enough that management wants to re-assign Perez? If you're questioning Ollie's anonymous teammates and also defending Ollie, then it seems to me (correct me if I'm mistaken) that you're saying that Ollie gets to decide his fate. But irrespective, what's the difference between Ollie's situation and a hypothetical scenario where some backup Met (who, let's suppose, can also block a re-assignment) refuses to come off the bench to pinch-hit because he's not starting enough games? This is out and out insubordination.