batmagadanleadoff

But you can make the argument that Murphy didn't necessarily cost the team the game. (Or at least I can). Every single Met that took an at-bat without homering can be said to have cost the team the game, including Santana who himself had three plate appearances. I realize that the expectation that Murph would catch a routine fly ball is considerably higher than that of any Met homering. But if not a homer, then what about back to back doubles? Or a long hit in the ninth right after Beltran's single? A team ought to win a game when it holds the opposition to two runs. If Murph never erred; if Fla's two runs were earned -- the result of back to back homers -- wouldn't the media be critical of the Mets offense?

="Edgy DC":1mymmqgq]Other great Metly Eastern European-sounding surnames: "Batmagadanleadoff"[/quote:1mymmqgq] And you may recall how Batmagadanleadoff's playing time was Bloc-ed, first by the stellar incumbent though fading Keith Hernandez, and then by the not so Iron Mike Marshall, who appeared to have drawn the Curtain over Batmagadanladoff's Met career before it got going. (groan.) GYC Apr 13 2009 11:09 AM I enjoyed this KTE. Very amusing. metirish Apr 13 2009 02:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 13 2009 02:29 PM KTE's are off to a hot start this season. Dave Howard on why this is not a day game. ] April 13, 2009, 4:15 PM Why Citi Field Opener is a Night Game By BEN SHPIGEL If you were wondering why the Mets didn�t open up Citi Field in cool and sunny weather this afternoon, instead of much colder temperatures tonight, Dave Howard, the team�s executive vice president for business operations, explains. The Padres, the Mets� opponent tonight, played in San Diego on Sunday and had to fly across the country for this series. They were entitled to an off day. When a draft of the schedule was released to the Mets last August or September, this game was originally scheduled for Tuesday. But they asked the Padres if they would be amenable to playing Monday to give them two chances to play the game should there be a rainout. Howard said Sandy Alderson, the Padres� former chief executive, agreed, as long as the game would be played at night. �It was important to us that people who had tickets for this game would be able to come on Monday or Tuesday,� Howard said. �Our feeling for the inaugural opener at Citi Field was that you can�t just hope that the weather�s good that day. You want to have that cushion. As it turns out, based on the forecast, tomorrow�s not looking good. Had we not moved it, I think we�d be all kicking ourselves.� Ideally, Howard said the Mets would have played their home opener in the afternoon, as they have for the last several years. But, Howard said, �we wanted to improve our odds. Given a chance to hedge against the weather, we had to take it.� seawolf17 Apr 13 2009 02:25 PM "Plus," Howard said, "ESPN gave us a shitload of money to move it to the evening. And our fans want to hear mispronunciations from Jon Miller and analysis from Steve Phillips. Besides, if we had it during the day and everyone took the day off to attend the game, it would hurt the economy." Gwreck Apr 13 2009 09:56 PM You know who else -- and I totally forgot this too -- is on the Padres this year? Cliff Floyd. themetfairy Apr 13 2009 11:08 PM Cliff received a lot of cheers when he was announced during the pre-game ceremonies tonight. Frayed Knot Apr 14 2009 08:22 AM ="sharpie"]]Kevin Kouzmanoff (43 points in Scrabble - Actually 38 as there is only one K so the second would have to be a blank. Yeah, I chose to ignore certain inconvenient facts like where you'd get the second K. Also the part about how one would get 15 letters in their rack in the first place. And, yes, before I start getting cards and letters from the Scrabble mafia, I do realize that it is theoretically possible to get dealt the proper 6 tiles (E V O U Z N) plus a blank and use them on a board with an already properly aligned row or column of _ _ _ I N K _ _ _ M A _ O F F and spell KEVINKOUZMANOFF out of it. Of course then you'd still need to deal with the fact that it's not a legal word (or at least I think it's not) Come to think of it, that would be an interesting form of Scrabble; the only words that are legal would be ones that either pertain to baseball or are ML players' names. Baseball-Reference.com would become the final arbiter for challenged words. GYC Apr 14 2009 12:06 PM That's awesome. I hope I one day will encounter the opportunity to play "KEVINKOUZMANOFF" in Scrabble.

="Edgy DC":ncy7chto]="seawolf17":ncy7chto]I think that's a tone-of-voice question.[/quote:ncy7chto] Yeah, those quotes, particularly the second one, can be read as an attempt to embrace a broad perspective rather than throw Gus under the bus.[/quote:ncy7chto] My exact thoughts on that second quote, too. Edgy DC Apr 13 2009 10:22 AM I think maybe it's somewhere in the middle. He's trying to be Buddha, but some frustration leaks out nonetheless. Given a chance to reword it, he might have sounded more generous. Frayed Knot Apr 13 2009 10:23 AM Change Santana's name to 'Glavine' and fans would be roasting the hell out of him right now. metirish Apr 13 2009 10:38 AM I think Johan upon reflection will see that he was wrong and call his newborn Murphy to show that he is a great teammate. Swan Swan H Apr 13 2009 10:57 AM Johan gets asked if Murphy's error cost the Mets the game. I think he has three options: - What he did, which is say yes, and try to give Murphy some cover (from Newsday: "I'm pretty sure he was trying his best right there and it didn't work out. Tomorrow is a new day, and hopefully, everything will work out for him.") - Blame the offense, which opens up a different can o'worms. Then he's blaming eight guys, Murphy included. - Get all Torborgy about it, and throw a bunch of we're all in this together quotes out there, and look like an idiot in the process. Honest is the only way to go here. Murphy clanked one, and it cost them a game. If he can't handle that extremely mild criticism, well, change his number to 9 and put him in the pool for some swings. Edgy DC Apr 13 2009 11:01 AM "He knows he made a mistake, but we win as a team, lose as a team, and I'm sure there'll be days he'll be bailing us all out." RealityChuck Apr 13 2009 11:04 AM What makes this a "call out"? Johann is merely stating facts. He's not criticizing Murphy particularly. He's not saying he's a terrible fielder. Everyone knows that Murphy is still learning the position, and will be making mistakes. If anything Johann is being classy -- acknowledging the fact, but minimizing it. It's the press that wants to turn a pretty innocuous statement into bad blood -- since bad blood sells newspapers. The question was asked to see if any controversy could be raised. When Johann is noncommittal, they twist things to turn it into a story. Swan Swan H Apr 13 2009 11:10 AM Edgy, what you said is pretty much what Johan said. The first part makes the headline, though. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 13 2009 11:11 AM Didn't people give Willie crap for NOT calling a spade a spade, and always one-game-at-a-time-ing it for the press? Don't a lot of folk yearn for the simple cut-the-bullshit of guys like back-in-the-day Keith and Seaver? Well, here's your hombre, plain and tall (and broad-shouldered). I think the statement reads a lot harsher than it sounded; it's a matter of tone, context and source-- Johan earned an arm's worth of stripes with last year's stretch run. Secondly, I'd worry a lot more about the echo-chamber-ing of this if the comments didn't come a day before Opening-Day-at-new-stadium; as it stands, this'll get lost in the churn of that batch of stories. batmagadanleadoff Apr 13 2009 11:14 AM But you can make the argument that Murphy didn't necessarily cost the team the game. (Or at least I can). Every single Met that took an at-bat without homering can be said to have cost the team the game, including Santana who himself had three plate appearances. I realize that the expectation that Murph would catch a routine fly ball is considerably higher than that of any Met homering. But if not a homer, then what about back to back doubles? Or a long hit in the ninth right after Beltran's single? A team ought to win a game when it holds the opposition to two runs. If Murph never erred; if Fla's two runs were earned -- the result of back to back homers -- wouldn't the media be critical of the Mets offense? GYC Apr 13 2009 11:16 AM It was a comically bad play that was wrong in so, so many ways: he broke in first, he then had to back pedal, he didn't settle under the ball (never catch it while moving), he reached up with one hand instead of two, he looked away from the ball as it neared his glove... The only proper thing Murphy did on that play was reach with his glove hand instead of his barehand. He deserves criticism, especially since it would have ended the inning and it allowed two runs. I don't think Johan was being overly harsh or anything. He spoke the truth. I'd like to hear audio, though, for the context and tone of voice. And I'd like to know how Murphy reacted to what Johan said. Farmer Ted Apr 13 2009 11:18 AM I'm looking forward to a game winning hit by Murph to see Santana's reaction. If the guy fucks up, pull him aside in the clubhouse and hash it out. metsmarathon Apr 13 2009 11:19 AM i'm sorry, but i cannot for the life of me imagine johan spitting out that quote in anger and disgust in his fellow teammates carelessness. what i can imagine is johan using those same words in an attempt to be diplomatic about his teammate who is obviously still making his way up the learning curve, on a big stage. it obviously could go either way depending on the question asked and the tone of voice. for something like this, i'd really like to hear the way it was said. if it were cut and dry, like if johan had said somehting like 'i don't know what the hell he was thinking or why he's even out there in the first place, but he ruined my pristine outing and i'm sick of it!' then it'd be easier to figure out. there's enough qualifiers in both johan quotes that, to me, come across as judicious and diplomatic, not throwing a bus onto his teammate. Edgy DC Apr 13 2009 11:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 13 2009 12:04 PM A lot of things here. ]What makes this a "call out"? Johann is merely stating facts. He's not criticizing Murphy particularly. He's not saying he's a terrible fielder. Everyone knows that Murphy is still learning the position, and will be making mistakes. If anything Johann is being classy -- acknowledging the fact, but minimizing it. A lot of people get paid to state the facts. What a teammate --- particularly a more secure, higher profile teammate --- can do is minimize it. You say he did, and he seems to have been trying to, but Murphy didn't cost them the game alone. A lot of silent bats helped. ="RealityChuck"]It's the press that wants to turn a pretty innocuous statement into bad blood -- since bad blood sells newspapers. That's quite possilbe, but Johan may have a learning curve of his own to deal with here. ="SwanSwanH"]Edgy, what you said is pretty much what Johan said. The first part makes the headline, though. Maybe, but I think there's some ambiguity. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Didn't people give Willie crap for NOT calling a spade a spade, and always one-game-at-a-time-ing it for the press? Don't a lot of folk yearn for the simple cut-the-bullshit of guys like back-in-the-day Keith and Seaver? I don't think what I suggested is bullshit. And I think the Mets have had plenty of outspoken types in recent years --- LoDuca and Wagner spring to mind. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]I think the statement reads a lot harsher than it sounded; Maybe indeed. ="batmagadanleadoff"]But you can make the argument that Murphy didn't necessarily cost the team the game. (Or at least I can). That's where I think Santana falls down --- or the quote clanks out of his glove, if you will. ="GYC"]He deserves criticism, especially since it would have ended the inning and it allowed two runs. Deserving criticism is one thing, but it's typically not a teammate's place to provide it and provide it publickly. ="Farmer Ted"]If the guy fucks up, pull him aside in the clubhouse and hash it out. There's an alternative. ="metsmarathon"]i'm sorry, but i cannot for the life of me imagine johan spitting out that quote in anger and disgust in his fellow teammates carelessness. I'm betting that Johan was attempting to say something better and it came out wrong. But I don't think a harsher intent is beyond the realm of imagination. Moreover, whatever the intent, I just hope that the comment or any repercussions of it don't serve to undercut Murphy. I guess that's very Alan Lans of me. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 13 2009 11:56 AM Can't seem to find audio anywhere at the moment. Heard the snippets on WFAN while driving-- even out-of-context, they sounded measured and reasonable, with nary a tinge of blame or whinging(Murphy, as you might guess, sounded miserable with himself). An auxilliary benefit of the gentle public admonition-- it allows Manuel to strike the conciliatory, let's-everybody-relax grace notes that seem to be his forte, PR-wise: "Here, you have a young man who works extremely hard and he's getting better," manager Jerry Manuel said of Murphy. "He's getting better. I don't think you're going to see that type of stuff from him on a regular basis. I really don't. I think that's just something that out of nowhere happened." It's early, but for all the Carlos/David talk about clubhouse leadership/captaindom... for better or worse, here's your guy. The team goes as Johan goes, methinks, in a lot more ways than the win column can measure. metsguyinmichigan Apr 13 2009 12:01 PM It's part of the learning process. Does anybody doubt that Murph is kicking himself harder than Santana is kicking him? John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 13 2009 12:03 PM He better be. metirish Apr 13 2009 01:23 PM From Lennon over at Newsday Daniel Murphy promised he would work hard to improve after Sunday's costly drop and that's exactly what he is doing this afternoon. Murphy was shagging fly balls off the bat of coach Razor Shines to help him get accustomed to leftfield here at Citi and now Gary Sheffield is doing the same in right. It's been a mixed bag so far. Sheffield made a running catch at the warning track a moment ago, but then had a deep ball sail over his glove as he reached toward the fence. *62 Apr 13 2009 03:38 PM (Miami) After losing 7 or 8 W's to the bullpen last season, and now losing a shutout to a misplayed fly ball, Santana has to be one pi$$ed off hombre. Fish fans down here, all eleventy of them, are crowing like mad. Murphy might should have been shagging extra flies SATURDAY. Rockin' Doc Apr 13 2009 04:08 PM It appears that Santana may have just a little touch of Wagner in him.

Very wrong. Would Santana have been as vocal if Murph's error occurred during another pitcher's start? Would Johan have still steamed privately, if the Mets tied it up but won the game after Santana was relieved? We might never learn the answer to these very telling questions about self-interest but the cynic in me says that if you show me a ballplayer who tells the media he'd trade in his four for four with a Home Run performance for the win that eluded his team, I'll show you a player that's almost always full of shit. I appreciate Johan's honesty even if it doesn't mitigate his unfortunate quote.

The partial head is no longer partial. <---------

="G-Fafif":2o4o9ruz]It's a tough sell to myself sometimes, but I (any of us) only make(s) him bigger by pumping up his balloon. And that takes enough hot air as it is.[/quote:2o4o9ruz] You've got to blow hard to pump up that blowhard. SteveJRogers Apr 13 2009 09:43 AM ="G-Fafif":3dj8h2g0]="batmagadanleadoff":3dj8h2g0]="G-Fafif":3dj8h2g0]="batmagadanleadoff":3dj8h2g0]I'm a fanatical Met fan and I never, ever, ever listen to Mike Francesca.[/quote:3dj8h2g0] But you shave with Gillette Foamy.[/quote:3dj8h2g0] I was going to get around to quizzing the forum on who the partial head (lower right avatar) belongs to. Any ideas?[/quote:3dj8h2g0] There can only be three of those heads in Mets history, unless it's Harrelson's. (Boisclair?)[/quote:3dj8h2g0] I'm apt to guess Kranepool. SteveJRogers Apr 13 2009 09:47 AM ="TransMonk":20ythqx8]I don't need to be spoon fed opinion by talking heads. I'll check in every once in a while to see how much bullshit they are attempting to shovel. I've heard enough of O'Reilly to form my personal opinion that he is a moron and no more informative than a bag of hair. Weak.[/quote:20ythqx8] My point is more that he comes from an investigative journalistic background, being on Inside Edition. Granted he doesn't have Shepard Smith's job or anything, nor did I say I'd put him IN the same category as Shepard Smith. My point was that it is easier to accept the "facts" that O'Reilly brings forth in his opinions, disagree or agree, since he does his homework, then it is on the other two ego-maniacs. Both of whom THINK they are journalists, but in realtiy they are nothing more than talking heads. TransMonk Apr 13 2009 09:55 AM Star Jones used to be on Inside Edition. Geraldo Rivera has an investigative journalist background. Everyone you see on cable news has an agenda whether it is hidden or not. I had always thought you understood this. Bill O'Reilly tailors his facts to support an agenda and/or increase his ratings. Either way, he is an entertainer and not a journalist. Just like Olbermann and Francesa. G-Fafif Apr 13 2009 09:55 AM ="SteveJRogers":j0sdws7b]I'm apt to guess Kranepool.[/quote:j0sdws7b] That we can see. BML's asking about the partial head. batmagadanleadoff Apr 13 2009 10:05 AM The partial head is no longer partial. <--------- TransMonk Apr 13 2009 10:06 AM Looks like a folded Bobby V. G-Fafif Apr 13 2009 10:07 AM Dreamy McMet? Edgy DC Apr 13 2009 10:12 AM Kirk Radomski. seawolf17 Apr 13 2009 10:14 AM We should all change our avatars to be different photos of Bobby Valentine. MFS62 Apr 13 2009 11:17 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":1ylrscgv]I'm a fanatical Met fan and I never, ever, ever listen to Mike Francesca.[/quote:1ylrscgv] And it could get worse. I read in one of the NYpapers last week that Max Kellerman might be Francessa'a new sidekick. http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/13995936 If you don't know his work, Max is a very knowledgeable boxing guy, and a virulent Yankees fan. He used to taunt Mets fans on his ESPN radio show. Batmagadan, if this happens it will be just one more reason not to listen. Later John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 13 2009 11:40 AM Kellerman is OK in my book. He's learned in the language of the intelligent fan, and it might be interesting to see how much old-school, counting-stat ignorance he could take from his idiotic co-host before a fight breaks out. OlerudOwned Apr 13 2009 11:49 AM Bill O'Reilly does some fantastic[/url:3byf6op8] reporting[/url:3byf6op8]. Between this and the Roger Craig thing, geez. Centerfield Apr 13 2009 12:09 PM ="SteveJRogers":3k5gyx3b]="TransMonk":3k5gyx3b] Someone who respects what any of these blowhards (Francesa, O'Reilly, Olbermann) say as an authority on anything other than entertainment and shock value needs to re-evaluate their views on reality.[/quote:3k5gyx3b] O'Reilly is more of a reporter than Francesa (actually he has been getting better since loosing the Dog) and Olbermann ever were. Maybe you should watch instead of getting your info from haters on message boards and whatnot.[/quote:3k5gyx3b] Yes, that is correct. Stevie Jeets just told someone to spend less time on message boards. metsfanbook Apr 13 2009 07:17 PM For years I've been thinking that all I have to do is not listen to Francesa. And for years I've listened to Francesa because when I'm driving home from work, I would like to be entertained by listening to something that has something to do with baseball. For years I've despised Francesa but I was entertained because the Mike and the Mad Dog thing could be diverting, if not illuminating. Now that Francesa sits there alone in profoundly boring isolation, I am out of patience and this has led me to wonder if it was possible for WFAN to figure out that there would be a market for a thoughtful, fair, partisan pro-Mets radio host in the afternoon, somebody in the mold of Gary Cohen or Howie Rose. Unfair partisan programming can be fun when it's done with flair, style, and intelligence, and when you essentially agree with the host, which is why I'm a fan of Keith Olbermann, even though I acknowledge that he's an entertainer and not a journalist. I've listened to O'Reilly a few times and I think that he could actually learn some things from Francesa when it comes to manipulating difficult concepts, collecting and evaluating evidence, and constructing persuasive arguments. Still, fair, analytical partisan programming is, to me, even more entertaining than partisan noise. Isn't there somebody out there they could hire who could give us on talk radio something like what we get from the Mets broadcasters? Dana Brand Edgy DC Apr 13 2009 07:45 PM Welcome back, professor. metirish Apr 13 2009 08:38 PM I would urge you to call Francesa Dana but he would only hang up on you so don't. metsfanbook Apr 13 2009 09:14 PM I fantasize about calling Francesa and saying that I'm a long-time listener but not a fan. Hell, I have been listening to him ever since he replaced Pete Franklin twenty years ago. If I'm not a fan, how do I explain this? Like Greg says, WFAN is like Lojack. Benjamin Grimm Apr 14 2009 06:25 AM I quit WFAN four years ago, and never looked back. There's so much better stuff on the radio. For your own individual sanity, I urge you to stop listening. Edgy DC Apr 14 2009 07:11 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 14 2009 07:57 AM That's the thing. After a certain amount of time away, if you stumble back in, your thinking is, "How did I ever tolerate this insanity/" It's like coming back home to a fucked up family after a time away. You acknowledge and tolerate, and may even laugh in a detached way at some of their fucked-up antics, but you know you can never allow that to be part of your life again, and you can actually feel the pain leaving your body as you decompress afterwards. metsguyinmichigan Apr 14 2009 07:51 AM That's a neat blog, professor. I'll check back often and I'm looking forward to the book.

Today's anagram is .... A Dame is Shut

="G-Fafif":130o63x3]="batmagadanleadoff":130o63x3]I'm a fanatical Met fan and I never, ever, ever listen to Mike Francesca.[/quote:130o63x3] But you shave with Gillette Foamy.[/quote:130o63x3] I was going to get around to quizzing the forum on who the partial head (lower right avatar) belongs to. Any ideas? G-Fafif Apr 13 2009 09:40 AM Francesa by himself is not all powerful. It is that we invest his views or words with our anger/annoyance that makes him a bigger deal than he is. So for five hours a day he is presumptuous and dismissive of the Mets. Then he leaves. And with him goes his nonsense. It's a tough sell to myself sometimes, but I (any of us) only make(s) him bigger by pumping up his balloon. And that takes enough hot air as it is. G-Fafif Apr 13 2009 09:41 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":3288zbut]="G-Fafif":3288zbut]="batmagadanleadoff":3288zbut]I'm a fanatical Met fan and I never, ever, ever listen to Mike Francesca.[/quote:3288zbut] But you shave with Gillette Foamy.[/quote:3288zbut] I was going to get around to quizzing the forum on who the partial head (lower right avatar) belongs to. Any ideas?[/quote:3288zbut] There can only be three of those heads in Mets history, unless it's Harrelson's. (Boisclair?) batmagadanleadoff Apr 13 2009 09:43 AM ="G-Fafif":2o4o9ruz]It's a tough sell to myself sometimes, but I (any of us) only make(s) him bigger by pumping up his balloon. And that takes enough hot air as it is.[/quote:2o4o9ruz] You've got to blow hard to pump up that blowhard. SteveJRogers Apr 13 2009 09:43 AM ="G-Fafif":3dj8h2g0]="batmagadanleadoff":3dj8h2g0]="G-Fafif":3dj8h2g0]="batmagadanleadoff":3dj8h2g0]I'm a fanatical Met fan and I never, ever, ever listen to Mike Francesca.[/quote:3dj8h2g0] But you shave with Gillette Foamy.[/quote:3dj8h2g0] I was going to get around to quizzing the forum on who the partial head (lower right avatar) belongs to. Any ideas?[/quote:3dj8h2g0] There can only be three of those heads in Mets history, unless it's Harrelson's. (Boisclair?)[/quote:3dj8h2g0] I'm apt to guess Kranepool. SteveJRogers Apr 13 2009 09:47 AM ="TransMonk":20ythqx8]I don't need to be spoon fed opinion by talking heads. I'll check in every once in a while to see how much bullshit they are attempting to shovel. I've heard enough of O'Reilly to form my personal opinion that he is a moron and no more informative than a bag of hair. Weak.[/quote:20ythqx8] My point is more that he comes from an investigative journalistic background, being on Inside Edition. Granted he doesn't have Shepard Smith's job or anything, nor did I say I'd put him IN the same category as Shepard Smith. My point was that it is easier to accept the "facts" that O'Reilly brings forth in his opinions, disagree or agree, since he does his homework, then it is on the other two ego-maniacs. Both of whom THINK they are journalists, but in realtiy they are nothing more than talking heads. TransMonk Apr 13 2009 09:55 AM Star Jones used to be on Inside Edition. Geraldo Rivera has an investigative journalist background. Everyone you see on cable news has an agenda whether it is hidden or not. I had always thought you understood this. Bill O'Reilly tailors his facts to support an agenda and/or increase his ratings. Either way, he is an entertainer and not a journalist. Just like Olbermann and Francesa. G-Fafif Apr 13 2009 09:55 AM ="SteveJRogers":j0sdws7b]I'm apt to guess Kranepool.[/quote:j0sdws7b] That we can see. BML's asking about the partial head. batmagadanleadoff Apr 13 2009 10:05 AM The partial head is no longer partial. <--------- TransMonk Apr 13 2009 10:06 AM Looks like a folded Bobby V. G-Fafif Apr 13 2009 10:07 AM Dreamy McMet? Edgy DC Apr 13 2009 10:12 AM Kirk Radomski. seawolf17 Apr 13 2009 10:14 AM We should all change our avatars to be different photos of Bobby Valentine. MFS62 Apr 13 2009 11:17 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":1ylrscgv]I'm a fanatical Met fan and I never, ever, ever listen to Mike Francesca.[/quote:1ylrscgv] And it could get worse. I read in one of the NYpapers last week that Max Kellerman might be Francessa'a new sidekick. http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/13995936 If you don't know his work, Max is a very knowledgeable boxing guy, and a virulent Yankees fan. He used to taunt Mets fans on his ESPN radio show. Batmagadan, if this happens it will be just one more reason not to listen. Later John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 13 2009 11:40 AM Kellerman is OK in my book. He's learned in the language of the intelligent fan, and it might be interesting to see how much old-school, counting-stat ignorance he could take from his idiotic co-host before a fight breaks out. OlerudOwned Apr 13 2009 11:49 AM Bill O'Reilly does some fantastic[/url:3byf6op8] reporting[/url:3byf6op8]. Between this and the Roger Craig thing, geez. Centerfield Apr 13 2009 12:09 PM ="SteveJRogers":3k5gyx3b]="TransMonk":3k5gyx3b] Someone who respects what any of these blowhards (Francesa, O'Reilly, Olbermann) say as an authority on anything other than entertainment and shock value needs to re-evaluate their views on reality.[/quote:3k5gyx3b] O'Reilly is more of a reporter than Francesa (actually he has been getting better since loosing the Dog) and Olbermann ever were. Maybe you should watch instead of getting your info from haters on message boards and whatnot.[/quote:3k5gyx3b] Yes, that is correct. Stevie Jeets just told someone to spend less time on message boards. metsfanbook Apr 13 2009 07:17 PM For years I've been thinking that all I have to do is not listen to Francesa. And for years I've listened to Francesa because when I'm driving home from work, I would like to be entertained by listening to something that has something to do with baseball. For years I've despised Francesa but I was entertained because the Mike and the Mad Dog thing could be diverting, if not illuminating. Now that Francesa sits there alone in profoundly boring isolation, I am out of patience and this has led me to wonder if it was possible for WFAN to figure out that there would be a market for a thoughtful, fair, partisan pro-Mets radio host in the afternoon, somebody in the mold of Gary Cohen or Howie Rose. Unfair partisan programming can be fun when it's done with flair, style, and intelligence, and when you essentially agree with the host, which is why I'm a fan of Keith Olbermann, even though I acknowledge that he's an entertainer and not a journalist. I've listened to O'Reilly a few times and I think that he could actually learn some things from Francesa when it comes to manipulating difficult concepts, collecting and evaluating evidence, and constructing persuasive arguments. Still, fair, analytical partisan programming is, to me, even more entertaining than partisan noise. Isn't there somebody out there they could hire who could give us on talk radio something like what we get from the Mets broadcasters? Dana Brand Edgy DC Apr 13 2009 07:45 PM Welcome back, professor. metirish Apr 13 2009 08:38 PM I would urge you to call Francesa Dana but he would only hang up on you so don't. metsfanbook Apr 13 2009 09:14 PM I fantasize about calling Francesa and saying that I'm a long-time listener but not a fan. Hell, I have been listening to him ever since he replaced Pete Franklin twenty years ago. If I'm not a fan, how do I explain this? Like Greg says, WFAN is like Lojack. Benjamin Grimm Apr 14 2009 06:25 AM I quit WFAN four years ago, and never looked back. There's so much better stuff on the radio. For your own individual sanity, I urge you to stop listening. Edgy DC Apr 14 2009 07:11 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 14 2009 07:57 AM That's the thing. After a certain amount of time away, if you stumble back in, your thinking is, "How did I ever tolerate this insanity/" It's like coming back home to a fucked up family after a time away. You acknowledge and tolerate, and may even laugh in a detached way at some of their fucked-up antics, but you know you can never allow that to be part of your life again, and you can actually feel the pain leaving your body as you decompress afterwards. metsguyinmichigan Apr 14 2009 07:51 AM That's a neat blog, professor. I'll check back often and I'm looking forward to the book.

I'm a fanatical Met fan and I never, ever, ever listen to Mike Francesca.

SANTANA OUTDUELED BY MARLINS' JOHNSON IN 2-1 DEFEAT JOHAN BLAMES LOSS ON MURPHY MISCUE ] MIAMI, Fla. -- Johan Santana put the collar for his wasted gem here today squarely around the neck of teammate Daniel Murphy. "It was just one mistake that he made, [and it] cost us the whole ballgame," Santana said after his 13 strikeouts went for naught in the Mets' 2-1 afternoon loss to the Marlins and their equally superb starter, Josh Johnson.... I was lazy to the ball, and I got exposed for it," Murphy said of his first error this season. "Inexcusable. It can't happen. Johan threw the ball really well and deserved a lot better than that. I'm better than that. It won't happen like that again." Murphy is not a natural outfielder and is in the everyday lineup solely for his offense. The Mets are willing to live with defensive mistakes as long as Murphy produces at the plate, but that understanding didn't make it easier for Santana to swallow today's loss. "I know he's in a learning process," said Santana, who fell to 1-1 despite a 0.71 ERA this season. "This is not going to be the first time [Murphy makes an error]. I don't think it's going to be the last one, either." http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122009/sports/mets/santana_outdueled_by_marlins_johnson_164124.htm

Santana's 20 K's leads the Majors. Among pitchers who have thrown at least 100 pitches, the top two in K/9 inninngs are Oliver Perez, 14.54 and Johan Santana. 14.21.

themetfairy wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]Today's Goat Horns go to Johan Santana. Because he's today's losing pitcher. SC on that? If there's a goat, it's Murphy. That error was fugly and costly. So then how come Murphy's won-loss record isn't increased by one loss after today?

Today's Goat Horns go to Johan Santana. Because he's today's losing pitcher.

="SteveJRogers":3l77bdk9] Does this blogger like any athletic competitions? Because generally speaking, all such sports really don't require "an I.Q." as she puts in.[/quote:3l77bdk9] Chess. Chess requires some I.Q. You left out Chess. Chess. SteveJRogers Apr 11 2009 08:30 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":2kcy2w6i]="SteveJRogers":2kcy2w6i] Does this blogger like any athletic competitions? Because generally speaking, all such sports really don't require "an I.Q." as she puts in.[/quote:2kcy2w6i] Chess. Chess requires some I.Q. You left out Chess. Chess.[/quote:2kcy2w6i] Chess is an ATHLETIC competition? Brain exercise sure, but athletic? DocTee Apr 11 2009 08:59 PM Sailing, too. I have a running feud with the sailing coach at my school, who refers to her team as "athletes." I usually quote George Carlin, about sailing being a way to get from point A to point B, and that if sailing constitutes sport, so does riding the bus. Edgy DC Apr 12 2009 12:05 AM I think most sports started out as competitions in getting from point A to point b. Frayed Knot Apr 12 2009 07:19 AM Non baseball fans seem to have an awful lot of problems with the amount of attention that baseball gets. They're quick to spout off to anyone who'll listen that it's no longer deserving of the moniker "national past-time" and yet seem stunned that there are many who continue to attend, watch, talk, and yes, even write about it - and apparently do all that willingly. RealityChuck Apr 13 2009 08:08 AM Re: Gasp! Baseball is Boring ]Laura Axelrod . . . When she was 22 years old, she graduated from New York University�s Tisch School of the Arts with an MFA in Dramatic Writing. She also received her BFA in Dramatic Writing, and was awarded the John L. Golden Award for Playwright with Most Potential, and the Rod Marriott Senior Playwriting Award that same year. When she was 22? Wow. How many people get an MFA by 22? Probably in the low hundreds of thousands. And with all those awards, I'm sure she's had many plays produced. Many many. Many. Any? This wins some soft of award for straining for relevance. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 13 2009 08:12 AM You guys all busted on her but she's making nice now by buying books about the Mets G-Fafif Apr 13 2009 08:27 AM If anybody could move her from "I hate baseball, it's boring and requires no intelligence" to "I'm willing to have my mind changed," it's Prof. Brand.

This is a nice sign. Of all the Mets that may reasonably be expected to have a huge impact this season, Delgado entered the season as the biggest questionmark. He doesn't look like a questionmark so far. No question.

OlerudOwned wrote: Really abusing Rose there for a pretty innocuous statement of fact. The Mets had only one hit with men in scoring position so far. That's all he was saying. I'm sorry. I'll never do it again.

Schneider grounds out -- pitcher to first - to end the inning. I give the inning's goat horns to Church. In the ever important race to lead the league in BA w RISP, Church's double set the stage for the weak-hitting Schneider to fail, and lower the Mets already low BA w RISP.

Delgado walks, thus failing to raise his BA against Nolasco. It's still .000.

Howie's worried. Delgado is oh for one againsts Nolasco for the entire season. That's an .000 BA.

OlerudOwned wrote: Doubled off on a hit that's the very idea of perfect contact: a line drive up the middle. Baseball is a funny game. Not to mention the drop in Murphy's BA with RISP!

G-Fafif wrote: Wright going into the fifth game with no RBI is no big deal per se, but when Howie (on that thing with the knobs and the speakers) mentioned all the baserunners he's had in scoring position with no scoring yet...no, still no big deal. But still... Maybe Howie would like it if the guys that bat before Wright were a collective oh-for-the-season. Then Wright's BA with RISP wouldn't be zero, or anything, really. (What a dumb stat).

Not-So Quality Start, but Enough By Ben Shpigel MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. � A quality start, as coined by my friend and esteemed colleague John Lowe, is awarded to a pitcher who pitches at least six innings and permits no more than three earned runs. The following teams have three quality starts: Pittsburgh, San Diego, Los Angeles Angels and Kansas City. The Mets, through three games, have none. None of the Mets� starters got through the sixth inning in Cincinnati. Considering the team won two of three there, that is not the end of the world. But the early stumbles of Mike Pelfrey and Oliver Perez have forced Jerry Manuel to use more of his bullpen than he would like, and the Mets� relievers pitched 11 innings against the Reds. The relief corps may get another workout tonight, when John Maine pitches, and potentially Saturday, too, when Livan Hernandez debuts. Just something to think about. http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/mets/

John Maine (10-8, 4.18 1.35 WHIP) debuts against Anibal Sanchez (2-5, 5.57 1.57 WHIP)

The '86 Mets, with Sid and Aguilera as their back of the rotation starters, lost to every singe team during the regular season. So why shouldn't this year's version? Can't win 'em all.