batmagadanleadoff

="AG/DC"]="batmagadanleadoff"]Nuthin' to see here, folks. Keep movin'There is Seo! My foot there is.

Nuthin' to see here, folks. Keep movin'

="SteveJRogers"] ... as it works its way to the General from Virgina. What about the General from Vagina?

Konged!

If you had to pick next season's Mets first baseman today, and your only two choices were Delgado and Mike Jacobs, who would you choose?

Gettin' by with a little help from our Cubbies.

Swanee, how we loved you, how we loved you...

Sorry. Wrong Hammer.

It's Hammer Time.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Two years ago, I started the magic number countdown on May 6, when it was at 130. I don't remember any Met ever wearing #130.

="Benjamin Grimm"]Two years ago, I started the magic number countdown on May 6, when it was at 130. That's how confident I was then. http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/2900/f1_t2911.shtml I'm not confident of anything. Actually that's not true. I think the Mets make the playoffs this year but logically, I understand that there is a very reasonable chance that they don't. But these posts here aren't motivated by confidence. Confidence isn't even an issue.

="holychicken"]I just think this thread brings back painful memories from last year. The demons live in this thread. I try to avoid it, but they call like the Sirens. I cannot resist their allure. Plus, I like all the pretty pictures. Plus it's a good way to remember what the magic number is.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I meant that there are two fields of opinion on the award: Those who think it goes to the player with the best offensive stats, and the other to a player who has an amazing late-season run that puts his team over the top. You could go insane trying to make sense of the writers' MVP balloting. Steve Garvey won the award in 1974 when without even considering pitchers, he wasn't even one of the 15 best hitters that season. He wasn't even the best Dodger in 1974 --Jimmy Wynn was and you could write a whole chapter on the gross lack of recognition accorded Wynn throughout his career in MVP voting. Same for Andre Dawson's MVP. In a perfectly logical world, Dawson and Garvey would've received zero votes in their MVP years because they weren't one of the 10 best, let alone MVP. Jose Reyes got a vote in 2005 even though he was the worst regular in the Majors that season until he got hot over the last three weeks and finished up slightly better than the worst player of 2005. The awards balloting is a mockery. Some votes are so absurd, so unreasonably unjustifiable so that the only logical conclusion to make is that the owners of those votes either do not apply the proper amount of respect to their unique privileges or are fundamentally lacking in baseball knowledge -- either way, there are many writers who simply do not deserve the privilege of participating in the awards voting. There are easily 10 players in the NL who are more worthy of this year's MVP than Delgado. Every game counts the same, notwithstanding the order of things. When baseball starts awarding two points for games won after the All Star Game, I might reconsider my opinion

Just noting that Mags might serve double duty here what with his other #. On another note that I just noticed, Jeff McKnight could end up dominating this thread, which is becoming very MBTN-ish, I should note.

seawolf17 wrote: Fatso and Froot Loops was Mike & The Dog. If Delgado finishes in the 35 HR/115 RBI range, which is not out of the question, then he's certainly in the MVP discussion. Maybe not as a winner -- Wright and Reyes will siphon his votes -- but he'll get some low-end votes. Yeah but anybody could get low end votes. That's not saying anything. Come to think of it, anybody could win the MVP the way the writers vote so I shouldn't count Delgado out.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Per Metsblog: "As Keith Hernandez mentioned during SNY�s broadcast last night, it�s time for Delgado to be mentioned in National League MVP conversation." And Oliver Perez is Sandy Koufax if you don't consider Ollie's bad outings. Sounds like Keith's doing coke again. Who is Fatso and Froot Loops? I would like to write to this poster or posters.

="Benjamin Grimm"]There's nothing wrong with noting the magic number. It's a yardstick that tells us what needs to be done. I just don't think it should have the feel of a countdown, as if a clinching was inevitable. Aha! A voice of reason! But how would you know whether someone is noting, and not counting down? Wouldn't there be overlap between the two conditions or are they always mutually exclusive? Is it possible to note without counting down? By the way, there's nothing inevitable here; according to ESPN's playoffs odds, the Phillies are likelier than the Mets to make the playoffs (56.3% to 47.9%) notwithstanding the Mets half game lead. Take note of this Dave Magadan playing card, below. It's a three of hearts.

Elster88 wrote: I understand irony and humor. From the way you keep going in multiple threads I was sure you were still going apeshit. Yeah, kind of. I went apeshit after you offended me three times with bad intent, not humorously, including apologizing to an uninvolved poster and insulting me gratuitously in that post as well. I went apeshit after you went apeshit three times. I kinda like my "assbag" post in this thread. I'm giving myself a bullet of cool.

="SteveJRogers"]="seawolf17"]StevieJeets, the voice of reason.The only magic number that should be the Mets, and Mets fans concern is 1/2. Oh, and a few more, 5 games in 13 days against the Phills, sandwiched around a pesky (when playing the Mets) Marlin squad, and the WC leading Brewers. A lot of work to be done to be worrying about what the number to win the divisional title is. Jeets: I've given some thought to your comment and have come to the conclusion that mentioning "games behind" is more or less the same thing as mentioning "magic numbers". In fact, each concept quantifies the same thing, but from a different perspective. The magic number is a more precise measure because to say that the Mets are in first place by a half a game takes on a different meaning depending on whether the half game lead is in the middle of May or on September 29th. There is less uncertainty when discussing the magic number. On that basis, I cannot logically rationalize why it would be acceptable to talk about the Mets lead in the standings, but unacceptable to mention the more precise magic number. I hope I have illuminated this discussion. Mag on, bro!

Schneider sucks. Whenever I say this, he does something good. Schneider sucks.

Yesterday, I ran into someone I know only casually and not all that well. What I do know about him is that for the past 10-15 years at least, he owned a pair of Shea Stadium field box season tickets very close to the Mets dugout. He's not renewing. According to him, He's "no Fortune 500 corporation and the Wilpons don't want fans in the stands anymore".

HahnSolo wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]HahnSolo wrote: I'm as lost as last night's Met offense. Do you have my avatar? Rogers is pretty upset over this whole thread. Ask him. Yeah but Elster's fine with it and I only care about Elster's opinion.

HahnSolo wrote: I'm as lost as last night's Met offense. Do you have my avatar?

I see. So does a "100" mean that the Mets are league average for that particular inning?

AG/DC wrote: And what might be her relevance? I counted 31 stars showing on her flag. We'll cut out a star with a pair of scissors for each Met win or opponent loss, as is necessary to maintain an accurate tally.