batmagadanleadoff

Frayed Knot wrote: Keith just called Carter "unconscious" Def #1: without awareness, sensation, or cognition "Unconscionable" is also acceptable.

="G-Fafif"]Heard Kid on the FAN with Steve Somers in the 2 o'clock hour. No, of course I'm not campaigning for Willie's job, he said, while continuing to campaign for it. I read about Carter clarifying his initial comments on your web-site. Carter's explanation doesn't jibe; he could have spoken to Jay Horwitz in private to throw his (big) hat into the ring without disrespecting Randolph publicly. Carter's actions were not mutually exclusive.

A Met fan at yesterday's game in Denver:

SI.com is reporting that Willie won't get fired tomorrow. ____________ Jon Heyman INSIDE BASEBALL Mets' Randolph safe ... for now Willie Randolph is set to meet with the Mets owners on Monday to decide the manager's fate. Mets manager Willie Randolph is not going to be enjoying himself at Monday's meeting with the team's top brass. He's not going to feel very comfortable at the confab. But he's not going to be fired, either. Not yet, he isn't. It isn't the Mets-owning Wilpons' habit to make a change this early in a manager's contract. Nor is their style to blow things up this early in the season. Randolph's contract runs through 2009. And his tenure will run at least another week, and perhaps longer than that, if he get can the team's fortunes turned around. No way Randolph gets the ax at this meeting. But that doesn't mean he should feel anything close to secure, either. The Wilpons are not thrilled with the foolhardy comments from Randolph that appeared a week ago today in the Record of Hackensack (N.J.), the ones where Randolph suggested that the team-owned SNY TV network was purposely painting him in an unflattering light. But the Wilpons especially aren't happy about the way the team has played early this season. And it is the team's play that will ultimately determine his fate. It isn't known whether Randolph will get the homestand, or longer, to prove he can turn the team around. But he will be given some time. It could be a week. It could be two weeks. Or it could be into July. That probably depends on how the team looks, and whether it's showing improvement. But the message will be clear at Monday's meeting: the improvement had better come sooner than later. The very first series back home after the Mets' discouraging 3-6 trip ended with a 4-1 defeat at Colorado on Sunday could be a pivotal one for Randolph. The first-place Marlins are in town starting Monday. And the Wilpons can't be pleased to be 5� games behind that Florida team with a $20 million payroll. Which happens to be exactly one-seventh the Mets' $140 million payroll. While the Marlins are playing like they have nothing to lose, the Mets have been merely playing to lose in recent days. To club officials, the Mets appear to be pressing. And as we all know from last year's collapse, this isn't a group that plays well when it's pressing. While Randolph surely will have to explain what possessed him to blame SNY for any image problem he may have (fans and management both generally seem to view him as too laid back), the focus will be on the team on the field. From the start this spring, Fred and Jeff Wilpon made clear to every Met official how imperative it was that they get off to a strong start in the year after their epic collapse. And, as one club official put it, "We've done just about the opposite of that.'' The Wilpons committed the dollars and expect to contend. They can't be happy that the team is 23-25 and outplaying only Washington in the underwhelming NL East division. And they especially can't be pleased that the team has showed this little fire coming off its epic collapse from a year ago. Following that debacle and heading into a new ballpark, the Mets needed to start strong. That message will be sent again to Randolph in their meeting Monday, to the point where he knows the turnaround better start soon.

Gary Carter just phoned Willie Randolph again. This time he told Willie that if he's got the worst starting player in all of baseball, Willie should bat that guy leadoff every single game.

Gwreck wrote: Anytime you want to give it a rest, you just go right ahead and do that. Thanks. Give what a rest?

Gary Carter phoned Willie Randolph this morning to suggest that Vargas be given another start today. He also told Willie to keep on sac bunting in the first inning in Colorado because it's the smartest thing a manager could ever do.

Vargas 4.5 Evans 1.4 Castro 1.2 Beltran 1.1 Wright 0.75 Delgado 0.75 Sanchez 0.3

AG/DC wrote: I'm not accusing you of being the guy. I'm accusing you of being like the guy. Against my better judgment, I'll bite: So how am I like the guy? (Which is what you shoulda come out and said in the first place, instead of the cryptic accusation).

="AG/DC"]I'm not accusing you of being [iramet]. I'm accusing you of being like [iramet]. Isn't that what I wrote? ="batmagadanleadoff"] And how am I like this Iramet? And since when is it a good thing to be accused?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="AG/DC"]This is really silly. We agree. I shouldn't argue with you over how much to agree. Sorry. You started it. ="AG/DC"]So, you respond to "sorry" with with a preference to continue arguing. You are more iramets every post. That wasn't an argumentative post. None of my posts were. I understand how when two posters on a web-site carry on a cyber-conversation in which they disagree with each other, the conversation might appear to be argumentative or confrontational. Much of that is due to the limitations inherent in this type of communication -- where one poster can't hear the voice of the other, or can't see the facial response that delivers the message -- all important clues in determining the mood and tone of the speaker. What's that saying about being able to say the word "fuck" and have it mean 20 different things depending on the surrounding context? The web filters out a lot of important context that helps define the message. But enough of that bullshit. I wasn't arguing. It's also unfair of you to challenge many of my posts and then accuse me of acting undesirable when I defend my posts. (So first you blast my post, and then you blast me for defending myself). Or to accuse me of being Iramet --- even more so when it should be obvious to you that I have no idea what this reference is all about. And how am I like this Iramet? And is that good or bad? And this post isn't argumentative either. Because I love you. Okay? There. I said it. Even though you did start all of it.

="batmagadanleadoff"]="sharpie"]Nicholas Evans (Nick to his friends) is the name of the author of "The Horse Whisperer" among other novels. Nick joins James Baldwin as a literary Met. Gary Carter also wrote a book. Next month, Gary Carter will begin his campaign for the Pulitzer Prize.

AG/DC wrote: This is really silly. We agree. I shouldn't argue with you over how much to agree. Sorry. You started it.

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]AG/DC wrote: I'm certain the incidence of five-run firsts indicates little or nothing.... The Cubs have the best O in the league, but they've scored five times in the first once. It doesn't have to be five. It could be four. Or three. Or six. Then please don't say otherwise. What exactly is the "otherwise" that I wrote that you have a problem with? "If it happened five times, it should've happened 10 times." I stand by my post. A manager who insists on bunting right before the middle of order is due up is costing his team runs. Sac bunts reduce offense. This has been proven statistically. When a manager serial bunts with the #2 hitter, the team takes an even bigger offensive hit than it ordinarily would by merely bunting at the bottom of the order. If the Mets have "x" big first innings under Willie, they'd have more than "x" with somebody less inclined to bunt.

Delgado blasts a no-doubt-about-it HR to right field.

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]AG/DC wrote: I'm certain the incidence of five-run firsts indicates little or nothing.... The Cubs have the best O in the league, but they've scored five times in the first once. It doesn't have to be five. It could be four. Or three. Or six. Then please don't say otherwise. What exactly is the "otherwise" that I wrote that you have a problem with?

Valadius wrote: Where the hell did this Nick Evans come from? Gary Carter says he mentored Evans and wants credit.

Evans the rookie hit his third double. Stockton sez it's the fifth time this week that a Met rookie debuted with three doubles in his first game.

sharpie wrote: Nicholas Evans (Nick to his friends) is the name of the author of "The Horse Whisperer" among other novels. Nick joins James Baldwin as a literary Met. Gary Carter also wrote a book.

AG/DC wrote: I'm certain the incidence of five-run firsts indicates little or nothing.... The Cubs have the best O in the league, but they've scored five times in the first once. It doesn't have to be five. It could be four. Or three. Or six. And I'd bet that the incidence of scoring three or more runs in the first inning correlates very strongly with winning games. Teams score more runs in the first inning than in any other, and not by coincidence. The game's designed for that. AG/DC wrote: A good team will tend to do better, but I doubt the best team does the best. The best teams don't have to be the best at anything. But they're usually near the top in a whole bunch of categories.

FOX sez: The Mets five run first inning is the most since August of last year.

AG/DC wrote: [What does how many times they scored five in the first inning matter? Randolph had the sacrifice bunt on in the first inning with Castillo up. And it's not the first time I've seen Willie put on a sac bunt in the first inning of a game in Coors. Any manager that doesn't assume going in, that they're gonna need seven or eight runs to win a game in this stadium is, in my opinion, too stupid to deserve to manage. And if Wilie does understand this, then the sac bunt in the first inning has no justification.

You see, I think that Randolph's managerial style reduces offense. And if you're costing your team runs, you could be costing your team some games. And if you're costing your team some games, you could be costing your team the right to play in the post-season. You might even be engineering one of the most embarrassing baseball collapses in modern baseball history.

AG/DC wrote: And if it happened 10, it should have happened 20? What does how many times they scored five in the first inning matter? Because the best batters might all come up with men on base. Because a lineup should optimally be designed to score big in the first inning. Because the first inning is the only inning where the manager knows for sure which three batters are guaranteed to get an at bat. And if the batters at the top get on base, the entire middle of the order gets a chance to drive in runs. And the chances of scoring big are greater when no one's making outs on purpose. A manager who almost always calls for a sac bunt even in the first inning, as soon as his leadoff batter gets on base, is reducing the team's chances of scoring big.

Evans lines a nice looking double in his second at bat. He's on pace to hit a double every single time up.