batmagadanleadoff

AG/DC wrote: Good call, Larry from Houston. Wee Willie Small Balls, on the other hand, bunts all the time. In the first inning, in the first inning with nobody out. In the first inning and nobody out with Reyes already on second base. Randolph even did the sac bunt thing with a man on second and nobody out in the first inning of a game in Colorado. Colofuckinrado. Could you believe that? When a guy does something as harebrained as sac bunting in the first inning in Denver, well that's all you need to know about the guy.

G-Fafif wrote: Larry Dierker shocked people when the Astros tabbed him in 1997 and he won three straight division titles. Larry Dierker on the bunt: Last night, I was doing a show on KTRH with Tom Franklin and Alan Ashby and we got yet another call about bunting. It seems to me that many people who consider themselves to be knowledgeable fans, think their favorite teams should bunt more often.... [T]he Astros are second in the league in sacrifice bunts to the Rockies, with the Cubs running a close third. Last time I looked, none of those teams was having a very good year. And while I know there is more to it than bunting, I also know that bunting is a bad strategy most of the time.... When I was pitching, I was delighted when the hitter squared to bunt -- especially if he was a decent hitter. I'll take an man on second with one out any day. And many times it worked out even better for me because the hitter either made a bad bunt and we got the force play at second, or he went back to hitting with two strikes in the count. As a manager, I was amazed when opposing managers bunted in the first inning to try to score first. Even if they scored a run, there were still eight innings left to play . One run is not a big deal in the first inning. But the big inning is a big deal. In 70 percent of all major league games, the winning team scores as many or more runs in one inning than the other team scores in the whole game. That suggests that it is better to play for the big inning until late in the game and that's the way I managed. Most managers do the same. That's why the Astros, who don't bunt often, still bunt more than most teams. With a man on first base and nobody out, you have a chance for a big inning. That chance is greater if you hit away, while your chance of scoring one run is still the same. The only time it is a good idea to sacrifice bunt is when there is a weak hitter at the plate who is also a good bunter and there is a good hitter up next. In other words, with the eighth hitter up when you are going to pinch hit for the pitcher, or when the pitcher himself is up.

Those English professors can be bastards. Well, thanks to you, I'm no longer whoever I was (<---------) before Jack Heidemann.

SteveJRogers wrote: Oh my God. Yes, I'll agree journalists SHOULD know basic English composition, but I'm trying to write a story there. Hey! Wherd'ja go? I wasn't making fun of your English.

SteveJRogers wrote: I�m not brimming with excitement about what could be coming from the horizon known as the Met minor league system. And that troubles me more than watching a team go through the motions of what looks to be nothing more than a 75-83 win season. Back to Baseball. In short summary, this is an odd Mets team. They have some terrific players. Beltran and Santana are superstars in the prime of their careers. David Wright is a precociously gifted player --years ahead of his prime yet already as much of a superstar as Beltran and Santana. But there are too many questionmarks throughout the rest of the roster. And three very good players is not enough to get to the post-season. TBD.

SteveJRogers wrote: Fellow who is currently in the same Grad school journalism program as I am, Has a blog called Tribe Fan In Yankee Land Sorry, bit of a too inside joke. Well, I'm not that guy. You shoulda known that because I posted that I have no blog. I was also kidding about the going to Iona part.

SteveJRogers wrote: What, are you a Tribe Fan in Yankee Land or something? If we're going to continue this exchange, you should explain this comment to me. A little help, please.

You have a blog, too? Am I like the only one on this forum that doesn't have a blog?

SteveJRogers wrote: I go to Grad school at Iona for journalism, not English at Pace or Stony Brook or somewhere. Me too.

SteveJRogers wrote: Funny, when I first heard that Mike Piazza had become a Florida Marlin, my first reaction was annoyance.... Now I'm confused. Were you amused or annoyed? Or both? It's funny how that stuff works.

SteveJRogers wrote: Funny, sounds quite like 1992 and 2002. You already said something was funny.

SteveJRogers wrote: That is what troubles me about the 2008 Mets. What is it that troubles you about the 2008 Mets?

SteveJRogers wrote: Funny how things work. Yes. Funny how things work.

Rich Folkers?

MFS62 wrote: Nice job, Aaron. I've seen better performances by Tori Spelling. I didn't know that Aaron Spelling couldn't act.

="G-Fafif"]As for tonight's Oughta Be pick, 61 is to be removed by Shea visitor turned cause celebre Mike Andrews, the Oakland Athletic Charlie Finley tried to elbow off the roster for making three errors in Game Two of the '73 World Series. In Game Three of that Series, (Andrews +1) Felix Millan grounded a single off the body of Oakland Third Baseman Sal Bando. Millan's grounder was apparently botched by Bando, notwithstanding the Official Scorer's interpretation. Sign Man Karl Ehrhardt followed with this sign: "You're Fired!"

Vic Sage wrote: And expecting schoenweise to get out righties because the "can't afford to have specialists" is exactly the kind of moronic thinking i expect from Wee Willie Small Balls.. Wee Willie Small Balls!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

="Elster88"]Finn saw him blowing a guy at the construction site. Okay. If Finn says so, I'm convinced.

He's got a wife and he says he's not gay. What more do you want from the guy? Next thing you know, you people'll be saying that Liberace was gay.

SteveJRogers wrote: Its called a joke.... I know. I was joking, too.

SteveJRogers wrote: YOU know I meant fans voting ON the internet. What are you some kind of College English professor or something? I would ordinarily give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you wrote that thing and attributed it to me. Also, I am no longer Tom Sturdivant. Tom Sturdivant <---

SteveJRogers wrote: 1 for 10 with RISP. This has been the story just about all year. Lack of a killer instinct. The Mets would be better off if a lot of their doubles and triples were singles, instead. Or outs. Then they'd have a better % of baserunners driven in from scoring position.

SteveJRogers wrote: 1 for 10 with RISP. This has been the story just about all year. Lack of a killer instinct. Yes Mags, there is such a thing as a killer instinct in sports. In any event, the Mets just don't seem to have it yet this season. So why bother with stats? Why don't teams just send all the prospects to the cardiologist to have their hearts measured?

SteveJRogers wrote: 1 for 10 with RISP. This has been the story just about all year. Lack of a killer instinct. Yes Mags, there is such a thing as a killer instinct in sports. In any event, the Mets just don't seem to have it yet this season. I would say that that's also bullshit. The part about not hitting with men in RISP. Just say the Mets aren't hitting and leave it at that. Because the Mets aren't hitting.