metirish

Might be a relative of Plaxico Burress too?

I couldn't picture him in the minds eye although the name was slightly familiar.

Paddy Power has similar feelings Reyes to sign with the Mets 3-1 Reyes to sign a $120+ million contract with the Mets - 10-1 Reyes to sign a more than five year deal with the Mets - 10-1 Reyes to sign elsewhere - 1/2 on Reyes to sign a $120+ contract elsewhere - 2-5 Reyes to sign with within the NL East - 2-1 Reyes to sign within the NL Central - 3-1 Reyes to sign within the NL West - 6-1 Reyes to sign within the AL East - 4-1 Reyes to sign within the AL Central - 4-1 Reyes to sign within the A: West - 5-1 Reyes to get "Crawford Money" - even money Do you know how to read the toteboard? You would be surprised how many people don't understand it at all. The most basic information there are the win odds quoted on each horse. Those don't tell you what the horse will pay, but the amount of profit you will get and the amount you have to bet to get it. 6-5 means you will get $6 profit for every $5 wagered. 20-1 means you get $20 profit for every $1 wagered (i.e. bet $2 and get $42 back). Since most tracks have a $2 minimum bet, below is a handy chart look up the payoff for a $2 bet at various odds. Remember, your actual payoff may differ from this chart as the odds on the toteboard are rounded off, so 2-1 odds on the toteboard may actually be 1.9-1 or 2.2-1. Payoffs use the actual odds and are rounded down to the nearest nickle or dime depending on the rules at that track. This rounding is called breakage which can be a complex topic for beginners

If the Cardinals win this I wonder will they talk about going in to game seven on the back of game six like the '86 Mets players do,"no way were we going to lose game seven after that".

Per FOX stat last team to come back from a three run deficit in game seven? yes, the 1986 Mets

That's not Carpenter!

metsguyinmichigan wrote: That was Endy-esque. no way, not even close was it really? Carpenter is a bit of a wanker I think, lots of gesticulating on the mound after an out.

Part of the trade that netted Ojeda. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mitchjo02.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker&utm_campaign=Linker

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think five years, $90 million is the high end of the reasonable zone. And I also think it's reasonable for the Mets to not go above that until they find that they have to. I don't disagree with that but if the Mets go say 4 years, $70 million his agent would come and say it's an insult yyybbb, which I guess might suit the team.

Didn't Jeff Loria buy everyone and anyone connected with the team rings last time the Marlins won?

Interesting, who decides who gets rings with peripheral players? I agree with John, maybe giving both Jefferson and Mitchell their World Series rings will create some new good karma at Citi Field. We all know the team could use it. it probably won't create anything

Mets will offer 5 years at $90 and the Nats will blow them away with a stupid deal.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I fast-forwarded that article, but back when I used to watch baseball, I'd Tivo the games because I'd still be working for the 4PM west coast start times. I effin loved zooming through the commercials and even when I was off work, I started DVR'ing it and would start like a half hour late, so I could zip through just the same. FF'ing between pitches is st00pid & lame, but I'm apparently a big, flag-waving, card-carrying DVR fag. see, this is a perfect use of the DVR , west coast time, of course you still need to avoid the score.

Steve Traschel on the mound with Nomar at bat,tell those two to hurry up and they probably fall apart. Some players are slow and some have idiosyncrasies that are part of their makeup.

Edgy DC wrote: Then let the ump hammer on the manager that he's being inconsiderate and holding up the game and remind him that he's the supreme law. I was at the gastropub last night, and I watched as the Rangers catcher took a painful foul ball off an unpadded part of his person. No words were exchanged, but the ump made a point of buying some time by cleaning off the plate. It was great. He just looks down, with a look of "My, isn't that plate a mess, and here in the World Series --- disgraceful." He takes a circular walk around the plate, pulls the little broom from his pocket in a circular motion, bends his ass directly at the pitcher, and paints the dish with the broom in clean even strokes like he's an artist. And he is. . love when they do that, FOX had them wired for sound and the ump and catcher had a brief exchange, likewise the catcher will do the same for the ump when they take one.

Seems like a lot of trouble to FF in between pitches , plus I can rarely DVR a sports event and then avoid the score.

without DVR. Some here will appreciate this The Waiting Game I�ve loved baseball my whole life. Now, I can�t watch a game without DVR. By Josh Levin|Posted Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011, at 4:10 PM ET Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals waits during Game 5 of the World Series against the Texas Rangers Rob Carr/Getty Images. The fast-forward button makes everything on television more tolerable. By time-shifting sporting events, the savvy fan eliminates the scourge of commercial breaks, cutting out all the frustrating, buzz-killing dead space. Once you�ve gone DVR, watching a game in real-time is cruel torture, a slow death by 1,000 Miller Lite ads. When it comes to football, I�m content to zap past the latest in beer shillery and watch everything in between. That�s because there�s value in watching the interstitial replays. As you await the next snap in an NFL game, you can watch a slow-motion rendering that sheds light on what happened the play before. In a baseball game, though, the time between pitches serves no function for fan or player. The batter steps out of the box, the pitcher steps off the mound, the batter adjusts his batting gloves, the pitcher tugs the bill of his cap, and the batter calls timeout. All the while, there�s nothing to fill the dead air. Ball one, outside�America is ready to move on. During the World Series, Fox shovels a heap of extreme close-ups of players, managers, and fans into these gaping chasms of tediousness. This is supposed to enhance the Drama of October. Instead, it�s a visual cue that there�s absolutely nothing going on. Baseball was my first love. I started obsessing over games before I could form permanent memories, and I�m told I taught myself to read by scanning the box scores in the morning sports page. Once I attained full-on literacy, I devoured The Baseball Encyclopedia and collections of wacky baseball anecdotes, and I sat on the carpet for hours sorting my Topps and Donruss cards. Now, as an adult, I still read about baseball every day, and I continue to feast on the latest statistics. But I find it impossible to make it through a baseball game without technological assistance. Major-league games are not appreciably longer today than when I became a fan in the late 1980s and early 1990s. For the last decade, the average regular-season game has taken about 2 hours and 50 minutes. Red Sox-Yankees games and postseason contests, however, last in the neighborhood of 30 minutes longer than a typical contest and occasionally breach the four-hour barrier. (In 2006, Boston and New York played a nine-inning game that took 4 hours, 45 minutes.) For fans as much as players, Major League Baseball�s showcase games have become tests of endurance. This is due in part to the attrition model of baseball favored by savvy, Moneyball-schooled ballclubs. Hitters take more pitches, which leads to more guys reaching base, which leads in turn to more pitching changes and throws over to first. At the same time, pitchers have taken to stalling their hearts out. Batters, too, call timeout after timeout, and the indulgent home-plate ump grants it every time. Add it all up, and you�ve hit the three-hour mark in the bottom of the sixth. At the same time, the miracle of modern technology has empowered couch-bound fans to control the pace of play. So long as you don�t watch in real-time, you need not be thwarted by visits to the mound, or by hitters adjusting themselves, and then adjusting themselves again. (In the meantime, the pitcher is also adjusting himself.) While my constant fast-forwarding makes me feel like an efficient baseball consumer, it costs me the opportunity to watch the World Series alongside my fellow fans. I�d prefer�and I�d imagine the lords of MLB would prefer�if I were able to watch passively, without my finger hovering over the remote. But playoff games are just too slow. I can�t argue with some of the stuff that leads to baseball bloat: Taking pitches and deploying bushels of short relievers is good strategy. But there�s no reason for the game�s culture of between-pitch time-wasting. What�s most frustrating about this chronic stopping and starting is that it�s against MLB rules. Rule 8.04 decrees: When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call �Ball.� � The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire. In Game 5 of the World Series, Chris Carpenter, C.J. Wilson, Octavio Dotel, and Alexi Ogando (among others) took more than 12 seconds between pitches on innumerable occasions. They were not instantly penalized. The only time Major League Baseball has been inclined to enforce its pitch-clock rule is when Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon�probably the slowest pitcher in baseball history�steps on the mound. Since there are no consequences when non-Papelbons take a minute between tosses, major-league pitchers do what they please, watchability be damned. I don�t see any downside to MLB following through on its ban on unnecessary delays, nor can I see a reason not to extend the rule�to make them pitch in, say, 25 seconds or less with men on base. If you think such enforcement would cause irreparable harm to our poetically clock-less pastime, consider the Southeastern Conference�s 2010 experiment with a 20-second pitch clock. The clock, which was activated only when the bases were empty, drew no complaints, and the SEC�s players and managers said they barely noticed the countdown. The result: Games were shortened by as much as 15 minutes. Because of this success, the pitch clock was adopted across college baseball in 2011. The gentlemen�s agreement between hitter, pitcher, and umpire that enables baseball�s culture of stalling is to nobody�s advantage�not the fans, not the broadcasters, and not the fielders who get stiff waiting for the pitcher to go into his motion. If Fox and MLB had any sense, they would cut out all the mid-at-bat foolishness and redistribute that extra time to slot in more commercials between innings. Sure, I�d fast-forward through those ads, but that would be a whole lot better than zooming through the game itself. http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2011/10/world_series_2011_why_i_can_t_watch_a_baseball_game_without_dvr_.html

A thing of beauty as Newbold Morris might say.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Mike and Mike this morning had the gall to say something along the lines of "Shame it was Freese. If it was Pujols, this game would've been truly epic." If THAT doesn't illustrate the typical ESPN star-driven mentality absolutely fucking perfectly ... "If it was Pujols, that would've truly epic. Now Ron Jaworski to discuss the Kansas City chiefs game on Sunday!" Ha! don't you just love on FiOS there are maybe six different espn channels , was flipping channels last night and I passed on one of the espn ones and there was the host "taking a knee" like they do in football with his co-host jock buddies to send his show I think.

That's Hank's new ride.

Screw those two, for me what makes baseball great is that a guy like Freese can be a postseason hero.

Fake Reyes has very short legs.......looks more like Tejada I think.

Thanks Ceetar.....fucking Freese eh?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: round 12:30 I think. I'm having a hard time accepting that given how sloppy it was in the early inning that this game will go down as an all-time classic but I guess the finish makes up for it. I mean, geez. a quick recap of how tings unfolded? Did the Rangers go to the 9th leading, was the closer in?

I watched until it was 3-3, went to bed around 9:45, been getting up real early this past month , checked the score around 10:40-ish and it was 7-4 Rangers and still only the 7th inning, what time did it finish?