Frayed Knot

Carlyle - 0.5 Eveland - 0.5 Murphy - 1.0 Wright - 1.0 Campbell - 0.5

Niese - 4.0 Recker - 3.0 Carlyle - 0.3 Familia - 0.4 Murphy - 1.0 Wright - 0.5 den Dekker - 0.8

Wheeler - 4.0 Campbell - 3.5 Mejia - 0.9 Black - 0.3 Familia - 0.9 Wright - 0.3 Duda - 0.2

I was sure that one or both of those missed opportunities via the bad base-running DPs was going to come back to bite us. Tribute to Wheeler & the relievers that it didn't.

Frayed Knot wrote: Zvon wrote: This is the first time this season that Mejia is set to close where I'm thinking "uh-oh.." Well, there's a reason for that; two or more hits in six straight outings. Actually, I was zoned out of last night's game by the time he came in to throw a 1-2-3 inning so the bad streak was broken ... but prior to THAT it's been six straight one-inning (or less) outings with at least two hits.

Zvon wrote: This is the first time this season that Mejia is set to close where I'm thinking "uh-oh.." Well, there's a reason for that; two or more hits in six straight outings.

Zvon wrote: If Vic is gonna dye his beard he should dye it black. Black as night, black as coal I wanna see the Cubs, blotted out from the game

Let me see a Chris Valaika get rung up it helps to keep your teammates warm

We needed that one, if for no other reason than I was about to start unloading my frustrations on this forum and you poor folks would have had to put up with it.

RMPL

We owe these guys an ass-kicking. Of course we owed one to the Nats too and look how that turned out.

Edgy MD wrote: As far as I'm concerned, if the catcher has ceded the "lane" at any point prior to collision, he's in compliance with the rule. Or if he, y'know, has the ball prior to collision. I heard an explanation which dealt with the catcher's placement "altering the runner's thinking" as he's halfway down the line as a reason why said runner should be called safe even though the ball beat him by multiple yards.

Well it IS confusing if the rule doesn't say 'after the runner has rounded 3rd' or any other such specific point.

There's always going to be some form of discretion to calls, that's not my problem here. But, yeah, the guidelines do need to be more concise. I just don't see it as 'blocking' if the catcher is in the line but the runner hasn't reached anywhere near him anymore than a 2nd baseman who might happen be in the line when the batter is rounding 1st is preventing him from stretching his hit into a double. If he STAYS there and alters the runner's path then, sure, but that's a different story.

So apparently if a catcher has a foot outside the line before he catches the ball and after the runner has rounded 3rd, then an ump may call it "illegal blocking" and the runner will be safe. It's this part that has me confused. First of all, I don't know that the rule says anything about "after the runner has rounded 3rd". IF so I think that would be a REALLY stupid over-reaction to Buster Posey's injury which is essentially what triggered all this. What I thought the rule was going to be and what I was very much in favor of was that if contact was made in the line prior to the catcher receiving the ball then that's on him and the runner is safe whether he beat the tag or not. And that if the runner made contact with a catcher who was NOT in the line then the runner is out (and subject to ejection and/or further discipline) even if he did beat the tag or dislodge the ball. But was it really the intent of the rule to flag the catcher for a having a foot on the wrong side of the 3B line when the runner is still 20, 40, 60, 80 feet away? IOW, I'm not confused because I don't like the rule, I'm confused because I don't know where the boundary is (or even if there is a boundary). It's come to the point where every manager who has a player thrown out at the plate immediately claims interference when no such thing that fits any definition of interfering with the runner's path has yet to come into play. It's like getting off on a technicality that in no way had anything to do with the crime or the arrest.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. Sure you did. You didn't specifically use the word 'unique' but you did say that the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game was "significantly more so [in baseball] than in any of the other major team sports" which was the major turn-off for you about baseball's post-season. Now you can choose to watch, or not to watch, anything you want, I'm not one to tell people what they should be doing in their free time. All I'm doing is pointing out that, using that same logic, one should be just as dismissive about the NFL's playoff (and much, MUCH more about hockey's) and whereas the NBA does stay true to form more often (at least in the early rounds) I contend that that's largely to do with the gap between the top and second tier teams (and about that sport's huge home/road gap) than it is about the game itself.

sharpie wrote: I think you mean Carlos Gonzalez, not Carlos Gomez. Yeah, that guy.

Not that this is SS-related, but in the wake of the Tulowitski surgery comes news of Carlos Gomez going in for patella tendon surgery and a "five to six month" recovery time.

Shortstops, nothing but shortstops. Four of their starting eight listed above came through the minors either exclusively or at least as part-time SS: from the recently called up pair of Baez who they're sticking at 2B and Alcantara currently patrolling CF, to 3B-man Valbuena, bench player Junior Lake (who started in LF much of the early season), and, not surprisingly, SS Starlin Castro. Not that it's all that unusual to have one-time middle-infielders scattered about here and there. But the difference here is that there are so many of them and that most are just recent converts who are getting a kind of baptism by fire at their new spots in the major leagues, and that sometimes those OFers look like displaced IFers out there. Not quite blooper reel material maybe, but let's just say less than stellar play. The other odd part to having all these SSs around, as you may remember from the series we played against them earlier in the year, is that the guy they are using at SS, Castro, isn't all that good at playing SS. Keith was particularly harsh both on his fielding and his overall approach to the position.

Actual series totals (as opposed to exaggerated post-game pissed-off guesses): HRs 7 -1 BBs: 11 - 2 I'd say in general, if the Mets ain't scoring they ain't winning. And while that's true for every team, I suspect it's especially so for this year's NYM

What'd we get out-homered in this series by, about 14-1?

I actually heard some out of town announcer the other day say something along the lines of; 'ya know, when I envisioned how replay was going to work, I was picturing it for use in obvious blown calls only'. DUH!!! That's how EVERYONE envisions it but even a little common sense would tell you that there's no way to keep it to just that.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Oversaw the BioGenesis-investigation shenaniganery, and negotiated the last three labor deals. So, if nothing else, he's great at getting the players to roll over and smile after he's helped frig 'em with a poker (as opposed to Werner or another of the other owner-backed options, who probably would have been more of the throw-money-at-them-afterward stripe). Yeah, Manfred was MLB's point man on the BioGenesis investigation and (just having finished the recent book on that topic) let's just say he wasn't exactly shy about turning over every stone to get the evidence they wanted. As far as the labor negotiations (where he was also the main guy) the last three have certainly been more peaceful and conciliatory than those in the previous era. And it's not like there have been clear winners and losers in the process, both sides seem to be happy with the results. If it had been Werner or [the other guy] many would have seen that as a sign that there were enough owners looking to take a harder line with the union, like back twenty years ago when they still harbored this fantasy of either breaking the union entirely or at least beating them down so hard that they'll agree to an across-the-board hard cap.

Time now to follow through on the ass-kicking that we should have given Soriano last night.

I'm not sure that I've ever seen Anthony Rendon NOT hit a ball squarely.