Frayed Knot

My recollection of Straw's defense was that it simply never got any better and that one year was virtually indistinguishable from the next. The expectation when he came up was that of a great athlete who would eventually excel at all aspects of the game. Maybe that was always a bit of wishful thinking and never totally true but he certainly seemed to have the tools of an above average defensive player at the very least. I guess as time went on all his time NOT spent fighting with the wife and/or nursing hangovers was dedicated to his offensive game and the defensive side never got much work and therefore plateau-ed early on.

At some point - especially in this twittering/texting/jumbovision-watching/cell-phoning distracted fan era - baseball is going to go to increased netting at stadiums, not only draping behind the home plate area but extending it around at least to the beginnings of the dugouts and you hope it's not going to take the death of a patron like it did to move the NHL to extend their nets behind the goal lines. There's absolutely no decreased visibility for hockey fans behind that netting and once it was up it seemed so stupid that it wasn't always.

I first remember hearing this phrase back around the time when MLB used the 100th anniversary of professional baseball (1969) to name an all-time team. Among the players on that fictional squad Joe DiMaggio was crowned as the best of the still-living variety, a title Joltin' Joe had the fan-base and the clout (not to mention the ego and the arrogance) to wear around his neck for the next four decades while insisting that he get introduced that way at each public appearance (and maybe private ones too, who knows?). Anyway many think Mays then assumed that title once DiMag assumed room temperature and Larry Granillo over at Baseball Prospectus not only agrees but doesn't even wait for the death of an earlier legend but hands it to Willie as soon as he hung up his spikes. And then he takes the project back a few steps - and by that I mean an entire century - and wonders who would have been MLB's GLP in any given era. The only real rule he insists on is that the phrase 'living player' assumes a retired and living player, something my father always claimed was implied in baseball's original 1969 list or else Mays would have ascended to the title while still wearing the uniform. Anyway, here is his list, one in which DiMaggio never leads: * 1901 - 1917: Cap Anson. The greatest ballplayer of the 19th century. Others who might sneak in here: Kid Nichols (starting in 1906), Cy Young (1911), and Nap Lajoie & Christy Mathewson (both 1916) * 1917 - 1928: Honus Wagner. Still everyone's favorite overlooked all-time great. The only other contender in this time frame is Walter Johnson, who retired in 1927. * 1928 - 1935: Ty Cobb. "Ty Cobb wanted to play, but none of us could stand the son-of-a-bitch when we were alive, so we told him to stick it!" No one doubted his status as the top player in the game, though. * 1935 - 1948: Babe Ruth. This is the first reign ended by the player's death (Anson and Wagner each gave way to the greater player while living). Never, ever any doubt that Ruth was the greatest while he was alive, though. * 1948 - 1961: Ty Cobb. There are many players who had retired by Ruth's death who might be considered here: Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Arky Vaughan, Pete Alexander, Eddie Collins... None could supplant Cobb. * 1961 - 1968: Ted Williams. Cobb's death. And this is where things get dicey. Not only could we argue Joe DiMaggio (who retired in 1951 and who, late in life, had to be announced as "the greatest living ballplayer") and Williams here, we also have to deal with all the legends who retired in the 1960s: Stan Musial, Warren Spahn, Eddie Mathews. I think I'm sticking with Teddy Ballgame, though, until... * 1968 - 1973: Mickey Mantle. I almost had Teddy all the way through these years, but, in the end, Mantle has to take the top spot. Sometimes I think Mantle is so overrated he's underrated. Then again, I don't live in New York. * 1973 - today: Willie Mays. And then there's Willie, arguably the greatest player ever. As long as he's alive, the title is his. Only Barry Bonds has a case to take it away from him, but I'm not sure I'm ready to say that for sure. I like to have a bit of historical perspective. btw, this project started based on an article where someone selects his candidate as the greatest living player for each franchise.

"Sources familiar with the Mets thinking" never fails to crack me up. That phrase gets a lot of work around draft time as the basis for speculation on early round picks, something which, as far as I can tell, could mean nothing more than someone opining about who'll they'll select based on previous years picks and trends. Hell, I could be cited as a source "familiar with Met thinking" based on that logic.

Not the final answers by any means, just a running look at what's been submitted so far. POSPLAYERYEARSTATSPD. Gooden198524-4; 1.53 ERA; 0.965 WHiP; 268 KC1BJ. Olerud1998.354/.416/.5512BE. Alfonzo1999/20003BD. Wright2007.325/.416/.546; 30 HR; 42 2Bs; GGSSLFB. Gilkey1996.317/.393/.562; 30 HRs; 117 RBIsCFC. Beltran2006.275/.388/.594; 38 2Bs; 41 HRsRFD. Strawberry1987.284/.398/.583; 39 HRs; 104 RBIs - AS, GG, SS

I'd probably argue for Fonzie 2000 over 1999 (although either was awesome) 80 more ABs in '99 and 14 more RBIs - but higher BA (20 points), OBA (40 pts), & Slg (40 pts) the next year.

MLBN is doing some thing with their pre-season previews where they're naming a team's all-time best lineup. I've only seen one or two of these in passing (I don't think they've done the Mets yet) but I believe their guidelines involve picking not the best all-time player at each position but who had that team's best season at each. And if that isn't what their rules are it's what mine are so we're going with that. So the only real rule here is to pick one player per position based on the best ever NYM season with the provision that he had to play the majority of the team's game at that spot - IOW, no choosing Kevin Mitchell in 1986 as the SS just because he started a handful of games there. I'm not so interested in a batting order (although we could concoct one of those too) just on which player-seasons should constitute the starting nine. I'll kick it off with the pitcher's spot and nominate Gooden's 1985: 24-4; 1.53; 0.965 WHiP; 268-to-69 K/BB Chime in with either a counter argument to that one or make the case for the best of the best at one of the other 8 positions. Take base-running and/or defense into account if you want or at least argue that the offense (for a position player) was so much better that it overcomes any deficiencies elsewhere.

G-Fafif wrote: No. 10: Kirk Gibson game, 1988 WS -- or as I like to call it, the game that never should have been played. And even if you don't happen to agree with that last comment (although I don't know anyone who doesn't) that was hardly a great game aside from the signature moment. I'd like to think a list like this would do more to take entire games into consideration rather than just one photogenic moment. #6 in '75, for instance, was a great game before Fisk ever stepped to the plate in the 12th.

Mets stick up a 3-spot in the 6th to take a 4-1 lead. Pagan singles - steals 2nd - goes to 3rd on a Wright IF single - one run comes in on Bay's IF single - and then two more on Ike's two-bagger Young - 5.1 IP of 1-run, 4 hit, 1 BB, 1 K ball. Ollie = 2 outs on 1 K & 1 BB Beato = 1 perfect inning And now Muffy has doubled in Pirdie in the 7th

I think that means she's been trying to sell some of his equipment.

Certainly not a done deal, but I also have no problem if this turns out to be the case. Not that I've got any particular reason to pine for Luis Hernandez, but the biggest mistake fans tend to make about this time of year leading up to opening day assignments is to act as if they're somehow chiseled in stone for the remainder of the season. If naming Hernandez allows them to cut Castillo and maybe buy more time to work out solutions for Emaus, Murphy, Turner, Harris or whoever than it's not a bad thing.

Yeah, the only 'Scroogie' cartoon I remember was just like that one. In it a white ballplayer arrives at ST and sees (out of the box) two presumably black players saying hello amid sound effects of: SMACK, SLAP, BANG, BUMP, etc., before saying; 'Ten years in the big leagues and I still don't understand the handshakes'.

Mitchell Page - 59. Broke in with Oakland at age 25 and finished 2nd in the 1977 AL ROY race (got 9 first place votes) behind Eddie Murray and ahead of Bump Wills. An OFer who stroked .307/.405/.521 w/21 HRs & 42 steals (some serious stuff in the late 70s) he then proceeded to never have as good a season afterward, slipping somewhat each year until losing his starting job by age 28 and then only playing sparingly after that.

Maybe he'll use the excuse: "well, at least I didn't tell them to throw car batteries".

From a BP piece: For what it's worth, Brewers General Manager Doug Melvin has come out and said that Greinke's injury was not a violation of Greinke's contract ... "The contract stipulates against playing �competitive� basketball,� said Melvin. �They don�t want you playing in men�s leagues or things like that..."

Benitez/Leiter I'd also like to take this opportunity to pre-emptively accuse anyone who does better than me in this contest of cheating.

As long as the opponent agrees beforehand, teams in ST can choose to use the DH, to not use it, or to have one team use it while the other does not. Such stuff is independent of home field, AL/NL, etc.

Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Gameday says so. Nine pitches, nine strikes, zero balls. Gameday is stupid. It's not tracking balls and strikes in spring. Every BB is a 4 ball walk, every K is a 3 strike one, and every out is on the first pitch. but we'll go with it. Long Live Acosta. 11 pitches as it turns out. No balls but two fouls were mixed in. Of course it was against three guys you've never heard of ... but no need to be choosy here.

Gwreck wrote: Aren't activities with a high risk of injury (playing contact sports; riding motorcycles) prohibited in his contract? See Boone, Aaron; Kent, Jeff, etc etc. Usually, and Milwaukee is probably within their rights to fine him for time missed. Not sure they'll actually do that seeing as how it's most likely a short-term injury plus it's probably not the first impression they'd like to leave on their big-ticket acquisition who can pull up stakes and leave at the end of next season.

So neither of the two MLers who came from Chico State was actually drafted from there -- Thayer was signed as a amateur FA; Dalrymple preceded the draft. Meanwhile all of those who were drafted have fallen short (at least so far).

MFS62 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: We lose in St. Lucie also, as Met I've never heard of Dale Thayer comes on for the tenth and gives up a run, which the Mets are unable to answer. He went to Chico State. I'm wondering if he is the first, or only, major leaguer to come from that school. Later A number of draftees, but no major leaguers yet.

He just never seemed to be right after his hammy injury. He was decent before then (small sample) but the injury caused him to lose "his "role" which, of course, led to being buried by Jerry.

The forgotten foreign FA signing and bullpenner Ryota Igarashi struck out the side in today's 2-1 loss to the Detroit Tiggers. Having cleared waivers, Igarashi is most likely slated for Buffalo no matter how he performs due to being on the free pass system but could work his way back at some point. Both runs today charged to starter RA Dickey on 4 hits over 4 IPs, 1 K, 0 BB Scoreless innings contributed by: - Izzy - no hits, 1 K, 1 BB - O'Connor - 1 hit, 1 K - Igarashi - 3 Ks, no hits - Byrdack - 1 K, no hits - Parnell - 2 hits, 1 K Only 5 hits from the 'O' - 1 each from Pagan, Bay (2B), Evans, Thole, Lutz

metirish wrote: Is there not any MLB rules that each team needs to abide by to show it can stay solvent?(not sure if that's the proper wording right there). For example several soccer teams in England that went in to bankruptcy got punished with point deductions typically starting the following season , so a team starts - 9 points and can take years to get back in to the top flight, but if they are smart the silly spending that got them there is gone and they build through youth. Of course this wouldn't work here as there is no relegation, instead MLB gives you huge loans. Each team is supposed to maintain some sort of favorable revenue to debt ratio, or maybe it's value/debt. The problem, of course, is the same commish's office that makes those rules is also in charge of enforcing them and they've been known to be rather selective in when and if they stick to the letter of their own laws.

I'm not quite as negative here as Vic, although am at least in the same zip code with his 'what's the point?' angle. The fact that it's an unusual family getting past a crisis (or maybe not) doesn't make it a better flick IMO - particularly when the crisis barely made sense in the first place. Good performances only take it so far.