Frayed Knot

Frayed Knot wrote: Braves aren't exactly hitting the cover off the ball ... but they're hitting it a lot better than we are. Plus their bloops keep finding grass and our bloops keep finding Kemp's glove.

They just took 2 of 3 from the Nats over the weekend so it wouldn't be unprecedented.

Braves aren't exactly hitting the cover off the ball ... but they're hitting it a lot better than we are.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I really do appreciate Asdrubal Cabrera. So much of our apprehension over the winter were based on the reports that he defense was barely adequate and so we assumed he'd be barely an upgrade, or maybe not even an upgrade, over Wilmer ... but he's been so much better than I think Wilmer could ever hope to be and it's made a major difference. And the offense hasn't been too bad either.

Three ABs in a row with a RiSP - and nothing left the infield.

One other thing that adds to the Tebow 'controversy' is the switching sports thing. On the one hand there are a handful of snobs within baseball who don't like what he's doing because they think he'll be allowed to 'cut the line' ahead of 'real' baseball players. They did the same when Michael Jordan tried his hand at baseball although, considering that MJ was essentially given a pass directly to AA, the resentment was more justified as he WAS taking the spot of a more deserving player based solely on his fame. As of now anyway, Tebow is guaranteed nothing beyond the instructional league so it's not really in the same class. Then, on the flip side, there's the anti-baseball part of the media (which is essentially most of it right now) who get pissed off whenever someone chooses baseball over either football or hoops. Again Jordan was an example, SF pitcher Jeff Samardzija (a top receiver at Notre Dame) made the 'wrong' choice according to those who like to dictate how others should run their lives, as did Bo Jackson going back a bit further. So Tebow basically gets the attention/criticism coming and going here and one of the first questions he got asked today was whether he was going to essentially abandon this thing before it even got started and contact the Patriots on account of their QB getting injured on Sunday.

It took Thor 11 pitches to record his first four outs. It then took him 88 to record the next seven.

Over-lapping with several of the above but, what the hell, I already typed it. He was WILDLY successful a college quarterback (Two? Heisman Trophies)* down deep in the south (U of Florida) where nothing is bigger than being the star QB and particularly a white one. I mean they built a fucking statue of the guy when he was like 23 years old!!! But his style of play -- more run than pass which he could get away with because he was bigger than the fast guys on defense and faster than the big guys -- always drew questions about whether his game would translate into the NFL so questions such as, would he be drafted?; on which team(s) would he best fit?; how high or low w/should he go in the draft?; how quickly c/should he start?; would his throwing motion (long & ugly) prevent his success?; were the teams passing over him smart or be kicking themselves down the road? All those questions and more essentially preceded him into the league in an era where nothing is talked to death more on a national basis than NFL QBs. He then played a year, in Denver, where his team seemed to succeed despite him (or so his detractors claimed) but at the same time he had just enough late-game heroics for his supporters to claim that he had the old 'knack' for it, that he had, like Jeter, the 'clutch-ness' gene that could overcome whatever deficiencies he had. He even won a playoff game in last minute fashion. And then Denver signed Peyton Manning and T.T. was shunted aside like last week's fish and so THAT became its own cause celebre. In short, there were just so many stories around him and so many not just willing to take a 'Pro' or 'Anti' stance on him but felt as if they had to that he was probably the most talked about figure in sports for a several year period despite not having the career to back it up ... and then THAT becomes a story to talk about. Then there's ESPN, which practically owns college football and caters to pro football, couldn't get enough of him and it's tough to underestimate how much the four-letter network drives the sports conversation in this country, particularly once one gets away from the big city and they become the only voice available to so many. * just one actually

NYDN: Traditionally, MLB teams are forbidden from selling a jersey with a player’s name and number on it until that player makes the 40-man roster ... But, ESPN reports, Tebow signed a “bridge agreement” with Majestic Athletic, which is MLB’s official uniform provider, that allows the company to sell gear with his name and No. 15 on it before he makes it to the Big Leagues.

A DH due to a rainout would just be the icing we need on the already injury-riddled cake that is our pitching staff. Aaron Blair vs Syndergaard if and when this comes off. Blair has made ML 12 starts this year (3 vs NYM) but only once since he started twice in a row vs the Mets back in June. The Mets got him for 3 runs over 5 innings then 8 earned over 4.1 at which point he was immediately demoted to the minors. His one start since his return wasn't a whole lot better [5 runs on 8 hits in 4 IP vs SFG] and he's still looking for his first ML win (0-6) Overall he sports a 8.23 major league ERA and a 4.77 minor league one despite coming into the season as a top 50-ish prospect and a former 1st round draft pick (36th overall in 2014).

bmfc1 wrote: Have the Mets ever missed Teheran? There was that one long road trip where their pilot over-flew his target and the team was forced to land in Karachi instead, but that's the only time I can think of.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Their 1-game lead over the Giants is essentially a 2-game lead as the Mets have the tiebreaker. For positioning purposes among WC #1 and WC #2, yes. But those tie-breakers won't help when determining who's in or out so we'd really like to finish at least a game clear of either SF or StL (and preferably both) because the only thing worse than having to survive a play-in game is having to survive two play-in games. Imagine being told at the beginning of the year that, yes, this pitching-rich Mets team would make it at least as far as the first full round of the playoffs but that they'd open that round with Seth Lugo and Robert Gsellman as their Game 1 & 2 starters. That's a very likely scenario of the Mets surviving a double play-in situation and using Thor & Bart to get through them. I'm torn because I don't want to see them face either the Cards or the Giants in a one-game winner-take-all. Well then as long as we're being optimistic these days, only 8 games behind Washington with 13 to play. What's that Lottery slogan? 'Hey, you never know'.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ray Knight? Brandon? Dark

And the Sox complete the four-game sweep - coming from behind once again (Yanx led 4-0. lost 5-4). Basically, Hanley Ramirez kicked their asses this week. He had the Dagger! HR in that stunning 9th inning comeback the other day. Tonight he merely had the 3R HR that tied it and later the solo shot that won it. After going an inexplicable 24-13 following their sell-off at the trading deadline, the Yanx have finally come back to earth by losing 8 of their last 9. And considering how many of these games lately they've lost in late innings, they better hope those deals they made pay off down the road because they absolutely punted away a post-season spot this year.

An 8-5 run by the Mets would force SF to go at least 9-4 and the Cards 10-3; 9-4 forces 10-3 combined with 11-2, and so on. And to lose the WC outright tack an extra win onto each of the other teams' needed records. And one more thing ... if the Giants should suddenly and stunningly reverse their second half trend and go on a streak which would force the Mets to play keep-up and catch-up, then that run is almost certainly going to come at the partial expense of the Dodgers* who sit only 4 games ahead of the Mets at this point. IOW, we're guaranteed at least six losses combined from the teams directly ahead and behind us. Dodger sked: vs SFG x 3 vs COL x 4 @ SDP x 3 @ SFG x 3 * Dodgers lost a wild one today, down 6-0 early and 7-1 after 5, they stormed back to go Up 9-7 before the DBacks scored 2 in the 8th to tie it then won it in the 12th

Nice time to re-visit this thread. Pages 2 and 3 in particular are a hoot to go over as our alternating optimism & pessimism (sometimes both at the same time) is all over the place. Anyway, they're now 18-7 since I called for them to close out the season 25-13, meaning that merely 7-6 from here on out could do the trick. And although I'd hate to bank on 7-6 doing the trick, that mediocre record would still be enough to force the Giants to go 8-5 (remember also that they're the worst tam in the NL AND have six of their final 13 vs LAD) AND force the Cards to go 9-4, and those records would merely cause a tie for the two WC slots, a play-in for the play-in as it were. An 8-5 run by the Mets would force SF to go at least 9-4 and the Cards 10-3; 9-4 forces 10-3 combined with 11-2, and so on. And to lose the WC outright tack an extra win onto each of the other teams' needed records. Giants remaining: @ LAD x 3 @ SDP x 4 vs COL x 3 vs LAD x 3 Cards remaining: @ COL x 3 @ CHC x 3 vs CIN x 4 vs PIT x 3

Edgy MD wrote: Works either way for me. Yup. We began this series down by 1 game on one team and up 1 on the other. We now end the weekend up 1 and up 2 Would being down 1 game to one team but up 4 on the other be a better scenario (the result had the Giants swept that series)? Maybe but not necessarily, and I'm not going to sweat it regardless.

Blevins with the 4-out save proving that ... (wait for it) ... blonds get more run. Pirates have lost Miami just scored 3 in the top 8th to go up 5-4 on the Phils Braves leading Nats 3-2 in the 6th (they've had rain delays) SF-StL scoreless in the 2nd

Quite a coincidence with Cespedes because this game is giving Me nausea and dizziness as well.

Zvon wrote: Its gotta be some kinda record, right? How many times have we not scored w/no out, bases loaded this season? Y'know what the stunning fact about Mets w/bases loaded is? That they have one walk this season in 114 bases loaded plate appearances (stats prior to today's game). Now you figure that walks might be low with the bases juiced, but the Mets' 0.8% rate compares not-too-favorably with the approx 5.8% (115 of 1,992) of the league as a whole.

Since when does either make contact? Or get ahead in the count?

[u:2gbbi5cf]Mid-game check[/u:2gbbi5cf] Pitt losing: 5-3 in the 6th Marlins losing: 3-0 in the 5th Nats losing: 3-0 in the 5th And of course the biggie, SF-StL starts in about an hour.

Well at least we can't get on Terry for managing according to stats.

Cards Win! NYM & SFG tied for WC StL 2.0 games behind both. Pitt actually won twice today so they leapfrog the Marlins but still 5.0 games in back of NYM/SFG and 3.0 in back of Cards Marlins 6.0 behind and drop to 2 below .500

Not done yet after a 2-out SF single. Denard Span at the plate so no HR likely. No bad outcomes here really. A StL win moves us into a tie for the #1 WC slot even as it reduces our cushion from the dreaded 3rd place finish among the three contenders.