Edgy MD

Pete Falcone.

Get Reynolds in.

I imagine Goeddel or Robles.

Harvey now available for Game Five emergency duty.

Dillon Gee.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Mattingly is not impressing me. It's not the sort of genius that jumps right out at you.

Jack Fisher.

Only Met starter without a hit? Sugarpants.

Yeah, welcome home d'A.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Yeah, what if someone broke your leg in the middle of your precious streak, jackass? He would have used his juice to force his manager to play him for one inning of defense and one at-bat every night until he healed.

Ain't this far better?

I answered your argument, as you answered that of another poster. Neither of those responses is semantics.

Gonzalez plays 45 feet off first.

So much for "You get the same pitch 3-1 that you get 3-0," Ralph Kiner. But no matter, because TRAVIS D'ARNAUD!!

Not for nothing, but Terry's sticking with his lefties and prospering with them deserves more superlatives than it's gotten.

That's an inning.

Shutdown ERA: I'm hearing this a lot. I'm dubious that there is anything much to it.

Oh, dear, they're doing towels. Harvey, back up third next time. smashie wrote: Harvey schmarvey. Poseur. Responding to your own post about Harvey going eight here and Familia one here?

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: ... c/would Utley have returned to the base before Ruben c/would have tagged him trying to do so. Whatever answer they come up with at that point is stupid and, yeah, it's pretty much guesswork. You know the difference. One is drawing a conclusion with facts and information. The other is drawing a conclusion without them. The latter is not the situation here. Forcing the to draw conclusions based on two events neither one of which would logically occur in the given situation is much closer to guesswork than it is to judgement. Forcing the whom? to draw conclusions? And no, it's not. As noted above. Frayed Knot wrote: And I don't know why we're even arguing these definitions anyway,. Because it's true. Because words mean things. And the words you choose support the argument, even if they don't accurately describe the facts. So that should be clarified to get at the truth. Frayed Knot wrote: My larger point... Which is always how someone shifts an argument in which their smaller-point-which-supports-the-larger point is shown to be insupportable. Frayed Knot wrote: ... is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'. And then you switch to a strawman argument.

I celebrate it.

Frayed Knot wrote: Utley didn't slide past the base because he was called out, but he ran off the field because of it and I know I've heard that the replay umps were instructed not to penalize players for doing so. Yes, you said that. And I pointed out that him placing himself off the bag with the defensive player holding the ball in between the bag should lead to the sound judgment that he would have been out. You're ignoring information that doesn't support your case. Frayed Knot wrote: And we can call it 'judgement' all we want... OK, I will! Frayed Knot wrote: ...., but Utley had no reason to return to the bag nor did Tejada have any reason to re-tag either the base or Utley because both assumed it was pointless to do so. Sounds like a moment that calls for judgment. Frayed Knot wrote: But that's exactly what this system forces the replay umps to do... Yes. Judge. Frayed Knot wrote: ... c/would Utley have returned to the base before Ruben c/would have tagged him trying to do so. Whatever answer they come up with at that point is stupid and, yeah, it's pretty much guesswork. You know the difference. One is drawing a conclusion with facts and information. The other is drawing a conclusion without them. The latter is not the situation here.

Frayed Knot wrote: But the flaw in all that is that they ruled Utley left the field because he was called out and therefore shouldn't be penalized. But Utley did not slide past the bag because he was called out. Utley slid past the bag because he assumed he would be out and wanted to go out breaking up the double play. And sliding past the bag, he ultimately placed the fielder between him and the bag. Decry the presence of "guesswork" if you must, but given all the opportunity in the world, their guess was wrong. I don't call it guesswork though. I call it judgment.

Despite the injury, Tejada retained the ball and his composure throughout his tumble, as deep in pain as he was. He was in between Utley and the bag and didn't plant his face in pain until Utley started jogging off the field, the play apparently dead. I am 78% certain that he would have made the play if the out call wasn't given. He landed looking right at Utley who is within arm's reach and may even be touching knees with him.

Titus Andronicus first appeared on the Mets radar on this list of songs to get your Mets fire burning. Sounds a lot like a re-write of "The Promised Land."

Nice one.