Edgy MD

I went with 43. The key is winning tonight.

Pickles wrote: d'Arnaud (13th to 22nd) -- Staying healthy is a tool (or a skill); either way it is a factor, especially for a player in a demanding defensive position. I think the word he's looking for is "trait."

They had a Mike Piazza Day a month or so after he broke the home run record for catchers. Having another to induct him into the MHoF, and another to retire his number spreads it out like jelly. A cynical way to pack more people into the most cynical ballpark in the Major Leagues, methinks.

When you need to spark a rally, look to a big league ringer on a rehab assignment to get you started. We go to the ninth with the Mets down 3-1. Binghamton Top of the 9th Pitching Change: Matt Hauser replaces Ryan O'Rourke. Alonzo Harris grounds out, shortstop Danny Santana to first baseman Reynaldo Rodriguez. One out. Daniel Muno strikes out swinging. Two out. Justin Turner singles on a fly ball to right fielder Evan Bigley. Runner on first. Two out. With Josh Rodriguez batting, wild pitch by Matt Hauser, Justin Turner to 2nd. Runner on second. Two out. Josh Rodriguez walks. Runners on first and second. Two out. Allan Dykstra singles on a fly ball to left fielder Daniel Ortiz. Justin Turner scores. Josh Rodriguez to 2nd. Runners on first and second. Two out. =#0000FF]New Britain leads, 3-2. Offensive Substitution: Pinch-runner Wilfredo Tovar replaces Allan Dykstra. Cesar Puello walks. Josh Rodriguez to 3rd. Wilfredo Tovar to 2nd. Bases loaded. Two out Rhyne Hughes singles on a ground ball to right fielder Evan Bigley. Josh Rodriguez scores. Wilfredo Tovar scores. Cesar Puello to 3rd. Runners on first and second. Two out. =#0000FF]Binghamton leads 4-3. Pitching Change: B. J. Hermsen replaces Matt Hauser. Blake Forsythe grounds out, third baseman Miguel Sano to first baseman Reynaldo Rodriguez. Three out. Deft move by Pedro Lopez, pinch-running for Dykstra, there, as Tovar ended up scoring the go-ahead run. But we still have a bottom of the ninth to play. New Britain Bottom of the 9th Wilfredo Tovar remains in the game as the designated hitter. Pitching Change: Jeff Walters replaces Chasen Bradford. Miguel Sano flies out to center fielder Alonzo Harris. One out. Nate Hanson flies out to center fielder Alonzo Harris. Two out. Reynaldo Rodriguez singles on a line drive to left fielder Darrell Ceciliani. Runner on first. Two out. Daniel Ortiz pops out to shortstop Justin Turner. Three out. Phew. Big win for the B-Mets.

I'll say it againish. Artificial competitive balance measures are for the birds. And not the Redbirds, neither.

"not in the HOF"

I think there's a great paper to be written about the psychology of the giant man in sports. Or in baseball. Or on the Mets. Folks want to feel morally and intellectually superior to a giant, because he makes them feel inferior. Rather than celebrating what he is, in the face of the daily realities and disappointments of the game, he gets demonized for what he isn't. He tries to iron out the rough patches in his game --- the subtler skills --- but it only draws attention to them and gets him mocked more. So he retreats into what he does best --- crude, malicious power. His defense becomes more hopeless as it declines from something he's not good at to something he doesn't care about. Self-sacrificing hustle is missing from his game. Why destroy himself when the pressman seemingly want to see him destroyed? His personality becomes more abrasive or even hostile, as he's living with his guard up and fists ready after taking numerous low blows from aging un-athletic men bent on turning the fans against him no matter what he does. And if he's doomed to be chided no matter what he does, he's unmotivated to change. His only remaining source of defiance and self-image is to keep producing what none of them can --- jaw-dropping power --- at the expense of all else. And, justifiably or ironically, he becomes the demon they've made him out to be. After his career, reporters --- either the same ones who ripped him back in the back or the next generation who grew up believing the characterizations of him to be gospel --- mention that they ran into him , and he's a much warmer guy than they recalled. Of course he is. They don't need him to be their demon any more and he doesn't need to fight back against it. God bless dak and all young fans who maintain their warm connection to the player's struggles and efforts even as cold water comes from all directions. And God bless surly giants everywhere.

Present company excluded.

metsmarathon wrote: we don't want our athletes to be good looking, religious, and chaste like time tebow Well, actually, that's fine, if he's not douchey about it. metsmarathon wrote: we don't want our athletes to be good looking, and have a swingin' bachelorriffic time like jeter Well, actually, that's fine, if he's not douchey about it. metsmarathon wrote: what the fuck do we want of our young athletes? to be ugly and married? That would be kinda cool. Obviously, putting aside any moral or health-related arguments for monogamy, it's not the douchiest thing in the world to be making insinuations about the broad record of romantic conquests you'd like to achieve, but while you're currently entertaining a high-profile relationship with a supermodel, a relationship promoted in the same magazine you're making these comments in, it is kinda douchey. You ever meet anybody talking big about sexual success (real or imagined, past or future) who wasn't a douche?

Well yeah, true. In context, the weakest cases for the Yankees (Phil Rizzutto, Elston Howard, Billy Martin, Ron Guidry, Roger Maris) are all probably as strong or stronger than Casey's. But obviously, a newborn franchise has a low standard for what is historically significant.

I've already papered the wall of my cube with that post. Get dak bak!

Put me down as not wanting to see that. (The press conference or the orgasm.)

Centerfield wrote: Stengel won 175 games (19 fewer than Jerry Manuel) and posted a .302 win percentage. Colorful? Sure. He's a legend and people loved him. But retiring his number? Come on. This is silly. There is no way this would fly today. Of course not. But it wasn't today. It was a choice made at a different time in a very different context.

There are still PUH-lenty of ways to honor a guy without taking his number out of circulation. As far as I know, the Mets have never even made a public statement about unofficially retiring 8. So if Sandy or Kimmy would be unlikely to complain about d'Arnaud getting number 8 shortly after the Mets made a donation to the Gary Carter Foundation or named a field in St. Lucie after him. Any columnist that made a stink would look pretty foolish if the family is being gracious. Mays is another matter, I think.

Which would be kinda stupid, him just standing there alone, punching his glove at third base, waiting for tomorrow's game.

If I put up a photo essay of Carlos Beltran making an effort, the page would be about 12 feet high. Associating the failure of a team to win a championship with the lack of effort by particular players is retrofit analysis.

Somebody actually pitched and sold a Who's the Boss? reboot? That's an All-Star move, right there.

Surely you must get it. I mean, even if you disagree with it, you must certainly be able to glean what they were thinking.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'd be for "retiring" No. 86 as a means of acknowledging the volume of contributors to that team without singling out anyone whose Met careers were problematic for number-retirement for reasons of short tenures, flameouts, unimpressive overall bodies of work, etc etc. Abstract number retirement honorees are an interesting ancillary issue. In addition to 86, other prospects would be 69 (for similar reasons) and 62 or 64 for Bill Shea --- whose name is already there anyhow --- designating him either as the father (spiritually anyhow) of the 1962-launched team, or the 1964-launched stadium that bore his name. The '69 notion occurred to me way back-back-back when Ms. Met was decrying the insult of not retiring 20 for Tommie Agee, because the 1969 team was insufficiently honored. Bam! Retire a number that's never issued anyhow. The Bill Shea thing, I think, was something Bucket brought up while appearing on SNY. 62 has been issued three times: to Hubie Brooks for, like, a day, as a September callup, to Juan Lopez as an interim coach, and to Elvin Ramirez during his multiple callups last year --- the last one being on the only mindful issuance. 64 went to Elmer Dessens during his multiple trips to town in 2009 and 2010, and to Josh Stinson during a September 2011 callup. No real harm in taking those out of circumluation either.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Ceetar's wikipedia link explains all. And it that doesn't sound like a runaway off-Broadway smash, I don't know what.

It seemed not even worth linking to. But the volume, and the fact that he's a Mets regular pushes it a little towards relevancy, I think. I dunno. So, what's with the Randy Johnson character? Isn't the idea of mascots that they aren't players but mis-shapen misfits that wish they were players but are left to work out their competitive drive through zealous rooting and humiliating footraces?

Hating on Marc Anthony, and not even because he married a Yankee fan, which I can sort of understand.

Well, spending the majority of your career with a team generally means you get the hat-on-the-plaque thing. If it's a well-travelled guy, the hat usually goes to the team he spent the plurality with. So there's a distinction, but it's not vast.

Seaver also knew he was a square and embraced it. Harvey in his straw panama and his $400 silk-cotton-blendie shirt thinks he's a downtown swinger.

I heard he loves to boogie. Really, don't fear the crash. It's going to happen if it isn't happening already. The team's job isn't to wrap him in bubble wrap, but to back him up with his much quality as they can roll out. That was the answer for Seaver, and it was the answer for Gooden, both of whom fell to earth in their day )if only for parts of '72 and a chunk of '74.