metsmarathon

i'm a PSP user too, though i'm somewhat out of practice.

well, the royals surely couldn't give away tom goodwin's old number to just anybody.

i'm thinking they probably use big industrial-sized leaf blowers. hopefully sny will have some instructive footage.

armando reynoso

Harvey 6.0 Byrd 1.4 Turner 0.9 Parnell 0.7 Tejada 0.5 Murphy 0.5 i actually had harvey at six point two, but had to knock him down per the rules.

Murphy 3.4 Wright 2.4 Valdespin 1.3 Buck 1.3 Atchison 0.9 Byrd 0.7

Duda 3.6 Edgin 2.1 Rice 1.4 Parnell 1.1 Buck 1.0 Baxter 0.8

batmagadanleadoff wrote: metsmarathon wrote: but it is the schaefer player of the game. as in who did hte most in that specific game. and if one guy did hte most of all the positive things done in the game, and he did more than everybody else who did positive things in the game, then i see no reason why he should not be awarded 6 points. But your logic doesn't explain why the game's best player should get six points. Though I didn't give Johan six points for his no-hitter, I did award him more points than any other Met for that game. i'm not saying that hte game's best player should get 6 points. i'm saying there's no reason why a player who does more than the rest of his team combined shouldn't be eligible for 6 points. the game's best player could get zero points, for all i care, if he just only didin't suck nearly as bad as everybody else sucked in a 23-0 blowout. it's certainly possible. in fact, the 'bot has run across such an occurrence where nobody had a positive WPA in a game. my formulatings are a bit more generous, but if every pitcher gave up hits and runs, nobody hit a lick, and nobody fielded particularly well, then i'd give out a zero too. also, it is certianly true that a valid voting scheme could be devised where a voter decided to rank the most schaferly players of a game, and give out points based solely on that ranking, for inscance, a strict 6.0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 would have some merit, or a 6 | 3 | 1 if you wanted less granularity. who says the points have to be given out linearly. (in my massive overly complex spreadsheet, i'm actually tallying such a thing. right now, buck leads with 14 points).

how many other teams could offer two top 15 prospects ready to pop onto the majors right away? it's very tempting, and while i'd love to see wheeler develop alongside harvey and both of them throwing to d'arnaud, i'd also like to have the best young hitter in the league.

Buck 3.2 Valdespin 1.6 Hawkins 1.5 Lyon 1.5 Burke 1.1 Rice 1.1

i always felt that comment was far less negative than it was made out to be. i guess i focus on the latter half of it, where warthen calls him a warrior and a competitor, and implies that john would not beg out of a game, but that it's up to the staff to notice when there's something wrong with their players and when they need to be taken out or kept out.

to get to the game on sunday, would have cost about $45-50 via train for the marathon family, with 2 hours of train rides each way, plus another 25 minutes to the nearest nj train station and any waiting for the trains. driving, and parking at citi, cost $40 for all the tolls, plus maybe $10-16 for gas. drive time was about an hour and a half each way, plus plenty of flexibility to allow us to visit my sister on the upper west side on the way back home. for us, driving is the clear winner, though minimm would probably say that he'd rather go on the trains.

Harvey 5.2 Buck 1.1 Tejada 1.1 Murphy 1.0 Duda 0.9 Wright 0.7

from the mets' fb page: here we are, dead center of the frame, trying to sneak by unnoticed. and there we area again, me congratulating the little guy on being so brave.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In each of these pictures, I see him as a clueless interloper. that's how i see him in every picture.

Burke 2.3 Tejada 2.3 Murphy 1.7 Byrd 1.7 Nieuwenhuis 1.2 Atchison 0.8

Niese 3.4 Wright 1.5 Buck 1.5 Baxter 1.3 Cowgill 1.2 Lyon 1.1

Hefner 3.1 Murphy 2.0 Valdespin 1.7 Nieuwenhuis 1.2 Duda 1.1 Baxter 0.9

afterwards, minimm has been asking, "why mr. met's head is a baseball?"

i don't think i saw all too much of the game, but it was worth it for minimm to accost forumites and perfect strangers alike with first his keith hernandez bobblehead and then later his new mets train. after the 7th we went out back behind the stadium to get in line for the mr. met dash. worth it to leave a smidge early but get a very early spot in line (i think...) for the dash. last year, minimm was afraid of mr. met, and wouldn't give him a high five as he greeted teh kids on the warning track just inside the foul line. this year, minimm had said going in that he didn't want to see mr. met (he saw him in the fan fest earlier while waiting in line for the wiffleball field and was customarily terrified, too). ok, i'd told him, we dont have to give him a high five. we can just walk around him. well... we get on the field... and there's no mr. met n the warning track. oh, he's on the infield. right by second base giving out high fives... hmm... wonder how this will go... we step on the infield and minimm misses first base, but goes back to tag up. then, he notices mr met and realizes hes going to get close. warily he approaches second base. mr. met reaches out for the high five and... minimm screams NO! and runs away towards first base. i corral him halfway to the bag and reassure him he's ok, and that mr met just wanted to say hi, and that he doesn't want to scare him, and that i'll hold his hand while we go by. so, crying, he bravely approaches second base again. mr met again makes a little bit of a move and minimm cries more, clings closer to me, and cuts the short of the bag. "whatchagonnado?" mr met gamely mimed with his big head and plush-handed shrug. "that's the most beloved mascot in american sports, kid, it doesn't get any better than him!" i think to myself. minimm stopped crying as we neared third base. he stepped on it and went towards home. missed the plate completely as he ran into the lefty-batter's batters box. and then it was over. "he's too big," minimm says. "mr. met is too big. i like my mr. met because he's little. when mr. met gets little i'll give him a high five." at least he's not the easter bunny, i suppose... it was great that the mets won, and even better seeing everybody. outside the stadium it was a bit hard keeping up with the game. they have speakers overhead demurely playing the radio broadcast, but maybe they could have some tv screens out there for the folks who left the game for the dash to actually see what's happening. keep them in the ticket windows and only turn 'em on when there's a bunch of little munchkins lined up out there. we heard the game winning hit, but we all got so excited that we didn't actually hear teh game winning run scoring result. and there sounded like some discussion of the play so we weren't even sure if the mets had actually done it (we feared desperately the specter of extra innings) until our iphones updated with the score. also, my goodness, was it cold!

minimm's keith hernandez bobblehead will be making a return trip to citi field, so he can sit in tommy's lap. "because he's a mets guy and he wants to watch them play." i don't think i can possibly say no to that logic.

I'd be a little surprised if some shutter bugging cranepoolers might not have some good photos that you could have a print made up of.

ooh, i like the angry eyes!

oh come now. when was the last time you awarded points to a catcher for routinely catching routinely pitched balls? when was hte last time you awarded points to a second baseman for fielding a routine ground ball and tossing that ball routinely to the first baseman who routinely caught the routine throw to routinely retire a routinely running runner? i think you're intentionally trying to read too much into the schaefer vote. likely for the sake of being difficult. we're voting for the player of the game. the frame of reference is that specific game. pitchers are not rated on a scale where 6 points is a perfect game and zero is something less. and hte batters are likewise not rated on a scale where 6 points is hitting 5 home runs while playing spectacular defense and zero is something less. or well, i guess you could do that if you want. it's up to you. that's kindof the beauty of the whole thing. but it is the schaefer player of the game. as in who did hte most in that specific game. and if one guy did hte most of all the positive things done in the game, and he did more than everybody else who did positive things in the game, then i see no reason why he should not be awarded 6 points. especially if a lot of other players did routine things routinely, or worse.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're just trying to be argumentative. There's a difference between a nine-inning effort and a single at bat. I know. What I ought to have written was that offense (run scoring) is half the game and pitching/defense (run prevention) comprises the other half. And from that view, a pitching performance alone, no matter how dominant, can't be worth five out of the 10 points. i don't believe that's particulatly true. unless you also establish that you cannot give out more than 5 points for offense (of course allowing for some points to be awarded for noteworthy defensive performances) a pitcher who throws 9 innings of shutout ball is almost certainly doing more than half the share of the winning, especially if the offense isn't doing much on it's own end. if the offense is also scoring 8 or 10 runs, then maybe you've found a balance, i guess. but i don't believe that it's appropriate to slice it right down the middle as such. as i recall, the 'bot also didn't give out a full 6 points either. damned robots.