Vic Sage

Fman99 wrote: Vic Sage wrote: i hope #5 is the next number they retire, and they do it next year. I know this team is parsimonious about such honors but i can't imagine a better candidate. Our best position player ever, played his entire career here, was team captain and face of the organization. No, he won't get into MLB's HOF (nor should he, any more than Mattingly should, who had a similar career), but that can't continue to be the only criteria for number retirement. More likely it'll end up in the "unofficially" retired bin where #8 lives, not retired but also not issued. Which is a shame. It would indeed be a shame because Carter was here for only 4.3 of his 19 career seasons, comprising 1 great year and 1 good one, and 2.3 shitty ones. He was a career Expo who contributed to a Mets WS team one year. This is hardly comparable to Wright. And if they treat him similarly, that would be inexcusable.

i hope #5 is the next number they retire, and they do it next year. I know this team is parsimonious about such honors but i can't imagine a better candidate. Our best position player ever, played his entire career here, was team captain and face of the organization. No, he won't get into MLB's HOF (nor should he, any more than Mattingly should, who had a similar career), but that can't continue to be the only criteria for number retirement.

I think Grimm put his finger on the disconnect here. While a team's PLAYER PAYROLL may not have a direct cause-and-effect relationship to wins in any given year (as Ceet notes, there are teams who spend and don't win, and teams that win and don't spend), but a team's BUDGET is very much a central factor in being able to sustain winning over time. It's not what a team spends, it's what they are WILLING to spend in any given year, based on the circumstances. Are they willing to cut a big contract player who is a bust and move on to acquire another big contract player, despite the sunk costs? Are they willing to go the extra mile and overpay for a specific FA, or pick one up at the trade deadline, because the GM believes he'll put us over the top? Are they willing to eat the back-end of a big contract in order to get a middle-aged player who is great now, even if he won't be later? Does the team take its profits and invest in international scouting and player development, or do they just pocket it, or use it for their other companies? Is the team willing to spend on getting the best staff and tech to help the team win? The only way we can know what the Wilpons are willing to do, however, is to assess what they have done. And it doesn't seem to many of us that they are wiling to use the advantage of flexibility that a big-revenue franchise would otherwise provide, whether its because their money is all tied up in debt (i.e., they don't have any), or because they'd rather run at a HIGHER profit and hope to win rather than run at a lower profit and actually increase their chance win.

Edgy MD wrote: I'd totally get myself and my family killed with an ill-timed fart. what constitutes a WELL-timed fart?

Reyes. really? WHY??

i don't usually watch horror films, but this one sounded unique so i gave it a try. I'm glad i did. For a largely dialogue-free movie, the use of sound is powerful. and Emily Blunt is ALWAYS a good idea. I'm not familiar with Kraczinski (i didn't watch THE OFFICE), but i thought he gave a strong performance, too. kid actors are kid actors. I liked the post-apocalyptic premise, though it has some logical leaps that films of this type often have, but it was successful, overall, in creating a world and depicting a family surviving in that world. So successful, in fact, that there is a scene with a nail protruding from a basement stair while a barefoot pregnant woman is running away from aliens that made me leave the room. It reminded me of INTO THE FOREST (2015), where Ellen Page and Evan Rachel Wood (in her pre-Westworld days) are sisters surviving in a family cabin off the grid when the world loses power. That was a more interesting film, in that it didn't feel the need to define the cause of the energy loss or introduce SF elements like aliens; when these young women are left in a powerless world, the natural predators are men. But given its limitations, QUIET PLACE is eerie, unsettling and evocative.

Centerfield wrote: Watched the three Avengers movies on the plane. They are pretty fun. I feel like with the campiness they don't take themselves too seriously. I find I'm missing tons of the story without having seen any of the other individual hero movies. Like Loki is a bad guy, then he's not. Not sure how Hulk ended up in outerspace. And I know nothing about the Guardians of the Galaxy. To understand all, watch the MCU films in the following order: Marvel Cinematic Universe (viewing order): month year ranking: 01) phase 1: Captain America: First Avenger (July 2011) 14 02) phase 1: Iron Man (may 2008) 2 03) phase 1: Incredible Hulk (june 2008) 19 04) phase 1: Iron Man 2 (may 2010) 18 05) phase 1: Thor (may 2011) 16 06) phase 1: Marvel's The Avengers (may 2012) 4 07) Phase 2: Iron Man 3 (may 2013) 13 08) Phase 2: Thor: The Dark World (2) (November 2013) 20 09) Phase 2: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2) (april 2014) 9 10) Phase 2: Guardians of the Galaxy (august 2014) 7 11) Phase 3: Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 (may 2017) 11 12) Phase 2: Avengers: Age of Ultron (2) (may 2014) 17 13) Phase 2: Ant-Man (july 2015) 12 14) phase 3: Captain America: Civil War (3) (may 2016) 6 15) phase 3: Spider-Man: Homecoming (July 2017) 5 16) phase 3: Black Panther (february 2018) 1 17) phase 3: Doctor Strange (november 2016) 8 18) phase 3: Thor: Ragnorak (3) (november 2017) 3 19) phase 3: Avengers: Infinity War (3) (april 2018) 10 20) phase 3: Ant-Man & Wasp (July 2018) 15 upcoming: 21) phase 3: Captain Marvel (march 2019) 22) phase 3: Avengers : The Conclusion (4) (may 2019)

because... um... Callaway's a douche?

yea, we got one!

dgwphotography wrote: If the season ended today, I would give it to Scherzer, too. However, the season doesn’t end today, and if Jake can get to 14-15 wins, combined with Scherzer sliding a bit, it would make things much more palatable for Jake to win. it would be more palatable to some, but not necessary to define Jake's season-long dominance. And Wilbon's "it's not about stats, it's about winning" is such standard garbage... "wins" ARE a stat, Mr. Wilbon, you stupid bastard. It's just an arbitrary one when allocated to a pitcher, as opposed to anybody else on the field, and doesn't measure what it's intended to measures. And the fact that you don't understand how stats work does not make the stats less applicable or valid. It just means you're a Neanderthal howling at the moon because you think its a ight the size of a rock that's about to fall on your head. The only thing worse than stupidity is arrogant stupidity.

we have NO 1bmen on the roster. We just have guys we stick at first base.

Frayed Knot wrote: 1) they can't hit at home 2) they can't hit on the road 3) they can't figure out anywhere else to play tee hee.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think Tom Seaver needs to come back and pitch a few frames for the Mets on his own terms. This way, the fans can know how great Seaver was 45 years ago. There's a whole legacy at risk here, otherwise. yeah, because that's the same thing.

David should play until they rip the uniform off his back. Every player should, if that's what they want. Go out on your shield, Dave. "Graceful" retiring is bullshit made up by players who just don't want to play through their decline (which is certainly their choice) and fans who don't want to see a once-great player fail to be what he once was, but that's about us, not them. The notion that it'll change his place in the history of the game is nonsense. I don't think less of Wilie Mays because he fell down chasing a pop fly at Shea when he was 40, and i don't think more of Joe D because he didn't want to do that. We don't want to be made uncomfortable watching Dave's decline; it reminds us of our mortality. But it's his life; he owes us nothing but his best effort. And that's what he's giving us. Does this mean i think he's going to succeed? No, but i'd love for him to prove me wrong. You go, Davey! Keep swingin' til they pry the bat from your cold dead hands.

first, it was all about winning the pennant. There was no WS and no sympathy for 2nd place. Then, it was win the pennant to get into the WS. There was no discussion of fairness, if one pennant winner wasn't as good as the 2nd place team in the other league. Then, because of expansion, the leagues were divided into divisions. So it was win the division to win the pennant to win the WS. But this is when the whining really started. Since teams weren't playing against other teams the same number of games, there were teams in some divisions who were playing more of their games against stronger teams than other division winners. "wah!" they cried. So the Mets won 90 games in `84 and 98 games in `85, and didn't make the playoffs because St.L won the division. I don't remember crying that we should have been in the playoffs anyway. I remember crying, but not about that. But the crying was getting so loud, they designated a "wild card" team, and, for the first time, you didn't have to win anything to make the playoffs. Now we were on the road to being like every other watered down league, where the regular season becomes less and less important, because everybody gets into the post-season. But when WC teams started winning pennants and the WS, they finally realized that there should be at least SOME penalty for not winning anything. So, they added a 2nd WC team but made them play the 1-game playoff, thus requiring the WCs to burn their best starters and be subject to some degree of random chance, making the division title even more important. And this year, it might actually work! If the Yanks don't overtake the Sox, it's their own fault. And now the cries continue. "wah, it's not fair! It should be a best-of-3 series!" Well how about 3/5, or 4/7? Whats the perfect number that maintains the importance and integrity of the regular season, but allows JUST the extra good teams into the playoffs, despite not winning a title? No WC team is ENTITLED to be in the post-season... the WC is a gift! a compromise that we weren't entitled to in 84 and 85. Why do we have to make it even easier for them to advance? Because its not fair? It's not fair that they're even getting one fucking game and you want to give them more? Fuck the Yankees. In fact, i think we should go back to 1 division per league and you either win the fucking pennant or you go the fuck home. But that's just me.

yeah, it's a toss up. I picked Justine; i don't know why. I'm not usually that into blondes. I just like the cut of her jib, i suppose.

"other" closer by committee

while of course I have concerns about Matz, I've also seen some pitchers overcome a lot of injury problems early on and wind up with great careers (schilling and Leiter come immediately to mind; i'm sure there are many others). He has enough injuries and inconsistency to depress his value on the market, but he is a high-upside LHP, so I wouldn't give up on him for just a warm body or 2.

Final adjustment. The average cost to attend a ballpark for a couple. Higher cost, higher misery, small adjustment. Under this scenario, the Brewers have risen to a full 100% misery factor. The Mets are at #6, with a bullet. [u:26iog1h8]75%-100% miserable:[/u:26iog1h8] Milwaukee Brewers 100.00% San Diego Padres 96.51% Colorado Rockies 95.86% Seattle Mariners 94.48% Chicago White Sox 90.66% New York Mets 87.16% Miami Marlins 81.19% Los Angeles Angels (Anaheim) 80.16% Texas Rangers 78.87% Detroit Tigers 78.63% Washington Nationals 77.46% Tampa Bay Rays 77.28% [u:26iog1h8]50%-75% miserable:[/u:26iog1h8] Cleveland Indians 75.14% Chicago Cubs 73.07% Kansas City Royals 72.39% Toronto Blue Jays 71.88% Houston Astros 65.94% Philadelphia Phillies 59.44% Minnesota Twins 59.22% Baltimore Orioles 57.72% San Francisco Giants 56.21% Arizona Diamondbacks 54.48% Cincinnati Reds 53.19% Pittsburgh Pirates 51.27% [u:26iog1h8]less than 50% miserable:[/u:26iog1h8] Atlanta Braves 49.52% Boston Red Sox 48.67% St. Louis Cardinals 38.91% Los Angeles Dodgers 38.28% Oakland Athletics 20.79% New York Yankees 9.12%

Now that i think about it, misery factors for teams in the same city should be adjusted. If you're a team in the bottom 10 in the same city as a team in the top 10, your misery should be multiplied. Based on these numbers, this includes only the Mets and Angels. After a slight adjustment (pushing the bad years up by 10%), The Mets jump to #7. That feels more right to me.

Okay, so i've calculated a "misery factor" for the fans in each city. I've taken the number of years each team has had without a playoff appearance since 1969 (or its inception, if later) and divided it by the number of years the team has existed (because teams have been in their current locations for different periods since 1969, its important to do this as percentage). I've adjusted the raw numbers to give extra credit to teams that have periods of "sustained success" (as i've defined it) and extra extra credit for WS titles, since these things are important factors in reducing fan misery. The Mets had the 10th highest misery factor (better than i thought, even though in the bottom 3rd of the league). The Yankees (of course) the lowest. Brewers fans have had to drink alot of beer and eat alot of cheese to swallow their team's league leading misery factor. Teams MISERY FACTOR Milwaukee Brewers 91.67% San Diego Padres 89.80% Seattle Mariners 85.37% Texas Rangers 84.78% Colorado Rockies 84.00% Chicago White Sox 83.67% Detroit Tigers 73.47% Cleveland Indians 71.43% Los Angeles Angels (Anaheim) 69.39% New York Mets 69.39% Miami Marlins 68.00% Chicago Cubs 65.31% Kansas City Royals 65.31% Tampa Bay Rays 65.00% Houston Astros 63.27% Toronto Blue Jays 60.98% Minnesota Twins 57.14% Baltimore Orioles 55.10% Philadelphia Phillies 55.10% Cincinnati Reds 51.02% Washington Nationals 50.00% Pittsburgh Pirates 48.98% San Francisco Giants 48.98% Atlanta Braves 46.94% Arizona Diamondbacks 45.00% Los Angeles Dodgers 40.82% Boston Red Sox 38.78% Saint (St.) Louis Cardinals 36.73% Oakland Athletics 22.45% New York Yankees 4.08%

This is all rather depressing as a Met fan. The one thing I would say about your criteria (and this doesn't affect the Mets) is that I don't think the Royals, White Sox, and Astros would trade their championships for the results of say the Reds and Pirates. I would add the Marlins to this but f&$k the Marlins. That depends on the context you apply to the comparisons. The Reds had 2 different periods of sustained success since 1969: 1970-79 (with 6 playoffs and 2 WS wins in a 10-year period) and 1997-03 (with 3 playoffs in 4 years), with another WS title in 1990 and a playoff in 95. That's 11 years worth of playoffs and 3 WS championships since 1970. As a fan, I'd take that in a heartbeat over the Sox's 5 post-season games (1 WS) during the same period, with no periods of sustained success, unless you count the 3 post-seasons (with 1 WS) in the 9 years from 2000-08. That's 8 post-seasons +2WS. As for the Pirates, like the Reds, they too had 2 strong periods of success: 1970-79 (with 7 playoffs and 3 WS wins over 10 years) and later, 2013-15, with 3 straight playoffs, and 2 other playoff years in between (91-92), for a total of 12 playoff years and 3 titles, surpassing both the Reds and the Sox. As for the Royals, they had a great run from 1976-85 (7 playoffs, 1 WS, over 10 years), but they couldn't sustain success in 2013-14 (2 playoffs, 1 WS), for a total of 9 playoffs and 2 WS. Houston has had 2 (maybe 3) successful periods, from 1980-86 (3 playoffs over 6 years), 1997-05 (6 playoffs on 9 years), and their current streak since 2015, which (if you include this year) will be 3 playoffs in 4 years (1 WS). Their total is 12 playoffs and 1 WS, but they're in the middle of a run so who knows how long that will go? Florida has the 2 WS titles (1997, 2003), but no sustained periods of success, and those have been their only post-seasons in the 25 years of their existence. I would trade that track record for any of the other teams.

i've taken CF's analysis even further. I went back to 1969, the first year of divisional play (and the first year of Mets in the post-season). Then, I defined "sustained success" as post-season appearances in 3/6yrs, or 4/8yrs, or 5/10 yrs. The teams are ranked by the number of periods of sustained success from 1969 - 2017: 4 Los Angeles Dodgers 4 Oakland Athletics 3 Boston Red Sox 3 New York Yankees 3 St. Louis Cardinals 2 Atlanta Braves 2 Baltimore Orioles 2 Chicago Cubs 2 Cincinnati Reds 2 Cleveland Indians 2 Houston Astros 2 Minnesota Twins 2 Philadelphia Phillies 2 Pittsburgh Pirates 2 San Francisco Giants 2 Texas Rangers 1 Arizona Diamondbacks 1 Detroit Tigers 1 Kansas City Royals 1 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 1 Seattle Mariners 1 Tampa Bay Rays 1 Toronto Blue Jays 1 Washington Nationals/Montreal Of the remaining teams, if you expand the definition to include teams that won 2 WS within 10 years, or had 3 post-season appearances with at least 1 WS within 10 years (since that's the ultimate goal, and a WS win earns a franchise more time), then that would include: x Chicago White Sox x Miami Marlins The only teams without a period of sustained success are: x New York Mets x Colorado Rockies x Milwaukee Brewers x San Diego Padres But Colorado has only existed since 1993, so they have that excuse. Only the Mets, Milwaukee and San Diego go all the way back to 1969, so they've been unsuccessful longer. At least the Mets have 2 WS titles; Colorado, Milwaukee and SD have none. So by this measure, only Milwaukee and SD, in all of major league baseball, have been as consistently unsuccessful over as long a period as our Mets. So I think this graphically displays the objectively awful load of crap that Mets fans have had to put up with for nearly 50 years, without even counting our first 7 years of losing that was so unprecedented (including the record for losses that we still hold) as to render those teams lovably comical. At what point does a rational person stop hitting himself in the head with a hammer?

i find the game boring when the Mets are having a season like this. If they're having a good year, i'm very much not bored.

they're not going to "dump" Flores, I don't think. They may trade him, if they can get value for him, but he's a useful player and there's no need to dump him.