dinosaur jesus

Hey, Gary Apple. Nobody wants to hear your Bob Costas stories.

This is starting to get fun.

On Michael Conforto's birthday, I'd just like to note that among major leaguers born on March 1, he's the all-time leader in OPS, edging out stars such as Paul Hines, Johnny Ray, and Ramon Castro. Don't rest on your laurels, Michael.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I guess we now have some insight into how to impress Fred Merkle's daughter. "Hey, Merkle. Want to see my boner?"

Manfred says that most fans support the automatic IBB? I say he's a liar. I don't have any surveys to support me, but I doubt that he does either. Show us the surveys, Rob.

d'Kong76 wrote: Is Butch Huskey anyone else's poster child for 'monster springs only to settle back into mediocrity' or is that just me? For me it's Kelvin Chapman. I always rooted for Butch Huskey. He wasn't great, but he wasn't bad, and he was fun to watch. I thought he'd finally made it when he landed with the Rockies in 2000, and hit .348. If he'd stayed there, he could have been Dante Bichette. But he signed with Cleveland and was never heard from again.

Ashie62 wrote: dinosaur jesus wrote: And is it known that he was driving? If he wasn't, that actually showed something like good judgment, since the other two weren't legally drunk. Bullshirt http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article111325997.html The family says he wasn't driving. It's obvious why they'd say that, and they could certainly be wrong. Obviously you have information they don't.

And is it known that he was driving? If he wasn't, that actually showed something like good judgment, since the other two weren't legally drunk.

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, you're basically looking at an average of 1.1 runs scored when starting from a runner-on-2nd/none-out vs 0.5 runs when starting from the standard none-on/none-out situation. But those are averages which combine a bunch of zeros plus that occasional 8 run inning and everything in between. The more telling numbers here are the odds of a team scoring at least one run in their half-inning which will jump to around 63% from the 27% of the time when starting with bases empty. Okay. So if we had a breakdown of how likely a team was to score 1 run, 2 runs, etc., we could calculate the chances of one team scoring more than the other, ending the game. Those chances would certainly be higher if you started with a runner on second, but not that much higher. Maybe a 10% difference? That would mean 1 game in 10 was one inning shorter--which amounts to about 1 game a year. Another factor is that if you start with runners on base, the inning will probably take a little longer to play. More stepping off the rubber, more conferences on the mound, more intentional walks, more pitching changes. The net gain in game time might be pretty close to 0.

This runner on second thing is no more ridiculous than what football, hockey, and soccer do to end tie games. It's only a terrible idea if you think that baseball should be better than that. Which it should, but that's kind of a hard position to argue. And baseball executives certainly can't afford to think that way, since they have to compete with those sports. I do miss half gallon half gallons of ice cream.

Could we try to get people to go to those Arizona and Gulf Coast League games just to boo when they stick that runner at second? Probably not; you'd have to attend an awful lot of games before you got one that went to extra innings. But there ought to be some way to let these people know what a dumb idea it is. Also, I'm to lazy to check on this thoroughly, but my impression is that there aren't nearly as many really long games, or extra-inning games in general, as there used to be. I did take a look at four teams in 2016 and in 1976: the Mets, Yankees, Cubs, and White Sox. (These totals include a little bit of double counting, a few of the games were between those teams.) In 2016, the four teams combined played fifty extra-inning games, of which two went over thirteen innings and none over fifteen. In 1976, they played seventy-three extra-inning games, of which twelve went over thirteen innings; that includes a nineteen-inning, seventeen-inning, and three sixteen-inning games. The kind of game that Torre complains about--the eighteen-inning job where the utility infielder pitches--has always been extremely rare, and is probably more uncommon now than it's ever been. What he and the other execs are really trying to address is the fact that when games do go to extra-innings, they take forever to finish, even if it only takes ten or eleven innings. But the strategies that are among the real culprits in extending games--using three pitchers to get three outs, using the same pitchers in the same roles every night, whether they're really needed or not, etc.--have also accomplished what this idiotic rule is intended to do: they've shortened ballgames.

and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game. I don't think I know about this. When did it happen? Who was the Hall-of-Famer? Rollie Fingers (on orders from Dick Williams) faked out Johnny Bench in the '72 Series. On a 3-2 count, Gene Tenace set up for an intentional ball 4, then jumped back behind the plate as Fingers painted the outside corner.

When I say there's no logical reason to circle the bases when you hit a home run, I mean by the sort of logic that those who want to change the intentional walk rule are using: it's a home run, let's count it and move on. But it is logical by the logic of the game, which should be what matters. The same way having to throw those four balls is logical. You don't play or watch a game just for the result; the things you do to get to that result are important too.

Ceetar wrote: I don't care much about pace of game stuff because I think that arguments fraught with peril anyway, but I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. This means IBB must happen within a catcher's reach and therefore within a batter's reach and also means more risk for wild pitches when attempting it. It was always a subversion of the rules anyway, in that there is no such thing as an intentional walk, they're just throwing pitches super far outside and the catcher is allowed to leave the box, and the crouch, once a pitch is thrown. That's kind of what the NFL did with the extra point, isn't it? It had gotten too easy, so they made it a little harder. Makes sense to me. And you're right about there being no such thing as an intentional walk. That is, the pitcher's intention is obviously to walk the batter, but he should still have to carry out his intention. Those little formalities are important. There's no logical reason, for instance, that you have to keep going around the bases when a home run goes over the wall. But it would feel wrong if you didn't. They've been messing with the strike zone since the 1840s, so I'm not going to complain about that. Maybe one day they'll get it right.

Thanks! Now can you tell me the name of Napoleon III's finance minister during the Second Republic, whether Archaeopteryx is considered a bird or a non-avian dinosaur, and whether I should get this lump in my groin checked out?

Edgy MD wrote: Is that the game that featured Rey Ordóñez going deep off of Randy Wolf? Speaking of Randy Wolf, does anyone know if he ever found that girl he met at Grand Central in 2003? I've been wondering about that ever since.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: dinosaur jesus wrote: My first two major league games, June 23 and 24, 1974, in Pittsburgh. I have very few specific memories of those games, but I can say that I saw Wille Mays and Tom Seaver play. You probably have the year wrong, since Willie Mays retired after the 1973 season. Thanks. Corrected. I know it was 1973, but my fingers don't.

My first two major league games, June 23 and 24, 1973, in Pittsburgh. I have very few specific memories of those games, but I can say that I saw Wille Mays and Tom Seaver play. I remember that Mays got thrown out going first to third in the first game (looked safe to me), and that Seaver won the second after a shaky start. I remember how bright even the road uniforms looked compared to TV. I remember Milk Maid being announced as a pinch hitter for the Pirates in the first game, but not that Milk Maid drove in the tying run, or that Manny Sanguillen drove in the winning run in the 10th. And I remember that the Pittsburgh paper the next day saying that Tom Terrific wasn't so terrific at the start of the game, but took control after that. It was the first time I'd heard that nickname, and it sounded kind of stupid. (Which it does. Did anyone really call him that except sarcastically, making fun of his Frank Merriwell image?)

Zvon wrote: Don't think of yourself as bandwagonjumpers. Like me, you are children of '69. If you were bandwagon'rs you'd have jumped off at some point. Even when I "turned my back" on the team in '77 I stayed on board, although from a distance. The bandwagon "type" could never stick with this team from 1970 til now. Oh, I know that, Z. And when you're a kid, and it's the first team you ever rooted for, that isn't really jumping on the bandwagon. The other factor is that where I grew up, in central PA, the Mets were simply on TV more than any other team. We got WOR on cable; we also got WPIX, but they didn't show as many Yankee games, besides which they had ugly uniforms and weren't any good. And the stations that carried the Pirates and Phillies usually chose to show Dialing for Dollars or some shit instead.

Another '69 bandwagoner. I'm pretty sure, anyway. I have no memory of that season at all, but I know I was on board in 1970. I remember my father pointing to a story in the paper, with mug shots of a couple of Pirates (ugly bastards), and asking me if I was worried about the Pirates catching the Mets. I said "Nah."

Yeah, I think was just a kind of rattled by the circumstances. I did suspect he grooved that pitch to Gordon. That was just too perfect a moment when he hit it out. But what's the point of grooving a pitch to Dee Gordon? Nine times out of ten he'll just slap it to the left side.

Edgy MD wrote: I think that's part of how Duda is misunderstood and under appreciated. He goes the other way plenty. Yes, but look at what kinds of balls he hits the other way. His fly balls are pretty well distributed, but his ground balls are almost all to the right side, where the shift is. I think the perception is right on this one.

Lucas Duda is probably my favorite current Met. I love the guy. I can't say I believe in him, because I don't think he quite believes in himself, which is the problem. But he has the gift, if that's what it is, of being much better than people realize. I'm drawn to players like that. (Wayne Garrett. Olerud.) And I think he's got at least one terrific season in him. He's also hilarious. He's a big, goofy guy with a funny name who seems embarrassed about being a (relatively) famous athlete. Just the idea of Lucas Duda is funny somehow, which is the point of those Instagram photos that Granderson posts. And the writer of this piece is on to that too. He's not mocking him. It's really a kind of tribute, a way of saying that he gets Lucas Duda, and he hopes he's not the only one.

I think it's funny.

Please, no. I'd rather have Esix Snead.