dinosaur jesus

I still think it was a hasty decision to name the team after that Indian fellow, Sockalexis. He was a fine player in his day, but certainly no Lajoie. They can call themselves what they like, but they'll always be the Cleveland Naps to me.

Stan Jefferson and I just celebrated our shared birthday. I thought he'd have a better career, but he probably says the same about me.

Joe Buck isn't a patch on his father. But I couldn't stand Jack either. He had an authoritative, almost bullying, tone, like a high school principal explaining why you deserved that detention. Kalas was another one like that. I guess it was a style left over from radio; you hear something like it in the old newsreels on TCM. Joe just sounds like a know-it-all who doesn't know shit.

Davis and Lindor probably couldn't imagine Schwarber doing something quite that stupid. What would have been fun would have been if they doubled up Schwarber and the runner broke from third. We could have had a triple play.

I don't know exactly why, and I'm sure it makes me a terrible person, but it really makes me happy to see the Cubs losing in the postseason. I want their frustration to continue, even if it means seeing the Dodgers in the Series. It's weird, because I don't hate the Cubs at all, and I like Chicago. I think maybe the Cubs not making the World Series is one of those comforting old traditions that help keep us grounded while the world changes around us. I would have teared up if they'd won one while Banks was alive, though.

Koufax was a righty batter/lefty thrower. I think it was so his pitching hand wasn't the top hand on the bat.

Buster Posey bats as the winning run with two outs in the ninth, but grounds out. The Rockies beat the Giants 2-0.

Did Bart groove that pitch? Classy gesture, I guess.

Wil Myers with a three-run homer. 3-0 Padres in the bottom of the first. Keep it up, guys.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Didn't the Twins win the World Series one year with two good starters and one sacrificial lamb? (It may have been Morris and Blyleven in 1991.) I think, though, that they probably did it pitching their two veteran starters on three days rest. There's no way I can see the Mets doing that in 2016. That was 1987 (in 1991 they had Scott Erickson, who won 20). After Blyleven and Viola it was Les Straker. And yes, they pitch them on three days' rest. A team probably could do that these days, but I don't think there are any managers who'd dare try. Maybe Bochy.

They're not saying "Bruce." They're booing.

Edgy MD wrote: And Wilson Ramos hits a homer off the Mets fourth- or fifth-best reliever, whereas back in 1972, Tug McGraw would've been first out of the pen in a scoreless tie. Tug's dead, and so are Frisella and Sadecki. I think we might have to go with Chuck Taylor.

Davey had that double-closer setup, with a lefty and a righty, which I always liked. That could certainly work now. You can exploit the platoon advantage, or bring in the one who's better rested, or treat them as a combination of the closer and the eighth-inning man, with the choice of which to bring in.

In 1972, when Tug McGraw set the team record with 27 saves, he entered the game at the beginning of the ninth or a later inning in a save situation three times. Three. That means he had 24 saves when he either pitched more than one inning or entered with runners on base. Or both. He entered the game with the winning run on base nine times; he blew two of those saves, but the Mets won all nine games. That's a well-defined role for you--if the game was on the line, Tug was coming in. I've no particular point to make, except that Tug was great and the game has changed.

Keith played when the modern idea of the closer was just emerging. He saw Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Lee Smith, Dan Quisenberry, the first relievers to be used more or less the way all closers are now. And he probably still thinks of those guys as the ideal.

I've been saying this for a while now. To myself, in the shower. It's about time someone finally listened. I'd be in favor of ditching saves as an official statistic. Thinking about them just screws up managers' heads.

Could they switch off against lefties and righties and camp out in right field when they're not pitching, like McDowell and Orosco that one time? That would be awesome.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: dinosaur jesus wrote: Jack DiLauro? There's no uni # on the front of the jersey, so the photo's gotta be from one of the first three seasons. It looks more Shea than Polo to me, but I can't make out the World's Fair Patch that the Mets wore in '64. Got it. I was thinking maybe the number was Photoshopped out to make the quiz harder. Or his uniform was flapping right over the number.

Jack DiLauro?

John Harper may dispute that: In one-game playoff, Mets could consider healthy Jacob deGrom because of Noah Syndergaard's inability to hold runners As dominant as Noah Syndergaard can be, his problems in controlling the running game are a consideration in a win-or-go-home scenario, where a couple of stolen bases could prove crucial. “That would be a factor for me,” an NL scout said Friday. “Everybody says stolen bases aren’t important anymore, but then you get to the playoffs, and they can be the difference in a ballgame. “DeGrom is much better at holding runners, so if he’s healthy he’d be my choice. But it would be more of a factor if the Mets wind up playing the Giants. The Cardinals don’t run much at all.” So why would this particularly apply in a one-game playoff? And why would stolen bases suddenly be the difference, when evidently they weren't during the regular season? If the guy is just saying that a healthy deGrom is a better matchup against the Giants, I might actually agree. But if he's making it a general rule, and saying you shouldn't start your best pitcher in your most important game because he gives up a lot of stolen bases, that's just crap.

Yeah, pitch him. Then he can pitch the first game of the Division Series

Harvey's Wallbangers are piling it on. A two-run homer by Gorman Thomas and a two-run double by Jim Gantner make it 8-3 Brewers in the 6th. Phils still up 4-0, but the Nats are threatening in the 8th.

Darling Ronnie Jay Hook was a student of the curveball. Robert Person was a person.

I don't think Montero's problem is controlling his stuff, it's not wanting to throw it where anyone can hit it. He pitched scared all night, and got away with it.

Edgy MD wrote: dinosaur jesus wrote: The thing about game scores is, they were never meant to measure how well someone pitched, but how impressive he was. A shutout's a shutout; if you don't allow any runs, it doesn't matter if you struck out 20 and allowed 1 hit, or allowed 12 hits and didn't strike out anybody. But the first game is definitely more impressive than the second. It's definitely biased in favor of more recent pitchers, as far as the highest individual game scores. But overall it's actually biased the other way, since pitcher's used to pitch more innings. So deGrom's game is better (game score-wise) than Seaver's because a complete game is more impressive in 2016 than in 1969? It isn't better score-wise. DeGrom's game score is 91 or 97, depending which calculation you use, and Seaver's is 96 or 103. AmazinAvenue got confused by the two ways of calculating game score. DeGrom's isn't even close to the second-best Mets nine-inning game score ever. It's not even in the top 10, maybe even the top 20. Seaver alone had seven games higher than that. In 1984, Gooden had two in a row. In 2012, so did Dickey. Two starts before his record 99, Cone had a 95. Shawn Estes, for Christ's sake, had a 92 one time.