dinosaur jesus

I know this isn't quite what you're looking for . . .

Mex17 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors. RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability. I think that argument works better if all your numbers are up to par with the exception of RBI (such as in the case of Stanton his first few years I believe). Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is. If you're exceptionally good at capitalizing on those opportunities, then yes, that is a measure of ability. But Loney is not exceptionally good. His career high in rbi's is 90, which he accomplished twice, in 2008 and 2009. In 2008, there were 491 runners on base when he batted. He drove in 77 of them, or 15.7%. In 2009, he drove in 77 of 480, or 17.1%. (He also hit 13 home runs each of those years, which is why the overall total is 90.) By comparison, last year Daniel Murphy drove in 59 out of 373, or 15.8%, which is also his percentage this year. In other words, James Loney, in a good year, is about as good as Daniel Murphy at driving in runners. No offense to Murphy, but that doesn't really seem what you want to be spending your free agent money on.

Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder. He's only got value if he hits well over .300, which he's doing now and which he did in 2007. But those seasons are outliers as much as the awful 2012. In a normal season he's basically replacement-level. Not a good risk even if you can get him cheap, and he won't be cheap.

Hi, Astarte. Funny, I was just talking to my friend Dagon about that very question. According to him, there are a bunch of feminine Mets. Andrew Brown binds his breasts. Ruben Tejada has very shapely legs--a regular Betty Grable. And David Aardsma has no external genitalia. But you can take anything Dagon says with a big grain of salt.

Do the Pirates have a calligrapher on staff?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "Professional hitter" is actually can't field AND doesn't walk AND has no power (see: Lenny Harris); you almost never heard, say, Matt Stairs described as such. Actually, you heard Matt Stairs called that a lot--probably more than any other recent player. Try Googling "Matt Stairs" and "professional hitter." It's even on his Wikipedia page.

Mariano Rivera is the god Zeus appearing in human form so as not to blind our eyes, and his cut fastball is a lightning bolt with which he strikes down the mortals who dare to step up to the plate against him. Or swim in his pool. I could have said he was Ahura Mazda, but I think he drives an Acura.

Here's what Ike found on his locker after the game. Never say the Wilpons don't care.

Maybe you could take some Mets and make them non-Mets. Bonilla's an obvious one.

Best Marichal impression ever.

You know, they're basically Mr. Met's eyebrows. They're just a little more conspicuous on a human face.

Oh, I think if Cashman asked nicely, and maybe threw in a tour of Yankee Stadium, the Twins would be glad to go along. They're usually very obliging where the Yankees are concerned. Preston Wilson and Claiborne Pell would make it hard to resist. Or Robert Preston and Liz Claiborne. Whatever it takes. Do it, Yankees!

In the case of the 1984 Mets, I think it comes down to there being three good to excellent pitchers in the bullpen (Orosco, Sisk, and Gorman), but only one good starter; outside Gooden, the starters were mediocre to awful. If a starter did okay and handed it over to the good relievers, the Mets had an excellent chance (that team was an insane 11-1 in extra innings). If not, the second-line relievers came in to make things even worse. Lots of close wins, lots of blowout losses. Even Gooden fit that pattern. He was fantastic in his wins, and even better in his no-decisions (and the Mets won four out of five of those), but his ERA in his losses was over 9. That's way oversimplified, of course, but I think it at least partly explains what happened. There's also just dumb luck. Dumb luck is a force in this world, and I make my prayers to it every day.

Frayed Knot wrote: HahnSolo wrote: Reminding me a bit of last year's Os. Veteran manager, strong division, average to young lineup with guys ready to put it all together, closer who comes out of nowhere and is virtually untouchable. ... Also like the 2012 Orioles, out-playing their pythagorean projections (5 games at the present) but so far showing no signs of reverting to the norm. Last year's O's finished the season 11 games ahead; 93 wins for a team that out-scored its opponents by just 7 runs for the year. Which is why I expected them to fall back this year. But they haven't, I'm glad to see. It's funny sometimes how teams that win more games than they should one year--that really aren't that good--really are that good the next year. Like the 1984 Mets, who had no business winning 90 games. What's funny about that season is that the Pirates did the same thing in reverse. Their Pythagorean had them winning 87 games, but they actually lost 87. And then in 1985 they were legitimately terrible.

My feelings are a little mixed here. I'm happy that they finally have a good team. It's good for baseball, good for Pittsburgh, and it must be a great experience seeing them winning in that fine new ballpark they have. But I grew up in Pirate country in the seventies, and hated them--hated the stupid uniforms, hated that drawling cornball Bob Prince, hated that "We Are Family" crap, hated Kent Tekulve's tinted pervert glasses. One of the fondest memories of my baseball life is game 4 of the 1979 Series, when I was rewarded for suffering through a long, cold day at Three Rivers, surrounded by Western Pennsylvanians yelling for Scrap Arn and Teke, by getting to see Teke, called in to protect a three-run lead with the bases loaded, getting knocked around the yard by one Orioles pinch hitter after another. That was the last game the Orioles won (and the last World Series game the Pirates have lost), but at least I got to be there. It wouldn't be right to hate them like that now. I hope they finish well this year, and at least make the postseason. And I hope it's not a fluke, and that they can put three or four more good years together. Then maybe I can get some of my old loathing back.

Frayed Knot wrote: Terry NOT over-playing the lefty/righty thing this inning (IMHO of course). All you want here is to get to Bobby P with as big a lead as possible. I'd kind of rather not see Parnell in a third straight game. Not sure who I would like to see, though.

Zvon wrote: Big run. Satin's having a nice night. Does that mean I make fun of him more, or less? More.

If Byrd were doing this for the Yankees, it would just be further proof what a genius Cashman is. But in fact he's been better than any of those guys Cashman picked up. A lot better. That's fun to see. And I apologize to Marlon for thinking he was useless.

If that's what he looks like in tights, ESPN might be making a big mistake.

What I loved about Olerud was how well he kept it secret how awesome he actually was. (I could identify with that.) From the attention he got (outside of 1993), you'd think he was just a poor man's Mark Grace--a Hal Morris. The ultimate example of that is what happened in 1996. He didn't have a good year, but he was the best player on the Blue Jays. And they didn't think he was even a major leaguer (with cash for Robert Person?). And that's how my favorite player landed on my favorite team--and suddenly they were good again. What a coincidence. It's always disappointing when you find out your hero is actually a jerk. But with this tree business he's being a jerk in a very Olerud-like way--quietly, politely. And that's kind of wonderful.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: If this isn't 73 all over again I don't know what. I think that the '73 Mets get shortchanged. They seem to be regarded as a fluky team in a weak division. But the '73 Mets had the best pitching in all of baseball that season and that has to count for a lot. They might not have been an imposing offensive team but they had the pitching equivalent of Bench, Rose and Morgan. They were extremely banged up, but when more or less healthy at the end of the season, they were unstoppable. I understand what you're saying. But there are a lot of .500 teams in baseball history that could say the same thing--that when they were healthy they were great. Dozens, at the very least. So yeah, the '73 Mets probably were a lot better than their record, better than quite a few teams that have made the postseason. They're still the luckiest team ever. Or second-luckiest; they were a lot better than the 1987 Twins.

I understand selling high, but isn't a guy who's earning a third of what he's worth exactly who you want on a team that's low on cash?

Marcum won't get the chance for his first major league shutout, and second complete game.

Fman99 wrote: dinosaur jesus wrote: Gosh, I don't know if even Jeter makes that play. That's how great it was. That's appropriate. Jeter is French for "throw up," you know.