dinosaur jesus

I think Koosman was as good as quite a number of Hall of Fame pitchers, and with a little better luck in the teams he played for--or just reasonable run support in 1977 and 1978--he might have been a candidate. But those are the breaks. There are a lot of guys you could say that about. I don't know if Sutton was actually a better pitcher, but 100 wins is a huge difference. It makes him an obvious Hall of Famer. And for Koosman, 13 games over .500 for his career just won't do it. So it's not that Sutton deserved 65 times more votes, it's that the dividing line clearly runs somewhere between them. There are some other guys on that list that deserved a lot more respect than they got, like Tony Oliva.

I remember 1976 too, and Jerry got screwed. He came on strong in the last half of the season, but I think everyone had already assumed that Jones would get the award. I think another consideration was that Jones had had a strong season the year before but had lost out to Seaver (who of course deserved it).

SteveJRogers wrote: Man we have had a rash of these long games this year. Granted nothing compares to the 20s we'd pull back in the 60's. Wonder games tended to last longer back then? If I had the time, or the inclination I'd probably spend a few hours at retrosheet figuring out an answer! Two suggested answers to that: First, starting pitchers stayed in longer back then, and relief pitchers were often asked to go three innings or even more. So, like the Mets tonight, you could go quite a few innings without getting deep into your bullpen. Whereas the norm now is what Arizona did tonight--six pitchers in 12 1/3 innings. And second, there were fewer runs scored then. If neither team can score, the game can go on an awfully long time.

Does anyone know how many DP's he's induced this year? It seems like a hell of a lot.

Hernandez is a backup infielder who started on opening day because the starter was injured. It might have been the wrong starter (the right one having been sent to Triple A), but that's another question. Is there really any chance he's going to suck the Mets dry? Ordonez was heralded for more than outstanding range. The hype was that he was the best shortstop anybody had ever seen, which may not have been far from the truth. He was never going to be much of a hitter, but he seemed to deliberately refuse to work on making himself better. He wouldn't hit the ball on the ground, and he was terrible at stealing bases. So no, I don't see much comparison. Similar skills, but not much else in common.

"Resop" is "poser" backwards.

First Met younger: Stan Jefferson, if he was born later in the day than I was. Otherwise it's David Cone. Last Met older: Dennis Cook, until Opening Day, when it will be Julio Franco.

Bring 'em all down, all the big cheaters, white and black, nice guys and assholes. They couldn't call it racism then. In my ideal nonracist world, Clemens would be as vilified as Bonds. (Which means that maybe this forum is my ideal world.)

I forget where I read this, but in 1969 there were a lot of reporters in the locker room who didn't know anything about the team.. At one point Gentry and Seaver exchanged shirts and answered questions as each other. Quote (Gentry as Seaver): "I think Gary Gentry is a horshit pitcher."

One position in the batting order should be worth about 18 plate appearances (162/9). (That's assuming everyone has an equal chance of making an out, which of course isn't the case.) So the number 2 batter should come up about 54 times more than the number 5 batter. Take away a few for the days they don't play, and that's about 50. (Actually, LoDuca, as a catcher, would lose more than that.) If there are about 600 plate appearances, the difference is about a twelfth of that. Now here are some numbers out of a hat. I'm going to assume that both of them have good seasons by their standards. Say that David Wright, batting number 2, would create about 120 runs, and at number 5 would lose about a twelfth of that (10 runs), making his runs created 110. LoDuca, at number 2, would create about 80, and at 5, 73. 120 + 73 = 193; 110 + 80 = 190. The difference for the team, over the season, would be about 3 runs. Maybe one game. If LoDuca were to hit more like I'm afraid he will, the difference would be far more. But of course in that case he presumably wouldn't stay in the number 2 position.

He's from my father's home town, another reason I always liked him. A rough part of San Antonio. Two things I remember about him: the way, at the end of an inning, he'd toss the ball to the side of the mound away from the opposing dugout, so the other team's pitcher would have to walk those extra few steps to get it. And (so I read) sometimes when he was pissed at the home plate umpire, he'd let a pitch go by so it hit the umpire. "Gosh, sorry, ump."

I remember thinking that if you stuck him in the Gulag for a few years and slapped an Amish beard on him, this is what Matlack would look like.

Rapid, Exciting, Yet Exasperating Shortstop Frequently Limping Outfielder, Yet Dangerous Mediocrity Incarnate, Expelled Now To Kansas City, Isn't Exactly What I'd Call Zippy

This breaking news has just come in: Julio Franco is still old.

My favorite player when he played in Toronto and I lived there. He should have been MVP in '93. The Mets have always been my team, and I was delighted when they got him. Most Canadians had no idea what they were missing, but you people in New York figured it out. Mets fans are the best, damnit.

Thanks, guys

Edgy DC wrote: Mets born on my birthday: Kevin Brown (1990 Mets, born exactly one year prior to me in 1966), Tucker Ashford (1983 Mets, born 1954), and Stan Jeferson (1986 Mets, born 1962 in New York). Other big-league notables born on my birthday:Hall-of-Famer Sam Thompson (1860). Also Lee Smith (1957) and Paul Konerko (1976). I was born 11 days before Don Florence, and so our lives are linked. Tucker Ashford and Stan Jefferson celebrate their birthdays today, in fact. Which I do too, as it happens--Stan and I are exactly the same age, but he got all the breaks.

HappyRecap wrote: Phils "trumping" the Mets is only true if it is a fact that getting Manny is a good idea which I don't think it is. Co-workers of mine are based in Philly and can't stand Abreu. I don't have access to these stats but they claim that he his batting average drops considerably from the 7th inning on. And with runners on base, it is even worse. Of course, not having these numbers it is tough to agree or disagree but if true, not good. I have checked the numbers a little bit. According to espn.com, in "close and late" situations (not sure what that means--maybe 7th inning on, game within 2 runs?) Abreu actually hit better last year than he did overall--.298, with a .571 SA and .422 OBP. Over the previous three years his numbers weren't quite that good in that situation, but they weren't bad. I seem to recall the same sort of thing being said about Rolen--that he didn't hit with runners on--and it was spectacularly untrue. Are Philly fans just in a permanent blind rage? It's nice to see you all again. I was up for a cup of coffee a couple of seasons ago, but it's been a while.