Willets Point

I want to know what the secret is too.

All the suck they brought for the West Coast trip they left on the field tonight. It gets better tomorrow. Uh, later today.

And it ends with Wright.

The Mets really have their work cut our for them to rally from 8 runs down in the 9th with 2 outs. It all starts with Wright.

If suck is like salt, I hope this game empties out the shaker.

This game sucks enough to deserve the Joanie Loves Chachi Theme Song:

Digging up old threads for shits and giggles: Valadius wins an opening pitch Frayed Knot channels Ms. Met Old people reminisce about a notorious trade The things we do to bust a slump Games so memorable they have a name A tribute to Vin Scully, who talks a lot Soupcan is a Communist

Dayum...maybe it's good we didn't get Durham.

Frayed Knot wrote: Q of the Day: Ramon Castro and Benjie Molina have a foot race with a pregnant woman. Will the final results have Castro 3rd and Molina 4th or the other way around? Does the fetus finish first, second or in a tie for first?

Randy Winns again.

Jose brings us within 5! Here comes the comeback!

TransMonk wrote: ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Wonder if Perez doesn't wind up on the DL and we delay the whole Pelfrey-or-Vargas decision for a few weeks. I mean, what is the excuse otherwise. I don't know if they can put him on the DL for being a dumb-ass. See, this is the kind of criticism I don't get. What's dumb about pitching poorly? Do you think he did that on purpose?

Fman99 wrote: I just got here, what the fuck? The fuck got us.

themetfairy wrote: There's no way to spin this into anything good. Sure there is. The Mets comeback win will be all the sweeter.

The Mets should've gotten this Durham fellow.

Randy Winns.

themetfairy wrote: In a pre-game SNY interview, Reyes' hair was sparkling. What's up with that? Pride Week?

Oh, now I see what you're getting at. I meant revert to form for the entire season not for the rest of the season.

="Nymr83"]="Willets Point"]="Nymr83"]="Willets Point"].310 that would require him to hit about .260 over 400 ABs, i'm on board with that happening. I just picked his career average figuring he'd revert to form. reverting to form doesnt mean you should expect a guy to end up with his career average at the end of the year, it means you should expect him to hit for that average, but with the weight of his good/bad start putting him above or below it at year's end. Well, I didn't want to make a wild guess, so I picked that.

="Nymr83":2ppkntuf]="Willets Point":2ppkntuf].310[/quote:2ppkntuf] that would require him to hit about .260 over 400 ABs, i'm on board with that happening.[/quote:2ppkntuf] I just picked his career average figuring he'd revert to form. metsguyinmichigan Jun 02 2008 07:57 PM I'm assuming that this is based on him getting enough at-bats to qualify for the title? The guy is an injury factory. I say he goes down for a month, rushes back and gimps through the end to hit .326. AG/DC Jun 02 2008 08:13 PM A little time on the DL could help him maintain his lofty average, depending on what he hurts. Nymr83 Jun 02 2008 08:15 PM ="Willets Point"]="Nymr83"]="Willets Point"].310 that would require him to hit about .260 over 400 ABs, i'm on board with that happening. I just picked his career average figuring he'd revert to form. reverting to form doesnt mean you should expect a guy to end up with his career average at the end of the year, it means you should expect him to hit for that average, but with the weight of his good/bad start putting him above or below it at year's end. Willets Point Jun 02 2008 08:16 PM ="Nymr83"]="Willets Point"]="Nymr83"]="Willets Point"].310 that would require him to hit about .260 over 400 ABs, i'm on board with that happening. I just picked his career average figuring he'd revert to form. reverting to form doesnt mean you should expect a guy to end up with his career average at the end of the year, it means you should expect him to hit for that average, but with the weight of his good/bad start putting him above or below it at year's end. Well, I didn't want to make a wild guess, so I picked that. Willets Point Jun 02 2008 08:18 PM Oh, now I see what you're getting at. I meant revert to form for the entire season not for the rest of the season. Rockin' Doc Jun 02 2008 08:55 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 02 2008 08:58 PM I'm going to say .353 If Larry, gets another 250 at bats for the rest of the season and reverts back to his career average (.310) the rest of the way, then his average for the season would be roughly .353 Seems as logical as any other guess I could make. Fman99 Jun 02 2008 08:57 PM .336 MFS62 Jun 03 2008 06:53 AM I hope he hits .3991. But I'm predicting .343 Later willpie Jun 03 2008 08:00 AM .383 Looks like for his career, he's actually a better hitter post-ASB. Better than this, though? I think not. Edgy DC Jan 02 2009 03:08 PM Congratulations, irish. NameAVGWillets Point.310themetfairy.327Nymr83.335John Cougar Lunchbucket.335Fman99.336Gwreck.341Elster88.342MFS62.343Rockin' Doc.353Benjamin Grimm.356CHIPPER JONES.364metirish.368AG/DC.371willpie.383 Rockin' Doc Jan 02 2009 04:51 PM Congratulations, metirish. Is this how the phrase Luck of the Irish came to be? Grimm should demand a recount, he was the closest without actually going over. Bob Barker would have given the win to Grimm.

I bleeped out the names. I would appreciate it if Vic would admit what he did was wrong and deliberately provocative and not merely a "disagreement."

.310

Two things I believe I've already said in this thread but I'll reiterate for clarity: 1. As Edgy pointed out, lists are mostly for fun and a way to recommend films and/or begin discussion of their merits. 2. There are many ways to determine value of a film, but arbitrary time limits are not valuable in my studied opinion. Vic Sage wrote: there are lots of ways... but surely its best to consider such determining factors, than to simply say "whatever you liked best today is good enough for the ages". Why is that a MORE intelligent way to determine value? Why is having no objective standards or criteria more intelligent? It's a great leap to say "arbitrary standards are not helpful" and have you have me say "there should be no standards at all." In fact I think you know that I didn't say that, and just said I did because you like to push buttons.

Vic Sage wrote: But NOTHING stifles discussion like a statement such as: To sum up, you're wrong That was a joke. If I have tag everything with SC it won't be worth it. I still think 10-15 years is arbitrary. Weigh a film on its merits as a film not on when it was made. Take for example the movies from your list in this thread. If you made a list of the best movies in say 1976 would The Producers be unworthy of inclusion but in say 1981 it's magically acrued greatness? I think there are more intelligent ways to determine a film's value than that.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: But he wasn't really an orphan! Just more Yankee propaganda! Well, he lived in an orphanage. That may suck even more when your parents are still alive.