Ceetar

Fman99 wrote: This would be a great time for Gary and Keith to come into the booth, hit all of them except for Ronnie with folding chairs, WWE style, and take over the broadcast. As I understand it Keith is either in the press box handing Mike Puma his plate, or in the interview room for the free candy.

maybe they shouldn't have tried to bunt. duh.

all the Mets outfielders have hit pretty well in the second half so I'm not too worked up about which ones start. They're due for a decent barrage tonight overall though.

Frayed Knot wrote: Forcing the to draw conclusions based on two events neither one of which would logically occur in the given situation is much closer to guesswork than it is to judgement. And I don't know why we're even arguing these definitions anyway,. My larger point is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'. Well both have happened, and do happen regularly, and there's no way to have the system they have and have these things NOT happen. The human mistakes in that play were made on the field. The replay umps were much more restricted as to what they could do and there the system is more at fault. That's probably part of the rational for interference being technically unreviewable, as they must have figured there would be too many moving parts and judgement calls on runners.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I imagine that if there hadn't been an out call Utley would have scrambled back to second base and Tejada, face down in pain on the ground, wouldn't have been able to tag him out. (Where was the ball when all this was happening? Was it still in Ruben's glove? Or did he get some kind of a throw off?) the ball was in his hand, clearly indicating he was in the process of turning a double play.

As I understand, even if all 6 umps thought it was interference after review, they still couldn't do anything about it because it's a judgement call, which is not reviewable anyway. That is dumb. The REPLAY process couldn't overturn the non-interference call. There's nothing preventing the umps on the field from huddling up and correcting it on their own. And to address CF's point about putting Utley back on 2nd: that's really a separate issue. The replay guys are strictly looking at whether Tejada's toe touched the bag. Once they rule 'No' he's ruled safe. The system is flawed in that it forces the umps to pretend they can recreate where guys would have been had the "wrong" call not occurred in the first place, but that's the way it's written so that's the way they need to work it. but who reviews if it's a reviewable play? is THAT reviewable? had Tejada thrown the ball as he fell would they have decided 'oh, definitely neighborhood play, can't review'? is it only because of the illegal slide made by a player not currently permitted to be on the field because he was out by virtue of tagging the bag OR abandoning his attempt to reach second (your choice) that allowed them to review a portion of the play? Cause the whole thing is bullshit if you're only not able to review the plays where the MI actually is able to get the throw off.

that'd be true if Utley simply slid normally and tried to displace Tejada's feet instead of essentially tackling him from behind AFTER he was out.

Curtis Granderson � RF David Wright � 3B Daniel Murphy � 2B Yoenis Cespedes � LF Lucas Duda � 1B Travis d�Arnaud � C Wilmer Flores � SS Juan Lagares � CF Matt Harvey � RHP

TransMonk wrote: El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Not nearly as bad as Doug Glanville who blamed Tejada for the whole thing (video clip in second post of this thread). So did Steve Sax. Ripken in the booth was halfway blaming Tejada. Ripken's been rough. Darling was very much in the "that was a dirty fucking slide" camp.

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: I think the question we should all be asking ourselves is what would the 86' Mets have done? snorted coke and started a brawl that would've gotten key players suspended/ejected.

d'Kong76 wrote: Dude's delusional... http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/10/los_angeles_dodgers_don_mattingly_gives_ludicrous.html I mean, I don't expect the Dodgers to skewer their own guy, though a "surprised they put him at second" would be plenty tepid. It's the idiots like Larry Bowa and Blylevin that really anger me.

Edgy MD wrote: Well, that's an important point. My point was to dispute Mattingly's position that Met fans to the last are blinded by partisanship. I'm not defending or indicting Wright there, so much as defending the integrity of my fellow fan (which, Mr. Mattingly, I'm not always inclined to do). It's irrelevant to me anyway. Even if it was reversed, we'd be wrong. I remember being pissed in 2007, not because I didn't think Marlon Anderson didn't interfere (less so than Ultey though) but because the umpires so selectively call it. I get you can never completely take umpire subjectivity out of it, but with Statcast I bet you can legitimately track Utley's past from first to second and see that he purposely veered.

Gwreck wrote: Probably going to take extra innings for Reynolds to actually appear. Unless Terry thinks he should be a defensive replacement (?).. or Chase Utley gets on base again. see how the games go. I could definitely see Collins getting him in if the Mets are up by 5 or 6 in a game. Want to get those jitters out in case you really do need him.

https://twitter.com/ReyRey_5/status/651547193535504384 Matt Reynolds wrote: Finally got my apartment in Dallas! #Offseason

Ceetar wrote: Gwreck wrote: Tim Stauffer, 1007 That is Probably the last guy this season. well, um. jokes on me I guess.

Dodger introductions at 8:07, just fyi.

Frayed Knot wrote: Sure, but unlike 2000, now there's a mechanism for the league over-ruling umps on the field. You mean the replay provision? Well sure, but that's not the league judging the umps, it umps ruling on umps and even then only on the specifics of the challenge; namely: Did Ruben's toe touch the base? Torre's job is to be after the fact discipline czar, there's no way he's going to re-call plays on the field. technically what was reviewed was whether the throw pulled him off the bag. You have to phrase it correctly or it becomes the 'neighborhood' play and you can't review it.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Ceetar wrote: going prep for this one by day drinking at the vineyards out on the Island. seems appropriate. or maybe it's my anniversary. one of those. Probably the Mets one. It's my anniversary, too! Just before we got married 28 years ago, one of my coworkers said, "Why did you pick this month? Whenever the Mets are in the playoffs you'll have issues. Sadly, it hasn't been an issue too often... only five for me. First time it's been an issue. But got in the car to come home as the game was starting. Cespedes homered on the Cross Island, Conforto on the Cross Bronx. Probably going to need a few more runs here, at least for my sanity.

going prep for this one by day drinking at the vineyards out on the Island. seems appropriate. or maybe it's my anniversary. one of those. Probably the Mets one.

d'Kong76 wrote: I've run out of beer, need to wrap this up NOW!!! that's almost as a big a sin as bunting down a run in the 9th.

mow 'em down familia. mow 'em down.

Edgy MD wrote: You had dirt from Yankee Stadium at the birth of both of your children? Really? How does that work? seems very unsanitary.

we're ready. What channel daddy?

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I can't remember. It gets auto-renewed, and I can't even find where you would sign up for just audio on the MLB website anymore. mlb.tv somewhre I suspect, but might not be easy to find this time of year.