Ceetar

didn't get the distance tracker up until the second batter. didn't explain the rules. this is pathetic. i like the new format though.

ESPN And Berman are just awful. awful. called the Griffey's the best father-son HR hitting combo ever. can't get the camera angle right.

this is the best thing ever.

J. Niese versus J. De La Rosa Mets @cgrand3 RF Murphy 3B Flores 2B Duda 1B Nieuwenhuis LF @JMoE220 C Tejada SS Niese P @juanlagares2 CF Snakes 1.N Ahmed 2.A Pollock 3.P Goldschmidt 4.Y Tomas 5.W Castillo 6.A Hill 7.D Peralta 8.C Owings 9.R Rosa

MFS62 wrote: I hope Patrick Corbin isn't a descendent of Alexander Corvinus, the first of the immortals.* Then he would be half Lycan/ half vampire, and more powerful than both. Later *= references the series of Underworld movies. I was going to make that joke but it was late and I didn't feel like looking up the exact names. They're making another one.

Syndergaard now has 72 strikeouts in his first 11 career games...That total is fourth-highest in team history through 11 games behind Dwight Gooden (87), Nolan Ryan (81) and Matt Harvey (80)...The 72 strikeouts through his first 11 games are also tied for the 17th-most strikeouts by any pitcher in the last 100 years... PITCHING IN: New York pitching has allowed 21 earned runs in its last 133.0 IP (1.42 ERA)...Since Sunday, the Mets pitching staff has allowed five earned runs in 44.0 IP (1.02 ERA) with eight walks and 48 strikeouts...The Mets entered today with the third-best ERA in the majors behind St. Louis and Pittsburgh. THE BULLPEN: The Mets� pen has allowed seven earned runs in its last 15 games (36.0 innings) for an ERA of 1.75...Entering play today, New York�s bullpen ranked fifth in the majors.

Matt Harvey faces Patrick Corbin on PIX11 at 4:10. This was going to be Sophie's second game but I'm bailing to do a BeerGraphs meetup in Brooklyn. I'll literally be taking the 7 train the opposite direction around 2:45.

New Han Solo movie is announced. Thor for the Mets versus Chase Anderson who's name is actually Bob.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure whose assumptions you're talking about, as you directly reference my post. I think it's pretty clear in context that I'm talking about the post.

Edgy MD wrote: Wow, Simon says (seewhatIdidthere?) there's no point in investing in a team with 20% odds this morning of making the playoffs. Thanks, Quitkowski. I hate trades but I disagree. If it's the right deal, it's the right deal. And the Mets, I imagine, are perfectly capable of calculating the playoff odds increased in 2015 against the playoff odds possibly lost long-term. Too many assumptions there for my liking. 1. that the Nationals current record in any way represents a 'on pace' projection. Most teams probably don't at this point, but they've been so up and down it's hard to say those crests and valleys will be mimicked the second half. Never mind that the Mets play them 12 or so times. The Mets absolutely don't need ALL of those things to win. they need some of them. The bullpen's probably fine. They need more offense, but all of that is a glut. One hitter plus healthier Cuddyer or d'Arnaud or Wright back and hitting goes a long long way.

Frayed Knot wrote: I still don't get the NYM/Twins connection here. Gary just mentioned it about an inning ago. It sounded like something he was being required to mention but was trying very hard not to sound that way while doing so. Meanwhile the Twins were playing an afternoon game today at home with a 'Vote Dozier' message on the back of the mound where team logos have been popping up in recent years. Because someone in the MLB offices discovered Metropolitwins sounds cool. Teams do this ever year, since you can vote AL/NL might as well try to rally the troops. It's a social media campaign.

Vic Sage wrote: i'm just seeing how the voting correlates (or doesn't) with this year's production; i'm not advocating anything, or saying that WAR is the end all and be all of such matters. I do think the KC ballot-stuffing is the kind of thing that discredits the process. depends what you think the process is. MLB for example, wants as many votes as possible and attention on the process. So seems like KC played right into that.

not really sure what WAR (which one?) with the All Star Game, but if you want to simply award the honor to the top X players in the league on July 1st each year, i'm good with that.

oh god that's bad. come on, the Knicks and the Mets are apples and oranges for a variety of reasons. and if you don't think Michael Cuddyer is synonymous with quality veteran hitter you clearly don't watch baseball.

Ashie62 wrote: Haven't heard much about David of late, or d'Arnaud either. d'Arnaud wearing a brace still. Wright got some tentative good news I thought, but it's not really news until he starts actual baseball activity.

3:45 start for the Mets in San Francisco. Means most of us can listen on our commute home. Average Temp:64� (based on last ten years) Jacom deGrom versus Jake Peavy Peavy is also returning from the DL. Second start. eeked out a quality start last time out, with 4 walks though. Mets will probably annihilate him. No reasonable sample sizes, but Granderson and Duda have both homered against him.

Zvon wrote: Sorry, when I popped in earlier I didn't see this thread. I hadn't seen it. It's all irrelevant here because he stepped off the rubber.

Centerfield wrote: Game 6 of the '99 NLCS might have been an Eponymous Game if not for an interesting twist. If Todd Pratt had kept running it might have been The Robin Ventura Game. Instead it's called the Grand Slam Single. And no hitters, as far as I can tell, are never referred to as The Johan Santana Game. The Johan Santana game was game 161 of 2008.

because he's a 28 year old outfielder who's only gotten about one season worth of AB so far? OPS down to nearly .700 against righties. So he's a better version of John Mayberry basically. That's a minor upgrade and not really worth Niese. You'd really have to see something to think he's a solid regular to do that. Not really a CFer so it's not like you're going to play him over Lagares and he's not better than Cuddyer or Granderson so..

Gwreck wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: So that implies that it WOULD have been a balk had Heston NOT thrown it after stepping that way and realizing where Belt was. Yes, exactly. He would have been better off holding the ball and taking the balk rather than risking the ball going into the stands. Well, he could've thrown a softer toss more towards Belt and I doubt they would've called a balk because that's sorta to first base, especially if Belt took a step towards it while fielding. What do the rules say about throwing to a fielder? Like, if you step towards SS and throw it to him?

The Tom Glavine game.

he can step and not throw but if he steps towards first he has to throw as I understand this. Rule 8.05(c) Comment: Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without actually stepping or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk. A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base but does not require him to throw (except to first base only) because he steps. It is possible, with runners on first and third, for the pitcher to step toward third and not throw, merely to bluff the runner back to third; then seeing the runner on first start for second, turn and step toward and throw to first base. This is legal. However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion ?wheels? and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk.

I think you're right that if it was technically a balk and he should've gotten second, it's not a 'time out' play that necessitates a stoppage. So if Granderson kept on running, he could've been tagged. But I think Edgy's right about what unoccupied means. This is why the old fake to third, throw to first play used to be legal only when a runner was on third. Otherwise you would've been able to do it just by having the third baseman cover. (and you could still do it now, by faking to second.) Interesting to see if the Mets would've challenged that (I'm 99.9% sure you can't challenge that situation, though perhaps 'tag play' allows you to challenge that it was an unoccupied base?) though It's certainly something you can come out and yell at the umpires about anyway. Rule 5.06((3)( Comment (Rule 7.04( Comment): A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score. Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base.

Nieuwenhuis up, corresponding roster move yet to be announced by supposedly not DL (so, Ceciliani)

Nymr83 wrote: Who says "No"?: Scott Van Slyke for Niese, (Mets eat half this year's remaining dollars and 2-3 mil next year.) The Mets.