Ceetar

This broadcast, from Harold and Joe to Erin, is atrocious.

The traditional mayoral bets are in: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article3201025.html Don't care if it's not beer. Let's get some 21st Amendment up against Boulevard. like this: http://beergraphs.com/bb/567-drinking-with-shirt-ep-8-beersport-predicts-baseba/

Centerfield wrote: -2001 WS Game 7: Because you just can't count on Mariano Rivera in big spots. " This applies to this series as well, might have been a little more flukey, but they did have him on the mound with the lead in game 4-5.

On the other hand, the original dimensions certainly favored players who drive the ball and aren't slow. Of which the Mets had quite a few. Wright, Reyes, Pagan, Beltran. And it wasn't unfavorable to lefty-pull hitters like Delgado. A lot of Beltran's power was lefty.

d'Kong76 wrote: Boris d'Spider?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Anthony Recker sucks. But if youse wanna go 55 posts on who the Mets backup catcher should be, go knock yourselves out. There aren't 30 good catchers in the league to start, so of course he sucks. he just sucks less than most.

seawolf17 wrote: I honestly don't understand the love affair with Anthony Recker. I have zero attachment to him. he does an okay job at the position and has some pop. That's gold in backup catchers basically.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Moving the fences in is cheaper than getting a legitimate power outfielder. That's how they roll in Wilponland. Can't wait for all the 'Matt denDekker is going to have a breakout year' stories in Spring Training. even if that were true, it's not the Wilpons that would write those columns, it's hack sports writers. And they'll write something equally stupid regardless.

Know how Madbum spilled most of those 5 beers he chugged all over himself? [youtube:mycdl8g4]9u5qd2LKx2A[/youtube:mycdl8g4]

Lots of factors at work. I definitely think the small parks are less fair than the big ones. it's rare that a well struck ball finds a glove even in a big park unless it's a high fly type. The best players drive the ball and drives find the grass, perhaps more so in big parks. Fewer well-struck balls are becoming outs in big parks than 'just-missed' type flies becoming hits/homers in small ones. But the other teams play there too. You may be able to tweak a stadium to get a mediocre team a wild card berth in the right year, but that just as easily could get your team not even as much as a home playoff game as it does a championship run. And that's sorta the best part about the MLB playoffs, even with the wild card you rarely get a team that's truly got no shot in there. You're not getting strictly lucky teams that manipulated the dimensions of their park to absolutely maximize their team and then getting destroyed against quality competition.

that's your opinion, as stated by the 'i think' and 'as i see it'. hence, not right/wrong. It's just different. There is so little control on balls in play that good pitchers generally succeed everywhere and bad hitters don't. Sure, there is some variation and you can certainly augment mediocre players either way based on dimensions, but mediocre teams aren't competing for championships anyway.

Frayed Knot wrote: - There are rules for changing (can't be done within a year for instance) and they do require MLB approval, although it may be permissible as often as once per year. - There are also minimum distances for walls but many of those got waived in the 90s/2000s era of stadium building for design purposes (i.e.: manufactured 'character') see: YSIII, Houston, etc. - Steinbrenner used to pull in his LF wall whenever the Yanx signed a RH power hitter (Winfield, Jack Clark) while always denying that that was why they were doing it. I'm kind of indifferent to this change. I thought the first time they did it was more necessary but the idea that this one will either help or hurt the home team is speculative at best and probably marginal even if correct. It's not going to hurt or help anything, even as significant as it looks, that's a relatively small area and it's pretty hard to say that more Mets fly balls will go there than opposition. I think there is at least some design aspect to it, rounding out the walls and/or adding a seating tier. The Mo's Zone has kind of died as a group sales area in comparison to the LF seats, so that may have a large part of it if they can turn that into (my dream: beer garden open to all to wander in and out and stare at the game through the fence) a group sales area with outdoor viewing of the game and able to peek right into the bullpens too. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm sort of filing this under General Wilpon Incompetence. You'd figure as real estate people that they'd at least design a stadium correctly but it was so wrong right off the bat. Generally I don;t like the idea of adjusting for the sake of an advantage -- you'd figure, be a good team and learn to adapt to the environment you play in -- but I guess as a means of correcting for the huge mistake they made designing it it's OK. There was nothing _Wrong_ with either of the configurations. They were just different.

No official errors in Wednesday's game (and only 2 over the first four games) but between the two misplays by Adams, the non-catch by Jay*, and a couple of spots where I think they've missed Yadier, there haven't seen many supposed 'Cardinal Way' moments to be envied. I've noticed some post-season writers swooning over Jon Jay: intangibility and plays-the-game-the-right-way, and not-the-most-athletically-gifted-but-gets-the-most-out-of-his-ability and gets-more-range-out-of-his-smarts-than-his-legs and makes-hard-plays-look-easy and all that jazz. It was like they were desperately searching for their new good-but-not-great biracial angel. If I was a cardinals fan I'd nickname him Chief Justice, but that's just me.

metsmarathon wrote: don't forget! arbitration season opens today! (be gentle!) should we look into getting a replacement for the cornballers? if so, should we have it in place before we conclude arbitration? i may have a friend who would be interested. Couldn't hurt. Though missing arbitration ain't a huge bother. Anyone else here interested?

Edgy MD wrote: And he's got top-shelf taste in beer. hmm? I missed that.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: What makes you so convinced? The kid is 22 and hit the living shit out of the ball. Limited defensively I'd say, probably not a good SS over a long period even, but I'd bet he'll outproduce Muffy beginning in '15, given equal opportunity to play. What do you say? Let's bet a beer on it. He didn't even outproduce Tejada with the bat in 2014. It's not that I'm convinced, it's that the facts suggest he's not a good hitter. I'm not denying he's not young and full of potential and very well might hit well in 2015, I'm just saying I don't see the 2015 Mets as a team that should make that gamble at the onset. He certainly hasn't gotten enough exposure to say boom or bust either, but nor has he gotten enough reps at SS to proclaim that either. I'd be willing to make the bet but I'm not sure they'll get equal opportunity to play to really figure it out.

Edgy MD wrote: He's got no potential? he's got no position AND he has potential.

The 2015 Mets can't afford to play around with Flores. As of Opening Day, he's not the answer. He can't hit or field enough. He's got no position and potential. You swap him for someone, perhaps a slugging 1B/OF that's got unrealized potential. or a CI guy that can backup David who MUST get more offdays next year and maybe play first against some of the tougher lefties.

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Assuming everyone's healthy on Opening Day, I'd bet that Harvey won't get the start. I'd bet on either Niese (seniority) or deGrom (best Mets pitcher, 2014 and possibly, reigning ROY). Certainly may not be Harvey, but seniority doesn't fly very much anymore. It'll be Harvey. I could see a 'hey, let's give the RoY the start!" argument, but it'll be Harvey. hmm, Harvey-deGrom-Wheeler-Colon-Gee (Niese is traded) with deGrom lined up for the Home Opener.

seawolf17 wrote: I think that's the first quiz answer I've gotten right here in weeks. you will now guess Sasser for every quiz for the rest of the decade.

ramon castro

Oliver Perez.

JOHAN

G-Fafif wrote: Times picked up on the quote, though not with the investigative zeal (or Zeile) shown here. If we accept Randy is an adjective/nom-de-plume, then we must turn to Dunham's other clue, Mets of Jewish faith, heritage or at least partial identity. Since 1962, that group encompasses Joe Ginsberg, Norm Sherry, Greg Goossen, Art Shamsky, Elliott Maddox, Dave Roberts, Shawn Green, David Newhan, Scott Schoeneweis, Ike Davis, Josh Satin. Ginsberg, Goossen and Roberts are no longer with us (meaning if one of those was the guy, the author needs a new gyno). Nothing in the bio of the 83-year-old Sherry suggests he took up medicine. Have seen and heard enough of and from Shamsky and Maddox post-baseball to discern they didn't become doctors. Nobody else -- even from the perspective of young Lena -- would qualify as "an older Jewish man". Guessing, as suggested upthread, that if the whole thing isn't a clever fictionalization (or fabrication), the doctor might have said something to her once about going to a tryout camp or being drafted in the 43rd round and that became "my gynecologist played for the Mets." If by chance it's Schoeneweis, then Ms. Dunham should check her insurance to make sure it covers catastrophic events. And if it's Davis or Satin, perhaps she buys really lame pick-up lines in bars?

I didn't get to watch enough of it, but it looked fun. Would've liked more full-screenness. But I like that I can watch a broadcast that I can actually discern who's having a good year rather than the main screen just giving me meaningless AVG/HR/RBI lines.