Ceetar

Typical Zack, a walk, 4 long AB and no hits or runs.

2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 107 2. Helton 105 3. Sosa 103 4. Luis Gonzalez 100 5. Lance Berkman 94 6. Pujols 88 7. 8. 9. Guerrero 83 10. Abreu 83 11. Giles 81 AL 1. Giambi 87 AL 2. A-Rod 87 AL 3. Manny Ramirez 76 Jim Thome 76 McGwire 33

Edgy, there are 3 more guys with 76 that year. 2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 107 2. Helton 105 3. Sosa 103 4. Luis Gonzalez 100 5. Lance Berkman 94 6. Pujols 88 7. 8. 9. 10. Abreu 83 11. Giles 81 AL 1. Giambi 87 AL 2. A-Rod 87 AL 3. Manny Ramirez 76 Jim Thome 76

2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 107 2. Helton 105 3. Sosa 103 4. Luis Gonzalez 100 5. Lance Berkman 94 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Abreu 83 11. Giles 81 AL 1. Giambi 87 AL 2. A-Rod 87 AL 3. Manny Ramirez 76

Nope, but Manny did have multiple seasons above 80. '96,'99, '98, 2004 2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 107 2. Helton 105 3. Sosa 103 4. Luis Gonzalez 100 5. Lance Berkman 94 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Abreu 83 11. AL 1. Giambi 87 AL 2. A-Rod 87 AL 3. Manny Ramirez 76

Hey, I never said it was going to be a hard quiz. 2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 107 2. Helton 105 3. Sosa 103 4. Luis Gonzalez 100 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Abreu 83 11. AL 1. Giambi 87 AL 2. A-Rod 87 AL 3.

2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 107 2. Helton 105 3. Sosa 103 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Abreu 83 11. AL 1. Giambi 87 AL 2. A-Rod 87 AL 3.

I just realized I've been humming "Cups" to myself since you posted this. [youtube:24exb0xy]cmSbXsFE3l8[/youtube:24exb0xy]

2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 107 2. Helton 105 3. Sosa 103 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Abreu 83 11. AL 1. AL 2. AL 3.

Actually, EIGHT other NL guys (and 3 AL) have higher than the Mets 80 in just that 2001. Wanna make this into a little quiz and guess? Contains a former and a current Met. 2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 2. Helton 3. Sosa 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. AL 1. AL 2. AL 3.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: It's kind of nuts that this team has been around for so long, and yet that's the most doubles anyone's hit in a season. Jose Jose turned too many into triples. Franchise Record for XBH is 80 by Beltran '06 and HoJo '89 Second is Gilkey '96 and Wright '08 with 77. NL Record is 107 by Bonds in 2001, tied Chuck Klein from 1930. Helton, 105, Sosa 103 also from 2001. Actually, EIGHT other NL guys (and 3 AL) have higher than the Mets 80 in just that 2001. Wanna make this into a little quiz and guess? Contains a former and a current Met. 2001 NL XBH leaders 1. Bonds 2. Helton 3. Sosa 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. AL 1. AL 2. AL 3.

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Were all the non-SNY folks flown in from the 1950's for this photo? yup. better?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: It's kind of nuts that this team has been around for so long, and yet that's the most doubles anyone's hit in a season. I think Howie was saying that same thing the other day. Believe he called it a record 'ripe to fall' or something .

Rough one. I have horrible luck this year.

Granderson-9 Murphy-4 Wright-5 Campbell-3 CYoung-7 d�Arnaud-2 Lagares-8 Flores-6 Gee-1

Edgy MD wrote: I had that bet at the beginning of the year. Why doesn't every Met fan see the glorious dawn that is upon them? Because they're too busy trying to see Wilpon's checkbook.

headed to this one.

Melky Cabrera, breaking windshields in Boston http://wapc.mlb.com/cutfour/2014/07/28/86783300/melky-cabrera-breaks-windshield-with-second-home-run-at-fenway

d'Kong76 wrote: And I refuse to call him Tulo no matter where he ends up! I'm pretty sure he's only called Tulo because people are too lazy to figure out how to spell Tulowitzki

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: I sometimes wonder if like ESPN whispers to a writer "hey, we need something to talk about, start up a trade rumor for us. big guy." Except we're days from the trade deadline. Nobody has to fabricate anything in order to pursue a story. Trade deadline ain't what it used to be. Besides, this story's been going on a week now. Has it actually heated up as we approach the deadline or is it one of those recursive buzz feeding the rumor feeding the buzz stories? That's all I mean, that it sometimes feels like there's a collective push to over-indulge in certain rumors.

I sometimes wonder if like ESPN whispers to a writer "hey, we need something to talk about, start up a trade rumor for us. big guy." I mean as far as I can see the Mets may have inquired as to the availability of said players. The Rockies have hinting they'd possible be willing to move him, but there are about a billion hurdles before we get to the "The Mets and Rockies are nearing a deal" I mean, we're getting close to the deadline now so anything's possible. They certainly are going to be taking offers and passing offers along to the other suitors to try to get someone to top it. But we're probably at the initial stage where they've thrown out an initial price and people are calling their backers but no one's come close to actually meeting, much less exceeding, the initial price. So yeah. the second one.

smg58 wrote: DeGrom has certainly earned the right to be part of the rookie discussion. Hamilton has a .717 OPS in a pitchers' park, so while his speed and defense are big plusses, I'm not conceding anything to him in July. I was just referencing the fWAR, which he's way ahead in, though clearly that's not how a lot of these guys make their decisions.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Another interesting point, this one from SI's Jay Jaffe. Not inducting enough players from the modern era is bad for business. "The Hall's rule change increased the likelihood of those trends continuing, a problem that could exacerbate the institution's decline in annual attendance, which according to the New York Times has fallen every year since 2005. Fewer players getting elected almost certainly means fewer visitors to the museum, fewer generations of fans sharing the stories of the Hall of Famers they watched to the next generation, something that won't help given the aging demographic base of the game�s television audience." http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/26/baseball-hall-fame-rule-changes-mark-mcgwire-tim-raines Are we so sure the demographic is aging? or just the television audience? or .. Why are we going to stop sharing stories of Barry Bonds just because he doesn't have a plaque in a room of a random NY museum? I'd argue that the world today creates way more story-telling avenues than years past. I'm still going to tell my kid about Barry Bonds, and that he was "one of the very very best that every played", that he dominates record books, that he's "inner circle" whether or not I use the phrase "Hall of Fame" All they're succeeding in doing is ensuring that their Hall of best players is about as respected as your typical buzzfeed top-10 list. It's just a museum. Also of note, dropping the years from 15 to 10 ensures a lot of the more progressive internet type voters that don't get a vote for 10 years after admission (how about we drop that?) won't get a chance to vote on Bonds, Clemens, etc.

Edgy MD wrote: Well, the best way to hurt his campaign is to catch and pass his currently tanking team in the standings. ooh, and can we have deGrom pick him off on 9/5 or something?