Ceetar

hey, is this game not on in Minnesota?

Eric Young, Jr. � LF Daniel Murphy � 2B Marlon Byrd � RF Ike Davis � 1B Andrew Brown � DH Wilmer Flores � 3B Travis d�Arnaud � C Juan Lagares � CF Omar Quintanilla � SS Dillon Gee � RHP DH? Where'd that come from? Radio: NYM: WFAN 660/101.9 FM, WEPN 1050 MIN: 96.3 K-TWIN, TIBN, BOB FM TV: NYM: SNY

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It may or may not be large, but it surely exists. yes, but are there people that stop becoming baseball fans because of it?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone. It affects everyone who goes to bed before the game ends, because it's running too late. HUGE issue for the post season, at least in the Eastern Time Zone. So why are ratings so high? Why do television people, who study said ratings to place the game at the best time, do so? Why do stadiums sell out? It seems like the 'extra sleep versus end of the game' crowd is not really that large.

Vic Sage wrote: These games aren't being extended by exciting explosive action or thrilling tension-filled extra innings, but by tedious time-wasting inactivity that serves no one but the egos and OCD of players and short term financial interests of teams. In the long term, the game is devolving into something that is just too boring for a modern audience to tolerate so MLB, through their inaction, is dooming the game to eventual cult status. I think you've got it backwards. The primadonna stuff is exactly in line with modern audiences. The challenges stuff is stupid in the NFL too, but people still watch. That adds a 'manage at home' angle to it. second-guessing the manager has always been popular and here's another avenue for it. The proper use of the bullpen is another one. I'd love if the games were shorter and more compact, but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone. We're nowhere near even approaching cult status.

http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2013/08/19/matt-harveys-record-is-actually-very-good/ Me wrote: The Mets won 52% of Matt Harvey�s starts so far this year and 44.3% of their games otherwise. Over 162 games that means they�d win 84 games if Harvey started everyday, and just 72 if he wasn�t on the team. That�s quite a difference, in fact it�s 17% better. Just for a reference point 17% better than a .500 team would get you to nearly 95 wins.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/08/alex-rodriguez-has-a-bizarre-post-game-ritual/ (follow through the other link for more gifs) Apparently It's a "thing" for A-Rod/players to collect batting helmets from walk-offs. (Someone on Twitter said it was a Bride/Bouquet thing) And Apparently A-Rod takes this very very seriously.

Edgy MD wrote: You don't designate, imply, or leave open for interpretation any possible implication of a designated successor for a first-time manager. That's only only something you build under vets with a successful track record, and a secure contract. During Terry's first season, when he was field coordinator, he made certain that spring of never even visiting the big league side of the spring training complex, lest he be perceived as any succession threat to Manuel. And, of course, he not only was a threat, but successful one. Like bagging chixx with Mike Damone, the best way to score is to act cool and disinterested. Gary Carter didn't know, as he never hung with Mike. Also, the best way to get a job is to have another job in the organization. true outside baseball as well.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I wouldn't mind if he managed the Mets one day. Was thinking the very same thing. I suppose he's gotta be a candidate. as long as that one day's a meaningless Spring Training game or perhaps a game after they've clinched and the real manager is sick.

on the neighborhood play not being challenged or fought now even, it's no surprise that second base is as far from a coach or manager as you can get on the bases.

good words by Hawkins. Is Terry Collins implying there is an unwritten rule between managers to not bitch about the neighborhood play?

I plan to sneak in a game Tuesday. Keep striking out guys for me!

Edgy MD wrote: Buck back in the lineup again. *obligatory but by now old joke about whether or not he's even impregnated his wife yet*

Frayed Knot wrote: And then there's the whole thing about MLB deciding on the reviews but having to rely on the local feed(s) for the evidence. Not all teams televise every game and can we always rely on the local feeds, not to hold back an angle that might be detrimental to their team, especially in cases where the team and station are owned by the same people? "Minor" things like those are why the simple pro-replay argument of--"well if it corrects just one bad call then it's worth it"--doesn't paint the whole picture. supposedly there is a complicated 'add cameras' process that's going to cost like 50million.

Frayed Knot wrote: Those aren't the details I'm most concerned about. ALL replay ideas work REALLY WELL in theory and on paper. But more importantly ... - what is and what is NOT going to be reviewable? - What happens to actions that were the result of the initial call after a play gets reviewed & changed? Catch vs Trap for instance; also a foul call changed to fair. I hope they make it a rule, rather than an umpires interpretation. Not quite sure how you'd do that though. Not that it'll ever be perfect. Take Turner's bloop last night. If that had been called foul and overturned, Byrd undoubtedly would've been placed safely at third base. And what about the other way? Runner going from first, bloop to LF, called fair. first and third now, but on review it's overturned as an out. If the call goes correctly the first time, that's an easy double play, but I can't see them ever calling it that way.

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm awaiting the details before comment. My fear is that they (Selig, Torre, probably others) have been so intent on expanding replay that there are going to be 'we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it' aspects of this that the outcome will be to is simply exchange old arguments and controversies for different ones. deadspin seems to have most of the details, whether they're correct or not, who knows. (I closed the window already, google for yourself) you're allowed 1 challenge in the first 6 innings, 2 in the last three. And it seems like that only applies to challenges in which the ump was right. (To keep you from bitching constantly about anything close) No recourse if you complain early and then there's a legitimately bad call later on. It feels like this might keep managers from getting too challenge happy and only challenge plays that seem clearly wrong. Review handled by MLB office in NYC. I don't know what the logistics will be. hopefully the chief ump has a phone or something.

what do second-arb 1Bman generally make? $5ish? Fangraphs had him at worth about $4.9 if you had to buy that via free agency last year. hell, his 36 games the year before were rated even better.

well yeah, that's my biggest complaint is that it'll create more gamesmanship and less game. It seems like an NFL-inspired gimmick to give talking heads something else to talk about since ESPN loves to talk about the people that play that game rather than the game. I dunno, I guess you can't just allow managers to challenge everything, and what would be the impetus to have the umpires flag a play for review? The more I think about it the more I think I'm actually okay with it. It's really just the managers getting three times they can ask the umpires to ask for help and actually be listened to. But if a manager storms out because a guy missed a safe call at worst and the umpires realize they were in fact wrong, they should simply correct the call, not stand by the wrong call and say "well, up to you to challenge it".

Ha, you kinda have to call Tyson the San Diego Chicken right?

Lefty Specialist wrote: You'd need an eye in the press box and a way to communicate with the manager. The dugout is a lousy place to view a play. Would they throw out a red challenge flag? The big concern is that it'll make games, already too long, even longer. No time in most cases. You'd really only have until the next pitch. But It'd probably only happen on plays the manager was already going to come out and bitch about, and hopefully the people in charge have already started looking it it more closely in anticipation as that happens. Shouldn't take that long. It's just dumb, like it is in Football, to declare that bad calls are okay as long as the manager doesn't want to challenge it as part of strategy. I don't know how they're going to implement it, but hopefully managers can still come out and yell about bad calls and throw a fuss without asking for a challenge. That might be the major difference.

Centerfield wrote: How much money do they expect Ike to make in arbitration? Isn't it supposed to be based on how good you are? We should make the arbitrator sit through some of his May at-bats. I have no issue with bringing him back (so long as there are options, such as Duda/Satin/Flores). I agree though that we can't count on him to be a middle of the lineup threat any longer. who knows with arbitrators. probably not that much of a raise, and Mets tend to almost always come to terms with these guys anyway, so despite the amount of bytes going to be contributed to how much he makes, it's really not that big a worry.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Not to pat myself on the back for this but I said that demoralizing Game 1 loss looked like the kind of game that would begin another bad stretch for this team. I think they know they're not capable of doing quite enough to put away teams anymore and it shows. eh, I think this is the same type of game they've been playing all year. They're NOT capable of putting away teams because they don't quite have enough hitting. The scales certainly tilt for run scoring when the marginal hitters come up against a good team. And losing perhaps your only great hitter and reliever doesn't help.

metirish wrote: Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: do you? I've found the mets.com deals are usually better than StubHub with fewer fees. Depends on the game and the seats you want, really. I don't think I've ever paid "face value" for a ticket on the Excelsior level, even factoring in SH fees. Yet there are often better deals to be found through the Mets on the less desirable sections - like the ones they are offering for this promotion. Yes, I have done both. I was being a dick......as an example, I bought three tickets to the Futures Game on SH for $21.....I priced tickets in the same area at the ticket window on the day of the game and they were going for $50-$60 each.......of course that's day of game and not mets.com. a quick(very quick) look for tickets to the Seaver game V the Tigers has mets.com listing cheapest in the promenade at $35, SH at $26.....again, just a quick look. you can be a dick all you want, I was just legitimately curious. Most of the games I went to this year so far were for free or via a friends unused tickets (or purchased by someone else) so I haven't been paying as close attention. Weekend summer still is in that higher tier so they're expensive via mets.com and probably have high "oops, I forgot I was on vacation that weekend" resale opportunities elsewhere.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: That he's willing to make adjustments is good. That he's unable or unwilling to make any corrective adjustments until, say, his slumps hit a month or two, and plumb depths unreached by a sociopath mid-'70s Zeppelin roadie on bennies... doesn't bode quite as well. or perhaps the adjustments didn't take. It's not like he wasn't trying things earlier.

metirish wrote: Fuck of Fred and Jeff. I get my tickets on Stubhub. do you? I've found the mets.com deals are usually better than StubHub with fewer fees.