Ceetar

check swing, first impression was he didn't go, but the replay makes it look very close. (They didn't break it dow nvia overhead or anything) On such a inconsistently called thing, nice to see them err on the side of history. Ryan sorta ran but was complaining it wasn't a strike (he maybe have been 'trotting' since it would've been a walk. He definitely should've held up, it was a ball) to the point that if he had immediately dashed for first, he may have beaten the throw from the catcher on the pitch that got away.

Awesome. Have former Mets(prospects) thrown more no-hitters/perfect games than anyone else? also, i flipped over to MLB Network and they weren't doing it live..Fox broadcast rules?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: Mets may not be very good defensively, but it's not like most teams are very good at it. uh, compared to the Mets they are. I dunno, watching the teams we've watched so far? I wouldn't automatically give anyone but the Phillies an automatic edge. And they're maybe better because they're missing Howard.

Mets may not be very good defensively, but it's not like most teams are very good at it.

Nissan installs siren to annoy employees that sell cars.

I'd like to see the comparison for closers in save situations that the team has the lead early versus save situations that were created via a comeback in the 8th versus non-save situations that aren't save situations because the team scored in the last half inning to put it out of reach. i.e. not that it's an 'adrenaline' thing but simply a prep thing. Harvey: I dunno, it seems unlikely the Mets are 'in it' if they don't have anybody they trust to finish games when September rolls around. But if Harvey helped them close out games into the playoffs, he'd be so hyped this offseason you'd almost want to trade him for Buster Posey AND Tim Lincecum.

Edgy DC wrote: I'm not advocating for it, but I wouldn't be shocked if talk of Harvey debuting as a reliever (and potential closer) starts surfacing as well. I've heard it, not in serious 'do this' comments but in the sense of it being an option. Innings limits/big league exposure/etc. whether or not the Mets are 'in it'. Grab some junk innings, probably not as a closer unless they're hopelessly out of it and next year's closer isn't on the team. If his personal progression is that he's likely ticketed to at least compete for a rotation spot next year, they may want to 'break him in' this year.

oh, should I register? what are you people doing in terms of speeches? just summarizing what you wrote?

I may go. Probably going to be the city tomorrow afternoon anyway. Obviously depends on the weather since it's an outdoor event.

TransMonk wrote: I have no ill will towards Zito's ERA, I just want them to score enough runs to get the W. I was just bored and wanted to run the numbers.

6 runs in 5.1 or less would triple Zito's 1.125 ERA. if they only score five they'd have to do it in 2.1 innings to triple it. 4 runs in 8 or less innings would double it. If they only score 3, they'd have to chase him in 4 innings to double his ERA. For his ERA to dip under 1, he only needs 2.1 scoreless innings, but if the Mets score once he'd need to go 11.

I'm lazy, but I'm willing to be 'first lefty off the bench' if someone needs to bow out and gives me a day or two warning.

MLB wrote: THERE'S A PANDA IN NYC: Come to Washington Sq. Park (5th Ave) at 11:30 am ET to meet @SFGiants' Pablo Sandoval and Sergio Romo. The pitching is where it's at with the Giants. The Mets hope Lincecum has one more bad start in him to start the season, because he's off to a pretty bad start.(10.54 ERA) Matt Cain may be the one guy you least want to face right now, and the Mets miss him. (1.88 ERA) Barry Zito is having a good start, but he's not striking anyone out which doesn't bode well for him. He's got a 1.13 ERA and a Complete Game Shut Out. His .688 WHIP is probably not sustainable, and he's only striking out 4.5. He's only walked one guy so far, which also isn't sustainable.

It's so much harder to prove something didn't happen. And the voters seem to buy into rumor and allusion to easily.

metsmarathon wrote: if you're relatively young for a given level of the minor leagues, and perform to league average levels , you're doing really really well. from a development standpoint, probably not from a "I'm playing against you and dominating you" way.

Edgy DC wrote: That's wrong. His two earliest short-season years cherry picked out of 380 games. And he was indeed good in those years, just not yet great. Generally speaking, he was awesome coming up. yes, his _earliest_ as in the normal 4th dimensional progression that we all face. There was a jump. His numbers in the Florida state league in 1990 were league averageish. Of course, he was young for the age, but that wouldn't matter to an opposing player coming up against him, as the article states.

Edgy DC wrote: Piazza was certainly good coming up. not in '89 or '90 necessarily. Age 22 season though was a big jump, and that seems a good age for it too, supplements or not.

It's such an easy cop-out too, because Piazza obviously wasn't good 'coming up' necessarily, as he was a really low round draft pick. Sure, it could've been something artificial (although you don't really see fringe guys become top players even among the confirmed) but it could've been simply he figured it out, he put the work in he wasn't doing before being drafted, he had a late growth spurt in him, etc.

HahnSolo wrote: Interesting that McCullough doesn't even consider the possibility that Duda could lose some ABs. Probably because they're both lefties, but the picture will be much clearer in a couple of weeks. Duda started slowly in both of his previous call ups. slow starter? Maybe he starts mashing soon. But i Nieuwenhuis continues to play like he's a good major leaguer, he'll stay in the majors. Torres barely qualifies as a 'veteran' except on age, and the job's only been his for 5 innings. I expect Collins to want to see Nieuwenhuis stay if he continues to see Nieuwenhuis playing well. I think the "status quo" is Kirk, not Andres. Not going to slot Young into the rotation immediately because he was there last year and he's returning from injury and Gee is just holding his place.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not out to catch anyone, I don't think it ought to affect his perceived greatness or whatever, and wouldn't base any suspicions on bacne but if Piazza wasn't using I'd be shocked. The friggin guy hit opposite field line drives over the fence off his fists with regularity, was a historically great offensive performer in an era of great offensive performers and widespread, legal PED use. I mean, duh. yeah, but that's a different argument. Everyone was using (and the tone of those arguments by former players sounding all sanctimonious about it like players chatting about what other players took. If they did, it wasn't in a condescending manner it was in a "how do I get some of that?" manner) I don't know if 'shocked' would be the right work, but yeah I guess I'd be more surprised if guys like Piazza and Jeter and Rivera and Benitez and Hampton and pretty much anyone that was playing in the late 90s wasn't using than if they were. But in terms of trying to get into voters heads about what constitutes 'suspected' juicer? Does Pearlman and Chass count? And not only does it count, but does degree matter? Do they induct Piazza because he's clearly not Clemens and Bonds? Or is that why Bagwell gets in next year?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy DC wrote: So, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but should we at least consider that maybe Dickey's knuckleball doesn't dance too much in the rain, and maybe think about swapping him out of future rainy-day starts? That makes sense, but last-minute changes to the rotation can bring their own havoc. What could they have done? Given Batista the start? Let Niese start on short rest? Well, there was rain scheduled for Tuesday as well, otherwise maybe you swap Santana and Dickey there. That may even get Santana an extra day here and there in the future, and Dickey on short rest usually isn'ta big deal. But not sure how that plays in with side-sessions between starts.

Batista .5 Nieuwenhuis 1.5 Murphy 1.5 Davis 1 Wright 1.5 Rauch .25

Batista 1 Murphy 1.0 Nieuwenhuis 1.0 Thole 0.5 Wright 1.0 Baxter 0.5

wasn't he in the Mitchell report or something? I can never keep all these lists straight. Probably should be in, yes.

maybe throw in a FUCKing Chipper there too, since it doesn't seem right without one.