Ceetar

TransMonk wrote: HahnSolo wrote: Pedro didn't win a game in September 08. I have no clue who it is if it isn't Johan. Ditto. I remember Pedro having a good start at the end. but I couldn't remember his record. Santana was already guessed incorrectly. I know who it is then, although I didn't think he was good enough to win the award for the league..I'll let Edgy officially declare my Pedro guess wrong first though.

September 2008: Pedro Martinez? It's disturbing me a little that Santana didn't win it despite pitching very well, that we had another pitcher win the award, and yet still choked away the season.

oh oh, June 2000 was Mike Hampton wasn't it?

April 2009, Johan Santana (pitcher)

TransMonk wrote: June, 2010: David Wright Woot! I'll take the layup, June 2006: David Wright

There is no such thing as an unflawed stat. It's pretty rare for a starter to get a win that he had no part in whatsoever, or a loss that he didn't contribute to. It all boils down to "Did you give up more runs than your team scored?"

Edgy DC wrote: You can get too wrapped up in getting pitchers their wins. Score runs, prevent runs, win games, and let the statisticians quibble over the credit. Very true. Dusty Baker almost gave us the game on Monday trying to get his rookie (second start) a win in the 5th inning. Still, some/many players are concerned about their legacy and their records and what not, and constantly being deprived of what they might feel they deserve can mess with them. Even if it's only a nagging doubt in the back of Johan's head when he takes the mound after they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the inning.

From Cerone: Santana is 6�5 with a 3.15 ERA this season, but has seven no decisions during which he allowed one run or less. That's incredible. if they score 2 runs in four of those games -- or if Frankie doesn't screw them up -- he'd be on the All-Star team and there would be none of this talk about him starting to get over the hill. nope, the debate would be if we really should've skipped Takahashi to make him ineligable for the Classic. Eh..tell you what. get him the run support for his WS MVP and I'm sure he'll get over it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Mariano with the obligatory fake injury copout, will not be participating. Of course not. Yankees are bred to be selfish. I'm sure they'd do away with the game if it was up to them. I don't believe the screw up your swing thing, but wouldn't mind if the Home Run derby did so for Cano. But knowing Yankee Stadium, he'd probably just hit twice as many. Speaking of which, during the game last night SNY did their usual teaser for the show after the game, showed a tiny picture of cano with "home run derby" under it, then to (Gary Apple) saying "One local player will be in the Home Run Derby. tune in later to find out who!" I'm sure plenty of Mets fans don't know what Cano looks like, but come on!

Santana 6 Wright 1 Bay 1

Frayed Knot wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: To be fair, though, I get the sense that many of the new-agers are equally dismissive of the value of decades of watching, calling, and playing professionally. Oh yeah, there's a definite "know-it-all-ness" that permeates from parts of the on-line stats crowd, a sense that because they delve heavily into these new metrics that automatically makes them smarter than 3/4 of the personnel in ML front offices and media folks. But the retort to that shouldn't be to just cover your ears and go 'LA-LA-LA-LA ... I can't hear you' without actually having to come up with a counter-argument. * "Stats people" Gary once spit out with barely contained furor, "say there's no such thing as clutch, but I know Jeter is therefore they're wrong" I am working on a count piece actually (although I've been saying that all season and it's suddenly the All-Star break..) There are a lot of problems with the new stats that it does annoy me when people angrily adhere to them like they're hard and fast rules. (Such as a certain person seemingly actively rooting for Lastings Milledge to get his OPS over Jeff Francoeurs) Still, I think the biggest issue is not that these stats exist, and not even that may be partially flawed in some regards, it's that they're used incorrectly by so many to make determinations and allegations about guys that may not apply to a specific instance or game or situation. But they can be a powerful tool, and certainly one that broadcasters and GMs should consider as a factor. * OK that may not be an exact quote but it's pretty close

The Second Spitter wrote: He's back July 15.... http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5352226 Eh, for one he _has_ to be back July 15th. Rubin even notes in that article that Manuel contradicts himself every day, so hard to take this at his word anyway. However, it's what I expected given the situation, and the schedule they've had him on. It'd be nice to have him for the Braves series though.

Agreed, stars and stripes isn't really my thing, but wouldn't it make sense to keep the design of the current hats? bah.. loved the play by Wright. wonder if it gets him plunked..hey, if we get some retaliation stuff going, maybe we can get Strasburg ejected.

Zvon wrote: Ceetar wrote: Baseball to watch in the winter is like Christmas in July.. Only one thing trumps that. Playing(yourself, playing) baseball in the snow. It's much safer than playing baseball on dry land. sign me up.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Really, I don't care so much about the story. As long as Homes takes his shirt off a bunch, I'm good. There was plenty of that. also, apparently they're pulling the trailer for Paranormal Activity 2 during Twilight, cause too many people were scared. (it's not scary)

The movie was exactly what was expected. Followed the book pretty closely. So mostly, it sucked. They glossed over the wolves history too much in my opinion, but some of the Cullen's history stuff was pretty good. They played up the Voltari's involvement, which was good in my book, because I like the story as a "modern" vampire clan rising up against the established trend and carving out their own territory and following. If the story wasn't really a love story, there would've been a fifth book featuring a war with the Italians that would've resulted in America becoming a 'vegetarian' Vampire country with the Cullen's in charge. I was part of a general audience survey at the theater. I was harsh. btw, here's my man card.

I'll wait for team names before I decide if i'm gonna be a fan of one. We should (whether as a forum, or Mets fans in general) try to all pick a team to root for together if they're gonna televise the games in anyway. Baseball to watch in the winter is like Christmas in July..

Edgy DC wrote: Wait a minute. Fernando Tatis is a key Met? _someone_ has to lock the door when they go on the road..

HahnSolo wrote: That's 2 managers they've canned since dumping Wally Backman. I become increasingly thankful they dumped him every day.

http://theropolitans.com/2009/08/bobby-bonillas-back-on-payroll-in-2011.html from the comments: It is actually correct, and a horrible deal...for Bonilla. Ahh the power of compounded interest. The way it works, the Mets set aside $6 million in 2000 @ a rate of 12% per year. They are not allowed to withdraw any funds until year 11, in which they can withdraw $1,200,000 per year for 25 years. After the 25 years, and after paying off Bonilla, the Mets will have...drum roll please....$138 million. So they took the $6 million he was supposed to receive and invested it themselves and made $132 million for themselves on it. They also have a similar deal with Bret Saberhagen. Now here comes the problem with this deal and others. Madoff is the one that was guaranteeing them the 12%. So the Mets are now going to be paying the players out of their pockets, with new 2011 dollars, not 2000 compounded dollars, and on top of that, never receiving the $138 million lump sum. Much of the speculated $700 million the Mets lost was not what they lost out of pocket, but what was supposed to be there after this great compounded rate. Read more: http://theropolitans.com/2009/08/bobby-bonillas-back-on-payroll-in-2011.html#ixzz0sUKNogij

The Second Spitter wrote: attgig wrote: depends on what you mean by 'player'. i wonder if this defered money will count against the luxury tax calculations... I believe it won't -- Bonilla's salary was attributed to luxury tax calculations as if the Mets paid Bonilla's salary when it was due under the terms of the original contract. I believe the Mets will make money off the contract due to interest and what not. (Although, they expected to make a ton more, based on numbers Madoff was promisng them) the Ropolitans had a post on it last year.

Don't have a favorite/least favorite Canadian basball player. Don't pay a ton of attention to nationalities. I like the drinking age, the availability of some non-US type candy bars, and that they have curling. I've been to Canada dozens of times. (I went to school in Buffalo, 16 miles from Niagara Falls). the Niagara Falls vicinity is the only part of Canada I've been to, but it's a fun place. I'd like to check out the blue Jays, and Vancouver is supposed to be nice.