Elster88

Don't back the outfielders up to far. Stairs could hit it to the corner in right center and still have trouble getting to second.

Beltran and Pujols are most definitely in the same ballpark. If you use the 1.4x OBP method to calculate OPS then Beltran's OPS is higher than Pujols.

seawolf17 wrote: Wow, a lucky break as Rollins squibbles one right back to the mound. Why does that have to be a lucky break and not good pitching? Feliciano was fucking great that inning. Except maybe for the wild pitch.

Awful at-bat by Church. Durbin was all over the place against Tatis and Church goes up free swinging to get down in the count 0-2. Once he had the two strikes it's harder to blame him for swinging at close pitches but at 2-2 he did foul off two more balls and swing and miss on a third.

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":vevh6h8g]Big park doesn't mean less offense-- part of Coors' offensive appeal is Grand-Canyon-sized outfield gaps, a la CitiField. It's just a different sort of offense (as the triples numbers imply). [/quote:vevh6h8g] I'm not buying it. A park with deeper outfield walls leads to less offense than a park in the exact same space with shallower walls. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 09:17 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 05 2009 09:20 PM Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. Frayed Knot May 05 2009 09:19 PM 1) Let's see how this place plays over an entire season before we declare it (or YSIII for that matter) to be an extreme park in any direction. Traditionally Shea played like a better hitter's park in the Summer than it did in April & May. 2) No other park is like Coors. Not only does the high altitude give about 10% more carry to balls but the increased OF size to compensate for that extra carry also allows for more 1Bs, 2Bs & 3Bs. In retrospect they would probably have been better off to make the fences higher instead of further. Yeah it would resemble a pinball game occasionally but at least then you'd be turning HRs into doubles instead of the other way around 3) They DO have the option of bringing the fences in (and/or lowering them) after the season if the place does indeed turn out to favor hurlers too much. But, like I said, let's wait a bit before declaring that to be necessary. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 09:22 PM ="Frayed Knot":3pl3u7wr]1) Let's see how this place plays over an entire season before we declare it (or YSIII for that matter) to be an extreme park in any direction. Traditionally Shea played like a better hitter's park in the Summer than it did in April & May.[/quote:3pl3u7wr] I totally agree with this, and should've added to my post that my ideas, (or anybody else's) would take a few years to confirm or refute. seawolf17 May 06 2009 08:18 AM Edited your poll for you. Mendoza Line May 06 2009 08:29 AM ="sharpie":1tdtxzbf]Fewer homers, more triples. More triples = more fun. You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:1tdtxzbf] What he said. Also, based on the small sample size, it looks like CitiField will favor teams with: (a) key offensive players who combine power and speed (like Wright, Beltran, and to a lesser degree Reyes) ( key pitchers who tend to give up fly ball outs (like Santana) (c) good defensive players in the outfield (like Beltran, Church, and...OK, two out of three ain't bad). So I'm not complaining yet. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 08:49 AM Not that this means anything but: HRs through 12 home games 2009 Mets 6 Opponents 12 Total 18 Games with no home runs: 2 HRs through 12 home games, 2008 Mets 10 Opponents 10 Total 20 Games with no home runs: 3 IOW, there's hardly any difference that couldn't be explained by Wright's poor start (he had 4 in the first 12 home games last year; only 1 at home this season) batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:05 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 09:14 AM I count seven Met HR's at CF through 12 games - Delgado (2), Castro, Tatis, Santos, Wright and Sheffield each with one HR. [u:1thgf3q8]Some early returns[/u:1thgf3q8]: Citizen's Bank Park: 48 HR's in 14 Phillie Home Games (Phillies and opponents); 3.43 HR/game 33 HR's in 10 Phillie Road Games (Phillies and opponents) - 3.3 HR/game Citi Field: 19 HR's in 12 Met Home Games (Mets and opponents) - 1.58 HR/game 22 HR's in 13 Met Road Games (Mets and opponents); 1.69 HR/game Coors Field: 21 HR's in 9 Rockie Home Games (Rockies and opponents) - 2.33 HR/game 40 HR's in 16 Rockie Road Games (Rockies and opponents); 2.5 HR/game Candlestick Park, I still call it: 14 HR's in 14 Giant Home Games (Giants and opponents) - 1.00 HR/game 22 HR's in 11 Giant Road Games (Giants and opponents); 2.00 HR/game Miami: 21 HR's in 11 Marlin Home Games (Marlins and opponents) - 1.91 HR/game 27 HR's in 16 Marlin Road Games (Marlins and opponents); 1.69 HR/game John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 09:06 AM I was afraid I missed one Met HR too. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:08 AM I'm afraid you did. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 05:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 06:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. If Gary's reading the Pool, I'd further like to point out that it's not just a question of trading up some HR's for triples. Citi Field is probably murdering doubles more than it's murdering anything else. Shea Stadium doubles that were landing beyond the outfielders on a fly are turning into outs at Citi Field. If those shots are hitting the outfield Citi Field wall on a fly, they would've probably left the yard at Shea. And whether or not a batted ball gets behind the outfield after first landing in front of the outfield has little to do with stadium dimensions and everything to do with defensive positioning, all other things being equal. Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Ashie62 May 06 2009 06:43 PM Thanks for editing the poll. Almost all true fly balls are outs..Gaps are unreachable. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 08:02 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Runs: 133 Runs in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 10.23 runs/game 100 Runs in 13 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 7.69 runs/game Edgy DC May 06 2009 11:17 PM I like big parks and I cannot lie. batmagadanleadoff May 09 2009 04:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Updated: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 36 Doubles in 16 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 2.25 doubles/game Elster88 May 12 2009 09:54 PM I wouldn't even consider this "anecdotal evidence". Maybe call it just "anecdotal". Delgado and Beltran hit balls that would've been home runs in Shea. Wright did the same on Monday. All three were doubles. I don't have a point. But sadly, Pujols or Zimmerman's extra home runs might make a difference when MVP voting comes for Beltran. I'm surprised how much I want a Met to win the MVP and how much I want Santana to win the Cy Young.

="Nymr83"]="Elster88"]="sharpie"]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me. Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason. parks are rarely built in such a way that you can make it MORE of a pitcher's park, but you can usually bring a fence or three in pretty easily if you are so inclined, so lets be glad they built it the way they did. i'd like to keep it this way, but at least they have options. Yup I understand all that, it's pretty obvious. But there's no need to have a pitcher's park to this extreme. ]so lets be glad they built it the way they did. Again, why do I have to be GLAD they did it this way? Can't they build a normal park in the first place if they're going to spend a billion dollars? My original point that there are options between YS3 and Yellowstone stands.

Say it ain't so. Only the Mets leave runners on base and fail in the clutch. Surely this can't happen to the Braves and other teams.

Murphy's getting better, Delgado won't do that shit again, and Sheffield is [not] hitting himself right to the bench and perhaps unemployment. Let's do it Mets.

Ashie62 wrote: ="Elster88"]The bullpen is such a huge difference than 2007. Parnell looks great. Frankie hung on. I really am happy despite the ugliness of the win. I'm not a believer in karma or superstition or whatever but in 2007 or 2008 we lose this one. This bullpen reminds me more of the bullpen from 2006 that contributed to the Mets running away and hiding. Philly's starting pitching sucks. I feel great. Let's go Mets. Parnell should be starting I like things the way they are. Heilman-Sanchez-Wagner was huge in 2006. You've been wrong in the past, here's hoping you're wrong again.

The bullpen is such a huge difference than 2007. Parnell looks great. Frankie hung on. I really am happy despite the ugliness of the win. I'm not a believer in karma or superstition or whatever but in 2007 or 2008 we lose this one. This bullpen reminds me more of the bullpen from 2006 that contributed to the Mets running away and hiding. Philly's starting pitching sucks. I feel great. Let's go Mets.

="Frayed Knot"]They were handed the insurance runs they needed. Expecting more out of all the runners we had is not greed. I hold out hope that the 11-1 games are coming. Wright is starting to mash. Reyes doing more would be nice. Beltran is a god among mortals.

4-1. Every team leaves guys on base. Two weeks ago the final score is 2-1 Braves in 12 innings. (Or 2-1 in 9 innings considering Delgado's error). The 11-1 games are coming. Patience, Iago.

="sharpie":3p5clyb5]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:3p5clyb5] Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason. Nymr83 May 05 2009 08:37 PM ="Elster88":7s9bkdxp]="sharpie":7s9bkdxp]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:7s9bkdxp] Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason.[/quote:7s9bkdxp] parks are rarely built in such a way that you can make it MORE of a pitcher's park, but you can usually bring a fence or three in pretty easily if you are so inclined, so lets be glad they built it the way they did. i'd like to keep it this way, but at least they have options. Elster88 May 05 2009 08:51 PM ="Nymr83"]="Elster88"]="sharpie"]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me. Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason. parks are rarely built in such a way that you can make it MORE of a pitcher's park, but you can usually bring a fence or three in pretty easily if you are so inclined, so lets be glad they built it the way they did. i'd like to keep it this way, but at least they have options. Yup I understand all that, it's pretty obvious. But there's no need to have a pitcher's park to this extreme. ]so lets be glad they built it the way they did. Again, why do I have to be GLAD they did it this way? Can't they build a normal park in the first place if they're going to spend a billion dollars? My original point that there are options between YS3 and Yellowstone stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 05 2009 09:00 PM Big park doesn't mean less offense-- part of Coors' offensive appeal is Grand-Canyon-sized outfield gaps, a la CitiField. It's just a different sort of offense (as the triples numbers imply). Should the dimensions stay the same, however, building a speedy, defensively airtight team becomes much more imperative going forward. Ashie62 May 05 2009 09:01 PM ="Nymr83":192xq2dx]="Elster88":192xq2dx]="sharpie":192xq2dx]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:192xq2dx] Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason.[/quote:192xq2dx] parks are rarely built in such a way that you can make it MORE of a pitcher's park, but you can usually bring a fence or three in pretty easily if you are so inclined, so lets be glad they built it the way they did. i'd like to keep it this way, but at least they have options.[/quote:192xq2dx] Name one option Elster88 May 05 2009 09:06 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":vevh6h8g]Big park doesn't mean less offense-- part of Coors' offensive appeal is Grand-Canyon-sized outfield gaps, a la CitiField. It's just a different sort of offense (as the triples numbers imply). [/quote:vevh6h8g] I'm not buying it. A park with deeper outfield walls leads to less offense than a park in the exact same space with shallower walls. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 09:17 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 05 2009 09:20 PM Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. Frayed Knot May 05 2009 09:19 PM 1) Let's see how this place plays over an entire season before we declare it (or YSIII for that matter) to be an extreme park in any direction. Traditionally Shea played like a better hitter's park in the Summer than it did in April & May. 2) No other park is like Coors. Not only does the high altitude give about 10% more carry to balls but the increased OF size to compensate for that extra carry also allows for more 1Bs, 2Bs & 3Bs. In retrospect they would probably have been better off to make the fences higher instead of further. Yeah it would resemble a pinball game occasionally but at least then you'd be turning HRs into doubles instead of the other way around 3) They DO have the option of bringing the fences in (and/or lowering them) after the season if the place does indeed turn out to favor hurlers too much. But, like I said, let's wait a bit before declaring that to be necessary. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 09:22 PM ="Frayed Knot":3pl3u7wr]1) Let's see how this place plays over an entire season before we declare it (or YSIII for that matter) to be an extreme park in any direction. Traditionally Shea played like a better hitter's park in the Summer than it did in April & May.[/quote:3pl3u7wr] I totally agree with this, and should've added to my post that my ideas, (or anybody else's) would take a few years to confirm or refute. seawolf17 May 06 2009 08:18 AM Edited your poll for you. Mendoza Line May 06 2009 08:29 AM ="sharpie":1tdtxzbf]Fewer homers, more triples. More triples = more fun. You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:1tdtxzbf] What he said. Also, based on the small sample size, it looks like CitiField will favor teams with: (a) key offensive players who combine power and speed (like Wright, Beltran, and to a lesser degree Reyes) ( key pitchers who tend to give up fly ball outs (like Santana) (c) good defensive players in the outfield (like Beltran, Church, and...OK, two out of three ain't bad). So I'm not complaining yet. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 08:49 AM Not that this means anything but: HRs through 12 home games 2009 Mets 6 Opponents 12 Total 18 Games with no home runs: 2 HRs through 12 home games, 2008 Mets 10 Opponents 10 Total 20 Games with no home runs: 3 IOW, there's hardly any difference that couldn't be explained by Wright's poor start (he had 4 in the first 12 home games last year; only 1 at home this season) batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:05 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 09:14 AM I count seven Met HR's at CF through 12 games - Delgado (2), Castro, Tatis, Santos, Wright and Sheffield each with one HR. [u:1thgf3q8]Some early returns[/u:1thgf3q8]: Citizen's Bank Park: 48 HR's in 14 Phillie Home Games (Phillies and opponents); 3.43 HR/game 33 HR's in 10 Phillie Road Games (Phillies and opponents) - 3.3 HR/game Citi Field: 19 HR's in 12 Met Home Games (Mets and opponents) - 1.58 HR/game 22 HR's in 13 Met Road Games (Mets and opponents); 1.69 HR/game Coors Field: 21 HR's in 9 Rockie Home Games (Rockies and opponents) - 2.33 HR/game 40 HR's in 16 Rockie Road Games (Rockies and opponents); 2.5 HR/game Candlestick Park, I still call it: 14 HR's in 14 Giant Home Games (Giants and opponents) - 1.00 HR/game 22 HR's in 11 Giant Road Games (Giants and opponents); 2.00 HR/game Miami: 21 HR's in 11 Marlin Home Games (Marlins and opponents) - 1.91 HR/game 27 HR's in 16 Marlin Road Games (Marlins and opponents); 1.69 HR/game John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 09:06 AM I was afraid I missed one Met HR too. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:08 AM I'm afraid you did. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 05:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 06:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. If Gary's reading the Pool, I'd further like to point out that it's not just a question of trading up some HR's for triples. Citi Field is probably murdering doubles more than it's murdering anything else. Shea Stadium doubles that were landing beyond the outfielders on a fly are turning into outs at Citi Field. If those shots are hitting the outfield Citi Field wall on a fly, they would've probably left the yard at Shea. And whether or not a batted ball gets behind the outfield after first landing in front of the outfield has little to do with stadium dimensions and everything to do with defensive positioning, all other things being equal. Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Ashie62 May 06 2009 06:43 PM Thanks for editing the poll. Almost all true fly balls are outs..Gaps are unreachable. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 08:02 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Runs: 133 Runs in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 10.23 runs/game 100 Runs in 13 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 7.69 runs/game Edgy DC May 06 2009 11:17 PM I like big parks and I cannot lie. batmagadanleadoff May 09 2009 04:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Updated: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 36 Doubles in 16 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 2.25 doubles/game Elster88 May 12 2009 09:54 PM I wouldn't even consider this "anecdotal evidence". Maybe call it just "anecdotal". Delgado and Beltran hit balls that would've been home runs in Shea. Wright did the same on Monday. All three were doubles. I don't have a point. But sadly, Pujols or Zimmerman's extra home runs might make a difference when MVP voting comes for Beltran. I'm surprised how much I want a Met to win the MVP and how much I want Santana to win the Cy Young.

PiggiesTomatoes wrote: Another game, another 12 runners LOB. They got the insurance runs that they needed. Don't get greedy.

I mean geez if you're Church don't you use two hands after seeing that?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: So what are the odds Cora gets on base in his next at-bat, being that he walked his first time up? He's due for some out-making. That's not how probability works.

Looks like the banner has "click here" instead of the player's name. Is that intentional?

I noticed. I like it.

So as I said, how many points does he get for 1-0 win when he goes nine innings? Shirley you understand my question.

I wish he had gone 25-0 this season. Not really sure why but I'd like it if he won the Cy Young. He would've won it last year and should've if the voters didn't overrate wins.

="Ashie62":16p1k8iu]Sheff seems to have mellowed..Seems like he can add a certain fear factor to opponents that was missing in 07-08[/quote:16p1k8iu] Agree on both counts. I just don't think I want him starting over Church when Church is OPSing over a thousand. That's on Jerry. Gwreck Apr 20 2009 11:59 AM ="Elster88":35zbx1nh]Stop pandering.[/quote:35zbx1nh] It's not pandering. The Mets desperately need to get rid of those uniforms.

="willpie":1i8rx6oj]Didn't think I was going to like Sheff that quickly. #500 was pretty clutch, though, and a cooler moment than I was expecting.[/quote:1i8rx6oj] Agree! Elster88 Apr 19 2009 10:39 AM ="Ashie62":16p1k8iu]Sheff seems to have mellowed..Seems like he can add a certain fear factor to opponents that was missing in 07-08[/quote:16p1k8iu] Agree on both counts. I just don't think I want him starting over Church when Church is OPSing over a thousand. That's on Jerry. Gwreck Apr 20 2009 11:59 AM ="Elster88":35zbx1nh]Stop pandering.[/quote:35zbx1nh] It's not pandering. The Mets desperately need to get rid of those uniforms.

="SteveJRogers":hu4dho3l]="SteveJRogers":hu4dho3l]While it means jack squat, it would be kind of nice to see someone trotting around the bases in a Met uni when montages of 500th homers is shown. [/quote:hu4dho3l] But did it HAVE to be in the black uni? UGH![/quote:hu4dho3l] Stop pandering. Elster88 Apr 19 2009 10:38 AM ="willpie":1i8rx6oj]Didn't think I was going to like Sheff that quickly. #500 was pretty clutch, though, and a cooler moment than I was expecting.[/quote:1i8rx6oj] Agree! Elster88 Apr 19 2009 10:39 AM ="Ashie62":16p1k8iu]Sheff seems to have mellowed..Seems like he can add a certain fear factor to opponents that was missing in 07-08[/quote:16p1k8iu] Agree on both counts. I just don't think I want him starting over Church when Church is OPSing over a thousand. That's on Jerry. Gwreck Apr 20 2009 11:59 AM ="Elster88":35zbx1nh]Stop pandering.[/quote:35zbx1nh] It's not pandering. The Mets desperately need to get rid of those uniforms.

GYC wrote: Shame on the fans in attendance for giving that shithead Sheffield a curtain call. Sickening. Nah. You're wrong.

I'm surprised people are giving Santana 5.5 or even 6 points. If you get that much for a seven inning shutout (with zero offensive support) what do you give for a nine inning shutout (with zero offensive support)?