roger_that

I would think that on any given day that Baty is on the active MLB roster but not playing in a game (say, if Acuna is at 2B), then Baty becomes a likely late inning defensive swap for Vientos. Time will tell Really? From what I've seen this spring, admittedly not a lot of games, Vientos looks very good at 3B, really strong arm, good instincts, smart positioning. I wouldn't replace him defensively, unless maybe with Clete Boyer and Clete hasn't been feeling well these past few years anyway.

I'll play around with Mets' names. Yesterday for example I noticed how many players these days have first names for last names and vice versa, or at least names that can be easily reversed. "Marty Starling" is the most obvious example, and I can easily imagine a player known as "Alonso Peters" or "Lindy Francisco." "Neil McJeffries." "Gil Metylor." Today, I'm re-imagining former Mets by switching up one letter from their first names with one letter from their last names. So "Roy Tanlor" and "Dan Cordwell" and "Tag McGruw" from the 1969 squad. Am I bored or just deprived of MLB for too long?

Again, true, BUT 1) he seems much improved defensively this year 2) They had Iglesias last year, not so much this year I don't think they're going to be inclined to take him out of games for any reason this season, other than in blowouts, and maybe not even then.

I guess only five infielders makes some sense, given that Alonso and Lindor and probably Vientos will play every day and you'd never need to pinch-hit for any of them, or replace them defensively. It's just weird.

I'm not clear why we didn't snap him up while he was available for snapping. He was awfully good last year, wasn't he? I thought so.

I think he probably will get sent down for a month or so. It's kind of weird that they're going to start the year with six outfielders and five infielders, but that looks like the program.

Snooze, you lose. Yes, Mike Marshall and Joe Smith retired with ERAs of 3.14. Well done, gentlemen.

=Methead post_id=187328 time=1742137279 user_id=61] Can't get more common than Joe Smith.

Familia? Nope. Think "common names" and "common Mets names." Another hint to make things easier: I was wrong above. One of them DID win a Cy Young Award, plus a runnerup, plus a 4th place finish. I guess this is turning into a real quiz. I forgot that with enough hints, anything can be a legitimate quiz. (I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1000. It's not a prime number, and it rhymes with "haughty heaven" is a quiz.)

Not Jesse. (How is "Orosco" a common name anywhere?) More hints: one of them debuted with the Mets, and retired in 2022. The other debuted in 1967 and last pitched in MLB for the Mets in 1981.

While I wait, I will share my curiosity as to which one of the two dozen 3.14 pitchers extended furthest into the infinite digits after the 4. Odds are that two or three of them went one digit further, and chances aren't bad that one of them went to five digits. Oh, and some hints. Both relievers. One of them had some Cy Young quality seasons, though no award I think, and the other had one of the more common names in the world. The first one had one of the most common names in Mets history.

Not really because there's no reason anyone should know the answer, not anyone sane anyway. In honor of pi day, it was brought to my attention that there are some two dozen retired MLB pitchers with lifetime ERAs of 3.14, two of whom, to my eye, pitched for the Mets. Anyone care to guess before I reveal the answer?

Not disagreeing with you vehemently--as I've noted here, I thought his presence on the 1985 roster was virtuous in several different ways, not all of them on the field--but you've got to wonder why teams that have players like Staub who are very limited but successful within those limitations often decide, with the players' assent sometimes, to put an end to his career, .400 OBP notwithstanding. To get away from Staub, I'll give you the example of the Dodgers with Manny Mota at the end of his career. His last year I think Mota had a .400 BATTING AVERAGE, not OBP but BA, and they reached a decision that he was done anyway, because all he could do was hit singles in a pinch-hitting role, while occupying a roster spot. They decided that the roster spot should go to a less limited player, and I believe the Mets and Staub reached a similar conclusion. But I was there cheering for Rusty when he was removed for a runner. I'm very fond of him, sometimes fonder than I am smart. Edited to add: In an odd way, a better example than Mota might be Eddie Gaedel, who wouldn't even make a satisfying lunch for Rusty Staub but who makes an interesting comparison. Aside from being (ahem) discouraged by the AL President to remain on the Browns' roster, I don't think the Browns would have kept him on their roster despite his lifetime 1.000 OBP and the likely prospect of him getting on base every time up for the foreseeable future. He simply didn't warrant a roster spot, because all he could do was get on base. An even sillier example would be a hypothetical pitcher who could throw 200 miles per hour with every pitch in the strike zone. The kicker would be that he could throw only three pitches per week, because after three 200-MPH pitches his arm would be sore (and I'll bet it would). So you could have this guy with a close to 100% K rate, but would you keep on your team for that one strikeout per week, or even less actually because you wouldn't necessarily want to use him every 7 days like clockwork--sometimes you'd go 10 days or two weeks between "must strikeout" situations. Less silly, because it happens all the time, is someone who could make Rey Ordonez look like Rusty Staub--a fielder who can get to balls no one else can reach but who can't hit water from a boat. Good field, no-hit guys get cut all the time because that valuable skill of fielding better than anyone in MLB is insufficient to justify the roster space. Essentially, Rusty would have had the same virtues as he had, but if he'd been slightly less effective with the bat, at what point would you hesitate to keep him on the team? Would you cut him with a .380 OBP? .350? .320? Odds are that one or two of his actual singles in 1985 just found a lucky hole, as some singles do, but if they hadn't, his OBP would have plummetted, which happens with 45 at-bats, and then there goes your argument about his wonderful OBP. There definitely comes a point where you need to reconsider keeping a guy whose skills are as limited as Rusty Staub's, beloved though he may be.

Thanks --I'll start looking through my photo files tonight. What is the problem, though? I'm pretty sure everyone doesn't have a lot of 4 KB photos hanging around.

True, but (looking at his stats) only 45 at-bats all season long, and nearly every time he got on base, you needed to pinch run for him. 2 runs scored in 1985, and one of them was on his only HR.

Came across this one while wasting time on the internet:https://www.kinerskorner.com/post/the-11-year-hunt-for-my-holy-grail-the-george-carlin-lost-episode-of-kiner-s-korner?fbclid=IwY2xjawJCl6BleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVebJfE8ZNV4SNMPGVZbGNUDqv7nsqTvva3w_3PrWkpLyBoZ2R3KAcNvnQ_aem_KnCuHX0mgC--67xXFHxUxwhttps://www.kinerskorner.com/post/the-11-year-hunt-for-my-holy-grail-the-george-carlin-lost-episode-of-kiner-s-korner?fbclid=IwY2xjawJCl6BleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVebJfE8ZNV4SNMPGVZbGNUDqv7nsqTvva3w_3PrWkpLyBoZ2R3KAcNvnQ_aem_KnCuHX0mgC--67xXFHxUxw

The funny thing is Ben Grimm could pound out some code and answer this question in one minute. OK, I challenge the Thing to do so, since it's so easy for him. I will take the "over"--I'm sure we must have forgotten someone.

Edgy MD wrote: What is interesting is how consistently poorly second tenures tended to go for people not named Staub. And Rusty's second time was not really so impressive. He was beloved, and he was a great pinch-hitter, but he was a sliver of his former self (except in actual girth) on the ballfield. By the end, I kind of thought of him as a wasted roster space, a sentimental gesture towards team chemistry, and memories of him in his prime, and just plain affection for an excellent human being and restaurateur but I would have preferred a player who could, you know, field a little, and run the bases, slug a HR now and then, all that good stuff.

[bLOCKQUOTE]Are you curious who the woman in my avatar is? She has nothing to do with the Mets but everything to do with this website.[/bLOCKQUOTE] Has this been revealed yet? If so, I missed it... No, no one was curious. the back story to my avatar is that I had myself the generic Mr. Met avatar for a long while, and wanted a different one, but every time I went to the "change avatar" page, the photo I selected (typically of some favorite obscure Met) was deemed too large to be acceptable, so I kept trying smaller and smaller photos but every time, the same result. My photos were all thousands of pixels by thousands of pixels, so I was missing not by a little but by a diameter-of-Jupiter amount, so I gave up, but last week I rearranged every photo on my hard drive by size and found her in my "Ancestry.com" work file and unlike most of my photos which were thousands of KB, hers was 4 KB or something like that, so I tried making her my avatar, and voila! it worked. The funny part to me is that I have no idea who she is or was. She might be related to me, but more likely she's related to someone related to someone who's related to someone who's related to someone who's related to someone who's related to someone who's related to me. Maybe she was even a Mets fan--I don't know, but bless her, I don't have to look at Mr. Met anymore.

This is a good question, Roger! Tim Foli had two stints! Thank you. I've drawn a blank on some of these returning Mets. Maybe they just re-appeared here for a blip, at the tail ends of their careers, when I wasn't paying close attention, but I'm looking at a lot of famous Mets and wondering when exactly they popped up (or struck out, in some cases) a second time. Is anyone else surprised to see a few of these names here? I do remember Bob Miller well--he was one of the few promising original Mets (before my time) who was young, performed well (with a terrible W-L record), loads of potential (which he fulfilled with the Dodgers), every reason in the world to hang onto him, and they swapped him out for a bunch of nothing. When they re-acquired him, after he had passed through most franchises in MLB, I remember thinking "A little late, doncha think?"

Two (or more, I suppose, though I can't think of any at the moment) stints with the Mets, that is. Mets who have left the team (not merely been sent down to the minors, or ILed or DLed or things of that nature) but left the club, played in another organization, and then returned to the Mets. I'll start with the more obvious choices of Seaver, Kingman, and Staub.

I'd be curious to read a poll asking if people think the Mets would do better to acquire a FA catcher now (and then be stuck with 3 MLB quality catchers once Alvarez comes back) or to tough it out with what we've got, which isn't terrible. 6-8 weeks is an interesting period. If it were a lot more, door # 1 would be mandatory and if it were much shorter #2 would be the obvious way to go. I'd make up such a poll myself but I'm on my phone and it's hard to do.

I meant to ask who the backup to Torrens is. Read your PMs by the way.

Who is available to replace Alvarez now?

To quantify, I'm talking a Cy Young type season, 21-7, 2.20 ERA, just a huge career year. He's just that good, with less good results for the past few years, injuries, bad luck, low run support. Mark my words. Actually, I'd like to change my username to "Mark Mywords."