roger_that

No doubt your reading of the play is the correct one. I'm just frustrated, as we all are, by the Mets' failure to get a run across with fast men on 2B and 3B and only one out. Maybe the moment of elation I felt when I thought "Can Mauricio score here?" overtook me. Alvarez swinging a limp noodle at 3 pitches chafes my undershorts.

I conceded that your analysis of the play more sense than mine, and the odds of success may well be more like 1-2% than my speculated 5-10%--but we should explore how often the rightfielder bobbles the transfer under pressure, the throw home goes off line, the catcher mishandles a perfect throw, the cutoff man messes the play up, or some combination of those mishaps occur. I think it's more common than 1-2%--at least with the Mets it is. I think you're incorrect, though, in asserting that Vientos doesn't make 3B if Mauricio tries for home. A slug sitting on the back of a turtle makes 3B (unless the cutoff goes to 3B, in which case, Mauricio scores which is all you want there). The play at the plate is a contact play in which the catcher usually gets so tangled up and turned around that he can't make a throw to 3B that would nail a one-legged six-year-old. And yes 'twas I who posted that 1986 game-ending DP. Very exciting play, don't you agree?

The first, I think, of several key Mets. Many of them appeared on the 1996 squad: Butch Huskey, Bernard Gilkey, Dave Mlicki, Jason Hardtke, but I'm sure there have been some others in other years as well.

Look at it this way: if you make the not-unreasonable assumption that (let's say) Ryan Stanek is going to get destroyed by the St. Louis Cardinals on this day, whether he starts the seventh inning or the first, do you really want (let's say) Nolan McLean to throw (and waste) six shutout innings, leave the game with a nice 3-0 lead only to see Stanek give up seven hits, two homeruns, three walks, and end the game losing 9-3? Me, I'd rather tell McLean "Let's take another day off, and start fresh tomorrow, okay?" and I'm pretty sure McLean would prefer that to seeing his good work wasted because the bullpen couldn't hold a lead.

But it's exciting, aggressive baseball, no? Forces the opposition to make the play, instead of flailing weakly at pitches.

Looks like we're better with Squirrel and Siri in center. Mullins is a failed rental, but I hope they're not committed to playing him due to the "sunk cost" dynamic.

when I suggested in the IGT of last night's game that I thought Mauricio might try for home on Vientos' 9th inning double, and Frayed Knot was probably correct in asserting that he would have been dead out if he had. Frayed Knot was as good as his user name in countering my suggestion that Mauricio should have made the attempt in asserting "'Fraid not." But I wonder. Was it worth a try? Even if he'd been out at the plate by a lot, the Mets were desperate for a run, and they only had two more outs to work with, so maybe it was worth the gamble to have him running full tilt on contact (or better yet to have Acuna doing the pinch-running, and saving Mauricio to run for Vientos instead of the other way around--the tying run being much more critical than the winning run at that point). There is always the chance that a throw goes wild, or that Realmuto loses the ball on a contact play, or that Castellanos bobbles the transfer if he's under time-pressure, or that the cut-off man ****s up the throw--not much of a chance, but a chance. 5%? 10%? More? Less? If he's out, Vientos can advance to third, where you still have a chance to move him (or his pinch-runner) if McNeil gets a hit, or if McNeil walks and Alvarez gets a hit, neither of which happened as it turned out, so we lost the game. We do KNOW for a solid fact that holding Mauricio up at third did NOT work, that's the base of our assumptions. And there is that small chance that Mauricio (or Acuna) makes it home, and the small chance that if either of them gets thrown out, we could still get the man on 3B home with 2 outs. I like gambling, especially in a game where runs are hard to come by. And especially in retrospect. ETA: I see now that Acuna was already in the game, so skip him. (I was misled by Edgy's writing that Acuna would have made it--apparently, Edgy was just asserting that Acuna's the better baserunner, but how much better he is than Mauricio, I can't really say. A foot faster? Half a foot faster?) Let's just go with Mauricio which was what happened anyway. ****, if we were going to hold him at 3B, you might as well have left Alonso in there. Mauricio was in the game because he is much faster on the bases than Pete, and Pete would have been on 3b on Vientos' double. He was sitting in the dugout, looking at Mauricio on 3B, maybe thinking in disgust, "****, I coulda done THAT!" I hate his ever-lasting guts, more than anyone in baseball's history, except maybe Pete Rose, but Leo Durocher would definitely have sent the runner home. So would Rose, come to think of it. "If you're scared, go home," was how Leo justified such crazy gambles. Besides all which, can you imagine the fun we would have here if Mauricio had been thrown out at the plate, the Mets losing the game, and all of us jumping up and down on the Mets' insane coaching?

Luck or Suck? You Make The Call.

Sometimes a runner-up is there because they deserve to be, sometimes they're just unlucky, and other times they're lucky to be where they are. The Mets this year are an unlucky club. I've seen all three kinds.

What level are the expansion draft picks, and by extension post 1964(ish) entry draft selections by incoming teams to start filling out their minor league systems) but are ephemeral the franchise, never appearing in a regular/postseason game for them? And I guess Level 0: Richie Ashburn

You should get back on the horse. [TWEET] [/TWEET]

According to Clint Hurdle's capitalization, Davey was not only a great manager and friend, but also the Son of God.... [TWEET] [/TWEET]

Nice story. Untrue, but nice anyway. Hodges played the entire opener. Marshall pinch-hit in the 9th for Clem Labine. Home Opener, not Opening Night in St. Louis — Hodges was a late scratch and did not play; Marshall started, batted sixth and went 1-for-3 with a walk: https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN196204130.shtml Sorry. Didn't catch that. (Marv Throneberry memorial excuse.) Shoulda known better. (Awful glad your white knight isn't here anymore to defend you against any accusations of fallibility. I might never hear the end of it if Sir Galahad were still posting here.)

Nice story. Untrue, but nice anyway. Hodges played the entire opener. Marshall pinch-hit in the 9th for Clem Labine.

Levels of "Original Met": Level 5: played a few games at some point late in the 1962 season (Kranepool) Level 4: played substantially in 1962 but was not on the roster all season long (Christopher) Level 3: was on the Opening Day roster but got dealt off before the season was up (Zimmer) Level 2: was on roster Opening Day but did not play in the opener (Chacon) Level 1: played in the opener.

So far, it's only you and her family. And I wouldn't count on all of them. The rest of us are on team "**** That Scrawny Bitch"

Sorry--if you think the Mets suck, are mismanaged, are chokers, bite the dongs of lower-order mammalian types, etc, you're mistaken. They're just suffering from a slight case of bad luck. Objectively, they're two games under their Pythagorean projection, meaning if their runs scored/surrendered ratio were perfect (which is just luck), they'd have won 78 games instead of the 76 they've won. No biggie, but we'd probably be feeling a little better today if just two of their worst bad losses had been turned into wins. It's just run distribution. Subjectively, they've been hot as hell offensively, scoring many, many runs in several games, runs that scored after the game had gotten out of control, pile-on runs that pleased you but also made you think "OK, enough already. I got to get to bed." But if we'd gotten a few of those particular runs yesterday or the day before, we'd have 78 wins right now, and we'd be feeling pretty good about their chances. A few more 4-3 wins, and a few fewer 19-4 wins, which is just luck, and we'd be in good shape. No telling when their luck will turn or even if it will this season, and if you want to vent, feel free. It don't cost nothing to express yourself, but if you're complaining about the team, you might want to consider that winning teams are good teams but they're also lucky teams. The Mets are down on their luck.

What losers did he turn into winners quicker? Quicker than whom? Or quicker than what? Maybe you mean "quickest"? Are u asking which was his quickest turnaround job? They were all pretty fast but I could look it up if you like. Your 1984 Metsies were pretty durn quick. 68 wins under Hamburger and Boward in 1983, then 90 under Davey in 1984. Is that quick enough for ya?

Or as the Mother Superior said to the nun who voiced a mild complaint after 50 years of strictly enforced silence, "All you do is bitch, bitch, bitch."

This adjective seems weird to me. Davey was a lot of things as an infielder, but I wouldn't say any of them was "versatile"; he played second base almost exclusively.

Did anyone ever turn more losers into winners as quickly as Davey did?

This is the good side of doxxing and internet harassment. Sometimes it hits the right people.

Philadelphians are the salt of the earth

Here's an amazing play I've forgotten or never knew about or something, from a 1986 game, that ended the game. It was posted on FB, but not related to Davey Johnson, other than by coincidence today, I think: 16K views · 378 reactions | ⚾️On August 27, 1986 with 1 out in the... WWW.FACEBOOK.COM ⚾️On August 27, 1986 with 1 out in the bottom of the 11th inning and the visiting New York Mets ahead of the San Diego Padres, 6-5, Lenny Dykstra's throw nails Gary Templeton at the plate when he...

I haven't dorked since 1977 lol... That Fman dude is one clever MFer....