roger_that

Probably not. No 300 games.[TWEET]https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1[/TWEET] Interesting perspective, though. Makes me think of my scariest personal moments, and how some of them worked out pretty well for me. OE: WTF? Try again: [TWEET]https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1[/TWEET] OE again: I'll just paste the nut quote : “It was both the worst day and the best day as I look back on it now. The team was being run into the ground. If I had stayed, would I have won 300 games? It would have been nice to be a Met my whole career, but I'm eternally grateful to have experienced all I did.” - Tom Seaver

Otis, Ryan, Singleton prolly combined for 15 AL ALl-Star appearances in the 1970s. As long as we're bashing Met managers here, I want to put in a word against Saint Gil, who seems to have been most eager to dump Nolan Ryan. It's weird, because as a player, he had the closest view of a young Sandy Koufax struggling for years and years with Ryan's exact problem and promise, so you'd think he would have had the most patience with Ryan, but apparently not. From what I've read, he was the most willing of all the Mets high command to dump Ryan, and the most impressed by Fregosi, which must be the blackest mark on his resume, if true, which I believe it is.

No, I'm remembering that his presence in the rotation was blocking Gooden's promotion in 1984, and who knows how long that would have gone on. Although what you're suggesting also makes sense. Seaver was pretty damned good in 1981.

On the old trading deadline day, this seems an apropos topic, and not as easy (SEAVER! SEAVER! SEAVER!) as it might seem. The perspective I'm asking you to look at this topic through today is: Which trade cost the Mets their chance for the most championships? Seaver had some good years after 1977, but the team as a whole sucked pretty badly, and I'd argued that his presence didn't cost them anything until the team improved, by which time he was definitely on the downside of his career. Maybe he would have helped in 1985, but if they had retained his services, the 1985 Mets probably wouldn't have had Dwight Gooden. Maybe 1984? But that's really about it. Other nominees might include Staub for Lolich, but how many championships did that cost? Not many. Lolich wasn't that bad anyway, mostly unlucky. Maybe Staub on the other end: we might have been better with Ken Singleton than Rusty, but maybe we don't win in 1973? Maybe. Ryan? Otis? These have haunted me but I'm not sure what they cost. I'm sure we've made some poor trades more recently, too, but I'll let you guys make some nominations of players we've traded off who could have helped when the team was competitive. (You need to account for the players the Mets got in return for these players, of course.) There is an answer out there--I'm not sure exactly what it is.

I appreciate the "accountability" but it's gotta be more complex than that. I mean, "I was successful throwing fastballs early and breaking stuff late, but I never brought that pattern up with my catchers, who kept calling for the opposite, and I kept throwing what they calling for weeks, so I was getting clobbered start after start until I realized OMIGOSH I should tell them the pattern that works for me. What a poopyhead I am!!" doesn't quite add up.

What's a guy gotta do to win a spot in a decimated rotation around heres, anyway?

Edgy MD wrote: Despite playing only 124 games with the Mets, Kevin Pillar managed to get hit by pitches 10 times — once really, really hard. And he's still milking that one time for all it's worth: here's a sweet exchange he had recently with a kid

I like the Warhol painting, myself.

and you want to be my latex salesman?

=Fman99 post_id=95849 time=1655114572 user_id=86] I got to catch the endings of were the two Sunday night tilts.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'm completely on target as I voted 8 and contemplated a Brewer sweep But that leaves the Mets with only 5 wins out of the 13 games!!!

I think they'd look GREAT on fielders, too!

How 'bout we just put the runner on the honor system? * I was arguing with a buddy, who loves golf (I find it vile and offensive), and who explained to me that the beauty part of the game is that it depends on every player's individual honor to call penalties on himself. He says, "You can learn so much about people's character by how they penalize themselves," and i said, "Yeah? So if you're playing a scumbag like Trump who cheats and lies for practice and on principle, you lose every game?" and he sez "That's why I don't play with Trump."

And then you'd have baserunners who see the ball thrown wildly attempt to rise to their feet to take the next base but, instead, are writhing helplessly like a mouse caught in a glue trap? I'd pay good money to see that.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: everyone is spoiling for a fight instead. No, I appreciate your reasonableness and wish to emulate it. Ideally, I'd like to do away with human umpires and their screwy judgment, emotions, opinions, personalities altogether, and I think replay allows us to achieve that long-sought goal as much as possible. The "resistance to change" crowd, though, I fear, sees their subjectivity as a traditional part of the game. Before replay was viable, I heard a lot of arguments about it wasting time, and I argued back that it would actually save time, as well as providing accuracy and closure, in that what would be eliminated is a lot of pointless jawing matches between umps and managers. They came back "Biut that's the greatest part of the game!!!"

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I don't give a shit about how bad batmags is about to make this logic look Can I get a shot at ya first? How does this not justify the neighborhood play? How is this not merely a hidebound opposition to technology?

Gil Hodges woulda shaved these dudes personally. And warshed their mouths out with Clorox just to be safe.

No, not the things that old fashioned nerds used to whip out as regularly as old fashioned porn stars used to whip out their junk, but the rules on sliding into bases, and on over sliding past them. Which is mostly a discussion about technology--now that we have replay cameras, and TV directors who whip them out as frequently as...well, let's skip that whole metaphor and go straight to the root of the problem: folks who might have been okay with umps using their eyesight and their judgment to decide plays on which a runner may have, or may not have, strayed a silly millimeter past a base are NOT apparently okay when a bunch of umps in Chelsea take two minutes of freezing frames and switching angles to decide the same. Me, I love it. I've always been a big supporter of replay cameras. I can't wait personally for ALL of baseball to be ruled by objective measures rather than weak-eyed and strong-willed men who, honestly, are deeply flawed in more ways than I can count, but this is one example where accuracy is needed and human frailty is not. It has ALWAYS been against the rules to break contact with a base while the tag was being applied--the problem in calling this rule was that human umps couldn't always (or even usually) judge whether contact was ever-so-briefly broken. But now we can. The solution to the problem of "BUT I DON'T WANNA GET CALLED OUT!!" is simple: then don't break contact. Slide a little slower, grab the base a little harder, dig your spikes into the dirt a little more to stop your forward motion. It's within YOUR control, runner, to maintain contact with the bag--the fact that it was a bit easier in the past for you to obscure your breaking contact does not make you the victim here. If you mess up, expect the rule to be called against you, even if you only broke contact for a millisecond and by a fraction of an inch. The rule does not state how long or how far you may stray while being tagged. It merely states that you may NOT break contact while being tagged. The fact that technology has advanced where we can confidently call you out doesn't make you safe.

I like the idea of making any protective equipment adorning bodies on offense must be worn on defense. Fair is fair.

As Richard Nixon used to say, I can't stand pat.

Historically, you got to go back to Bob Miller (swapped out for Larry Burright), and hysterically, you've got to go for Mike Scuff.

Woulda been funny if all twelve of us started the same thread simultaneously, no? I remember being flabbergasted when Terry Leach came out of nowhere, specifically out of the bullpen, and turned into a kick-ass starter, way back when. And I remember hoping that this Dykstra kid would fill in for Mookie Wilson half decently when Mookie went down. And that this fat kid from Hawai'i who threw sort of like a girl could fool the hitters for a few weeks with his half-assed fastball. And I really didn't believe in Pete Alonso when I heard he had a little minor-league pop in his bat.

Tanana, Tanana, diamonds on the soles of her shoes. I'm sure I'd do better the further back I go. I came up blank on Lindor because he had normal colored hair in the 2022 photo.

We don't seem so good without Alonso in the lineup, do we?

True, but if the second baseman is respecting your ability to pull the ball by standing on the lip of the OF grass, it's a pretty high risk/reward ratio.