soupcan

And I'm saying that one thing (play, break whatever) in and of itself does not determine the outcome. If my team is up 10-1 and my centerfielder drops a can of corn and a runner scores, that play doesn't matter because my cleanup hitter had 8 rbis in that game. If my team is up by 1 run and the other team has the bases loaded and my centerfielder drops that fly ball. That play still didn't lose the game by itself because my cleanup hitter shouldn't have struck out 4 times in the game with men in scoring position. That dropped fly ball in the second scenario facilitated the other team's winning but didn't cause it. It was a combination of things that caused my team to either win or lose that game.

]]no one play determines the outcome Dozens do. But any one of those dozens can mean the difference. Yes, dozens do but no ONE play in any ONE game by ITSELF. ]]one break either way does not tip the scales. It happens all the time. For example - Mookie Wilson hits a dribbler to first base, the first basemen lets the ball go through his legs thereby allowing the runner on third base to score the winning run. It would appear that that play tipped the scales in favor of the Mets but in actuality had a wild pitch not been thrown on the prior pitch the runner would not have been at second base and the tying run would not have scored. Like you said before there are a baziliion variables involved and sometimes one stands out as the defining play of the game but its never just ONE play that turns it. They are all dependent on the plays before it. Benitez comes in with the Mets leading 3-1, gives up a run stranding the tying run on second. Yay, we win. Scrappy Mets hang on to edge Phillies, Benitez guts out the save. Benitez comes in with the Mets leading 2-1 and gives up a run. Game goes into extras, Mets lose. Fucking Benitez. Armando blows another one as punchless Mets go quietly.

Did Yogi ever call your dad?

No one person wins or loses a game, no one play determines the outcome, one break either way does not tip the scales. If I look at 5 games and they're all close but one team won 4 of them, that doesn't say 'close series' to me. It says close games but when one team is winning all the close games that team is the better one.

="AG/DC"]Yeah, I disagree. One more break turns around a game. Two turns around a series. The Yankees dominated nothing. How many breaks do you want? If you needed more than one or two, that's too many to expect and/or ask for. 4 games to 1 is a dominating win. One break turns a game around maybe. It doesn't turn a series around. Valentine's decision-making is as much a strength or weakness of a team as their catcher's offense or shortstop's defense. If the Series was lost as a result of poor managerial moves you can't say that if he had done this and not that, blah, blah, blah.... Well you can say it but it doesn't carry a whole lot of weight. He consciously made the moves he made.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]...that series was very winnable for the Mets but ... If Timo runs the bases like he should have... It would also have provided the Mets with the lead that might have withstood whatever shenanigans Franco & Benitez had in store. A less shitty performance from Hampton and we may have stolen this game... I suppose if Piazza got just a tiny bit more of that last pitch... But, if, might have, may have... Lunchy nails it. Too many of these to think that the Mets were even close to winning this.

="SteveJRogers"]Close games though 4-3, 6-5, 4-2, 3-2, 4-2. Lucky break here or there (looking right AT YOU TIMO!) who knows. But the Mets weren't smoked or anything. No, no, no. When you lose 4 games to 1 you have no right to say that 'We should have won that damn series'. You can say it should have been more competitive or the Mets could have pushed it to a 6th or 7th (maybe) game but that's as much as I'll give you. 4-1 means that, yes, they were smoked. Lucky break here or there doesn't make up a 3 game deficit. Sorry boys.

Valadius wrote: We should have won that damn series. 4 games to 1 Val. It wasn't even close.

holychicken wrote: Heavy tits of lead Too. Fucking. Funny. That picture of Anna was posted when the Mets got Kris. It was either CF or Lunchables that posted a comment that was something like 'it looks like two monkeys are having a wrestling match in her shirt'. I'm sure I got it wrong but I thought it was funny as shit.

Okay. 'IronPigs' is cool then.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Name refers to the area's steel history and trains. Looking forward to seeing them play; they're not far from the in-laws place. Steel and trains, fine. Where does the 'Pig' come in? I've never heard of a train referred to as a pig.

Rockin' Doc wrote: Soup, I think you should consider building a replica of the apple in your yard just to piss off your neighbors. You could have it pop up every time the Mets win a game. That's NOT a bad idea.

="Valadius"]I love the apple. Hell, I have a Mets apple clock sitting on my desk. I want to keep it. This I guess I can understand. For fans like Val who are 35 and under its like the damn thing has always been there. If you guys simply consider it part of the Mets that has always been there well then.... I don't dig it at all and view it as a bad gimmick whose time is long past. After reading everybody's opinions though it seems I'm in the minority and I can accept that.

Borrrrring Chris - thanks for nothing. Don't bother asking for my vote at the next first grade girls soccer game.

Hey Congressman Shays (R-CT)! My Congressman! Make me proud Chris.

There was a young Met named Mazzilli The young girls at the games he'd drive silly His teeth were so white And his pants were so tight That with glee the girls noticed his willy.

AG/DC wrote: ="Benjamin Grimm"]AG/DC wrote: Burton is a complete ASSHOLE! He's ripping MacNamee because his lies are destroying Clemens, but the only lies he's catching MacNamee in are the lies he told defending Clemens. He also pretends not to understand the distinction between things said under oath to Congress and to reporters from the Daily News and Newsday. And MacNamee is too humilated and/or unsophisticated enough to spell these distinctions out for him. Absolutely correct. This is great radio by the way.

AG/DC wrote: I think it was a great campaign. i didn't think so at the time. But now I see that was the first salvo in a fight by Doublepon not only to change the direction of the franchise, but to go beyond that in cancelling old debt by dealing for Seaver, Staub, and Kingman. Those three deals probably meant little to nothing in win totals, as the players couldn't bring back the years lost by the team, but signaled that Doubleday and Wilpon were fans who understood and needed to deal with the sense of betrayal that Grant left behind. I remember it not being there. Is it politicians, ugly buildings, and whores that gain respectability with age? I like it better than politicians and ugly buildings. Whores also, I guess. You make it sound so noble. They simply wanted to sell tickets. If 'cancelling fan debt' or addressing betrayal was a perception that the ads gave them so be it, but believe me it wasn't their motivation. I remember liking the campaign at the time because I was 15 years old and for the first time I saw 'METS' on the sides of buses and in the IRT stations, but I also remember thinking 'Jackie Robinson?' The campaign sucked off of a legacy that wasn't theirs with those posters of Robinson leading off third base. He was in a Dodger uniform circa 1947. How was he relative to the Mets? Oh right, exciting, 'magical' National League baseball. C'mon. You guys like the apple - that's fine. To me it has no relation to the the Mets as a team. Again its an ad campaign prop that nobody ever bothered to disassemble. AND it's cheesy. And don't dismiss old, ugly whores out of hand like that.

I'm anti-Apple, anti-black and pro-dot. Know this though - I'm so anti-black that I would gladly go anti-dot, pro-Apple if it would help obliterate the black. And boy am I anti-Apple. seawolf17 wrote: Apple-haters suck. Eat me. The only reason you like it is because you don't ever remember it not being there. It's a fucking relic from an old, stupid ad campaign that makes no sense anymore. It's a top hat with an apple coming out of it! WTF is that? Haven't you heard? These are the New Mets. The 'magic' needs to go back to 1980.

Ugh.

Clemens can still deny it. "Look, as far as I know, as far as McNamee told me - it was B-12. If he told Andy it was something else, well, that's news to me." Unless they got Clemens purchasing the stuff or someone else saying something that can only be interpereted as Clemens having absolute knowledge that what was being injected was HGH or whatever, they'll never be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Clemens knew. We can all come to that logical conclusion of course but I really think that without a definitive account, he's gonna walk away. I suppose with Pettitte's statement though, his legacy is sufficiently sullied (as if it were'nt already) and his HOF election (which I'm supposing is the impetus behind all this for Clemens) will not be made on the first ballot and will not be unanimous.

I read that Pelfrey article this morning. Whoopee-dam-doo. Same as every article from every spring training I've ever read about young players realizing what they did wrong and vowing to correct it. How about last season where after every shitty outing Pelfrey said the same damn thing? What's different now? I like the guy and wish him and the team all the success in the world but just because he's saying these things doesn't mean he can apply it.

I'm thinking two things about Clemens/Hardin. -Clemens has lied through his teeth to everyone including his lawyers regardless of the fact that they should have told him that in no way, shape or form should he deny his steroid use to them or especially while under oath if in fact he did it. -Hardin knows Clemens is lying and is giving him the most absolutely ridiculously bad advice - to the point oof malpractice. 'Rog, even though you did it, there is no evidence. You can beat this thing. Deny, deny, deny...' An attorney friend of mine stresses that there is no way that Clemens' attornies would advise him to not be truthful under oath even if they thought that by lying he could beat it. With that in mind I have to think that while his attornies may have their own suspicions, he has been emphatic in his denials of his use to even them. And you know what? That wouldn't surprise me. Here's a guy who has been treated like a god for probably the past 30 years of his life. Why wouldn't he think he could get away with it?

SteveJRogers wrote: ="KC"]Doris from Rego Park? What makes Doris different from Sign Man from Weissman52 from Bryan Hoch from TACKA (The Artist Currently Known As) Johnny Cougar LunchBucket from Cow-Bell Man? SteveJBlindersOn, You really see no difference between Erhardt all those other peeps?

="AG/DC"]That's really depressing to think that his strategy of gladhanding members of Congress is working. Somebody vote Towns out of office NOW!!!! The New York Post's Phil Mushnick agrees with you on the impropreity of these 'social gatherings'... CAPITOL SHILLS By PHIL MUSHNICK February 11, 2008 -- HOW would you like to be heading for court, the defendant in, say, an alimony dispute, when, as you pass the judge's chamber, you see your ex-wife and the judge making out? Welcome back to "The Roger Clemens Variety Show." It makes "Curb Your Enthusiasm" seem like "This Old House." First, there was that news conference at which Clem ens' attorney, Rusty Har din, played that "Aha!" tape of Clemens' phone chat with Brian McNamee, a tape that was supposed to provide strong evidence that McNamee lied about Clemens. But it turned out to be a "Huh?" tape, thus casting doubt on Clem ens. Then, over two days, late last week, Clemens and Hardin stopped by the offices of mem bers of Con gress. And what a coinci dence, the 19 they succeeded in chatting up are all on the committee that this Wednes day is assigned to pull from Clemens his sworn testimony on drug use. Yup, as long as he was in the neighborhood he figured he would stop in to say howdy. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?: Phil Mushnick says Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and other congressmen should not have met with... ...Roger Clemens before Wednesday's hearing, because it puts their objectivity into question. Though at least several of those Congressmen, including Brooklyn's Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y), seemed swayed by their private time with Clemens - good grief, Towns' deputy chief of staff posed for a picture with Clemens, his arm around her shoulder - all have created a public contamination of the process. Are all of those Congressional members, having allowed themselves to be personally lobbied by Clemens, now, five days later, supposed to be seen as uncompromised? Those Congressmen have allowed themselves to be perceived as too lacking in discretionary wisdom - too short on basic foresight - to credibly serve a sub-committee on stubborn grease stains. Those who received Clemens, last week, who this Wednesday seem to "go easy" on him, will be regarded with great and deserved suspicion. And then there are those who received Clemens who may now be forced - for the sake of appearances - to cast him in a bad light. How many now must consider how things might appear - as opposed to pursuing the truth? How many put celebrity ahead of sense? How many personal autographs and photo poses did Clemens provide to Congressional members days before he sat before them? Why didn't they refuse to meet with him at such an hour? Have they no sense of their positions? The issue? Have they no sense of common sense? But might such a contamination have been the goal of Clemens' visits? Hardin, who had to know that what he was doing was, at best, inappropriate, described the Congressmen who met with Clemens as "very responsive." He characterized their time together as "fun" and "social." Geez. You think such fun and social time - and access - would be available to McNamee? "Congressman, Roger Clemens is here. He'd like a few minutes of your time, just a friendly visit." "What! Does he think I'm an idiot? Five days before I take his sworn testimony? Get rid of him. Tell him it's entirely inappropriate - for both of us!" Instead, nearly half of those who shortly would solicit Clemens' sworn testimony, said, in essence, "Send him in!" Gee, Roger Clemens. Wait'll they tell their kids! What should have not happened with one congressman or congresswoman, last week, happened with 19. And all 19 who played ball with Clemens - with contempt of Congress and/or a federal perjury charge eventual possibilities, no less - should now disqualify themselves from this investigation. You think that days before committee investigations into organized crime, reputed mob bosses, subpoenaed to testify, stop by for some fun time with those Congressmen who will be asking them questions? Is fundamental, right-from-wrong discretion dead everywhere, or has everyone gone nuts? Or maybe everyone's on HDH: human dope hormone. * If Russ Salzberg hadn't been on the scene, Channel 5's and Channel 9's coverage of the Giants' Manhattan victory parade wouldn't have been able to distinguish Kevin Boss from Boss Tweed. . . . Tonight during Phoenix-Dallas, Versus will have Wayne Gretzky wired. Though logically anticipating the live reaction shot of Steve Valiquette after he shut out the Flyers in Philadelphia on Saturday, MSG cut to and stayed on a shot of an expressionless Tom Renney. A graphic explained: Renney just tied Phil Watson for sixth place for wins by a Rangers coach. Oh. Superb, eye-opening piece on ESPN's "Outside the Lines," yesterday about the legal international gambling scene in pro tennis. That small fortunes are bet on early-round matches played by virtual unknowns seems to ensure more fixed matches than previously imagined. Last week TNT announced an extension of Marv Albert's deal through the 2015-16 NBA season (when Albert, who counts backward, turns 30). This week, SNY will announce an extension of Keith Hernandez's deal (anticipated annual suspension not included). Baylor's women's team defeated Texas Tech on Saturday on FSN. When the cameras showed Baylor head coach Kim Mulkey, she was seen in a frilly white blouse - that carried a Nike swoosh. Nothing to identify her as Baylor's coach, just a Nike coach. phil.mushnick@nypost.com