Here's why Steve in Queens and I get along so well. I'm sitting thinking about something to write about today, then I decide it has to be Oliver Perez, and lo and behold, there's an e-mail from Steve about Oliver Perez's performance in my e-mail. Thanks Steve. Here's what he had to say:
"Johnnymets -
I would like to hear your thoughts about Oliver Perez and the fact that he is a mental case. I know this week's games are too late for you, as they are for me, but, I was able to watch the 50 minutes worth of the Mets blowing a golden opportunity in the top of the 1st and Perez only getting 1 out while giving up 6 runs in the bottom of the first.
If you get a chance to see any of his performance, I think you would agree that batting practice is more of a challenge than the garbage he was throwing last night. And, this wasn't his usual inability to find the plate in one random inning. I think his fastball topped out at 87 or 88 mph.
For someone in a contract year, he is certainly not helping his own cause (his wallet). What do you think is wrong with him and should the Mets already be thinking about signing someone else at the end of the season?
Steve from Queens"
My take on it was going to be more tongue in cheek, but I will say that before this season is out, Oliver Perez will have a huge game that will make all of this agony worthwhile. I just know it. Something is making me not hate the guy, and there's something there that tells me come late September or October, he'll remind us of the Oliver Perez circa October 2006. But I have no evidence to back that up, clearly. Just a hunch. Also, I was going to have a picture with this, but I'm having trouble putting it up, and I'm out of patience. It was Carlos Delgado with his hand on Perez from Monday night's game, consoling him, I guess. I put a caption on it that said, "Don't worry, I stink too." It was hilarious.
Now what I was originally going to say, with the caveat that I didn't make it out of the top of the first...the only person affiliated with the Mets to not make it further into the game than Perez:
Every so often you just have to stop and appreciate the moment. What we are witnessing in Oliver Perez right now is one of the most complex minds in the game. This is someone who was compared by one of his teammates to a wall, after getting pasted in an inning-and-a-third against the Pirates last month. (A wall gives up less runs and lasts longer than an inning-and-a-third, incidentally.)
But walls can't be so mentally in tune with the game that they will settle in to games of "Street Fighter" with Aaron Heilman in the clubhouse the day after tough losses. To be able to turn it on and off like that must be the type of thing that turn players like Greg Maddux green with envy.
Pedro Martinez* stated the other day that now that he's back in the dugout, with the team every day, Perez will benefit the most, and play better. Oliver Perez's response? One-third of an inning, six runs, five hits, two walks, 2 homers, 0 strikeouts. To the powerhouse San Francisco Giants.
It's not easy to understand the complexities of the human mind. It's a whole other story to understand Oliver Perez. And if geniuses like Rick Peterson and Pedro Martinez* can't figure him out, the rest of us don't stand a chance.
Cue the Southern Bureau.
LOOK FOR THIS TOMORROW: Nothing like a classic Maine-Cain matchup. John Maine versus Matt Cain on Wednesday.
Showing posts with label E-Mail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label E-Mail. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Sunday, June 01, 2008
ON TO JUNE
As we turn the calendar page, I'm going to throw some numbers at you.
The Mets finished with a flurry towards the end of May, keeping me interested into June, at least. And Pedro Martinez* comes back on Tuesday night, so as long as he doesn't get hurt again, that's exciting.
Here's the breakdown:
March: 1-0
April: 13-12
May: 13-15
That 13-15 might not look too impressive, but from where the Mets were a week ago, the overall 27-27 is a huge sigh of relief.
**************
You know things aren't going so great when I'm relying on an end-of-season prediction in the beginning of June, but I feel like after a hot start like he's had, there's no better time to bring this up. If the name Jay Bruce sounded familiar to you after his call-up by the Reds this week, maybe it's because I had him pegged early (from my season picks on March 23):
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: I really have no idea who the rookies are this year. Just looking randomly at a list of rookies in 2008 I'll go with this Jay Bruce of the Reds. He's an outfielder, and maybe he'll lead the resurgence I think they'll have.
**************
WRIGHT WATCH: David Wright had a key double Saturday, getting on base ahead of Carlos Beltran's 2-run game-tying homer in the eighth inning. That made me realize we haven't looked at his doubles in a bit:
ALL-TIME LEADER: 792
WRIGHT THIS SEASON: 17 (Berkman leads majors with 21)
WRIGHT CAREER: 158
Watch out, Tris Speaker.
***************
And finally, this could easily be a joke from one of my friends, but here's an e-mail I got after Saturday's posting about Gary Carter (I know, since I now know he's a regular reader, that he doesn't mind that I post the e-mail):
"J:
Enjoyed your take on Gary Carter, and appreciate him being your favorite player. I was just poking fun—hope you weren't too offended.
Best,
Jeff Pearlman
espn.com"
It looked legit, figured it was worth posting. And, for the record, Pearlman's piece was funny.
The Mets finished with a flurry towards the end of May, keeping me interested into June, at least. And Pedro Martinez* comes back on Tuesday night, so as long as he doesn't get hurt again, that's exciting.
Here's the breakdown:
March: 1-0
April: 13-12
May: 13-15
That 13-15 might not look too impressive, but from where the Mets were a week ago, the overall 27-27 is a huge sigh of relief.
**************
You know things aren't going so great when I'm relying on an end-of-season prediction in the beginning of June, but I feel like after a hot start like he's had, there's no better time to bring this up. If the name Jay Bruce sounded familiar to you after his call-up by the Reds this week, maybe it's because I had him pegged early (from my season picks on March 23):
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: I really have no idea who the rookies are this year. Just looking randomly at a list of rookies in 2008 I'll go with this Jay Bruce of the Reds. He's an outfielder, and maybe he'll lead the resurgence I think they'll have.
**************
WRIGHT WATCH: David Wright had a key double Saturday, getting on base ahead of Carlos Beltran's 2-run game-tying homer in the eighth inning. That made me realize we haven't looked at his doubles in a bit:
ALL-TIME LEADER: 792
WRIGHT THIS SEASON: 17 (Berkman leads majors with 21)
WRIGHT CAREER: 158
Watch out, Tris Speaker.
***************
And finally, this could easily be a joke from one of my friends, but here's an e-mail I got after Saturday's posting about Gary Carter (I know, since I now know he's a regular reader, that he doesn't mind that I post the e-mail):
"J:
Enjoyed your take on Gary Carter, and appreciate him being your favorite player. I was just poking fun—hope you weren't too offended.
Best,
Jeff Pearlman
espn.com"
It looked legit, figured it was worth posting. And, for the record, Pearlman's piece was funny.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
The Southern Bureau wrote on Saturday about Carlos Delgado:
"Will Carlos Delgado please make up his mind. Is he done or not?? A week ago he looked like his career was on the fast track to nowhere. Now he’s had a great week – including a big home run today. Johnnymets….what’s the deal??
-Southern Bureau"
Even though I know you are selfishly motivated here, Southern Bureau, I'll give you an honest answer. (Currently I'm three points back in the fantasy baseball standings...but sharing my knowledge of Delgado won't make any difference.)
You and I aren't the only people who have wondered about Delgado. Only about every other Mets fan is thinking about it.
Right now, he reminds me of Bobby Bonilla (ouch). It seems that whenever he comes up with a "big" hit, it's after the Mets are already down or ahead - nothing's very clutch. One of the things that you hear about Delgado is how proud he is. That he takes it hard when he is moved around in the batting order - he doesn't like to think of himself as an older ballplayer - he still thinks he's a cleanup-type hitter who can and will contribute.
Well, I don't think so. I feel the same way I felt about Delgado in the spring - I just don't know which version of him will show up from day to day. He'll get hot maybe for a month or two, but I think he'll fade by the post-season. The Mets will need better performances from everyone else to cover up that weakness....because Delgado is more liability than asset right now.
And now that I've said all that, expect him to turn it around and fast...because what do I know?
"Will Carlos Delgado please make up his mind. Is he done or not?? A week ago he looked like his career was on the fast track to nowhere. Now he’s had a great week – including a big home run today. Johnnymets….what’s the deal??-Southern Bureau"
Even though I know you are selfishly motivated here, Southern Bureau, I'll give you an honest answer. (Currently I'm three points back in the fantasy baseball standings...but sharing my knowledge of Delgado won't make any difference.)
You and I aren't the only people who have wondered about Delgado. Only about every other Mets fan is thinking about it.
Right now, he reminds me of Bobby Bonilla (ouch). It seems that whenever he comes up with a "big" hit, it's after the Mets are already down or ahead - nothing's very clutch. One of the things that you hear about Delgado is how proud he is. That he takes it hard when he is moved around in the batting order - he doesn't like to think of himself as an older ballplayer - he still thinks he's a cleanup-type hitter who can and will contribute.
Well, I don't think so. I feel the same way I felt about Delgado in the spring - I just don't know which version of him will show up from day to day. He'll get hot maybe for a month or two, but I think he'll fade by the post-season. The Mets will need better performances from everyone else to cover up that weakness....because Delgado is more liability than asset right now.
And now that I've said all that, expect him to turn it around and fast...because what do I know?
Friday, May 02, 2008
WRONG KIND OF FIRED UP
Here are two ways I know it's nearing the end of the school year and I'm more tired at night than ever:
1) I fall asleep before I set my fantasy baseball lineup, and don't have time to get on the computer in the morning at school, and don't have Shawn Marcum in my rotation for a 7-inning shutout performance (I am so pissed about that).
2) The Wife is more up on the Mets news than I am. She e-mailed me this:
"You should blog about this:
Wagner rips Mets teammate
Posted: Thursday May 01, 2008 05:53AM ET
Amid the rubble of a 13-1 loss to the last-place Pirates that started with Oliver Perez's second-inning meltdown, Billy Wagner said what many of his teammates appeared to be thinking about the left-hander. Wagner blasted Perez for lasting just 12/3 innings, matching his career low, against one of the worst teams in baseball. "Perez has honestly got to step up and know that we've just used every guy in our bullpen the night before," a visibly disgusted Wagner said. "He can't come out there and decide that, gee, he hasn't got it today and so be it." Asked if talking to Perez about his notoriously short attention span was like trying to talk to a wall, Wagner pointed his finger and said: "Pretty much.""
Thanks for that...although I'm not sure the source. I'll just credit The Wife.
I guess Billy Wagner's back - he had been awfully quiet this year. And last year, really. Recently I had asked for more players to get into 2006 form - I meant in baseball performance, but the Mets had a cohesive locker room that year, so maybe Wagner opening his mouth will lend itself to a more cohesive team unit (that seems counter-intuitive...).
I can't really make an argument against Wagner here, though. He's right. And for Oliver Perez to be this up and down throughout his career, he has to be the type of guy who probably gives up on himself, says, 'I just don't have it today, so I'll wait until my next start'. I think Wagner has it right on the nose. Problem is, the question about Perez's attention span was really uncalled for, and Wagner answering it is crossing a line. That's the part that's not going to go over well.
Hopefully Perez comes back with a strong start, and hopefully the players don't start sniping at one another. Since this entry centered on Oliver Perez, I now cue the Southern Bureau.....
1) I fall asleep before I set my fantasy baseball lineup, and don't have time to get on the computer in the morning at school, and don't have Shawn Marcum in my rotation for a 7-inning shutout performance (I am so pissed about that).
2) The Wife is more up on the Mets news than I am. She e-mailed me this:
"You should blog about this:
Wagner rips Mets teammate
Posted: Thursday May 01, 2008 05:53AM ET
Amid the rubble of a 13-1 loss to the last-place Pirates that started with Oliver Perez's second-inning meltdown, Billy Wagner said what many of his teammates appeared to be thinking about the left-hander. Wagner blasted Perez for lasting just 12/3 innings, matching his career low, against one of the worst teams in baseball. "Perez has honestly got to step up and know that we've just used every guy in our bullpen the night before," a visibly disgusted Wagner said. "He can't come out there and decide that, gee, he hasn't got it today and so be it." Asked if talking to Perez about his notoriously short attention span was like trying to talk to a wall, Wagner pointed his finger and said: "Pretty much.""
Thanks for that...although I'm not sure the source. I'll just credit The Wife.
I guess Billy Wagner's back - he had been awfully quiet this year. And last year, really. Recently I had asked for more players to get into 2006 form - I meant in baseball performance, but the Mets had a cohesive locker room that year, so maybe Wagner opening his mouth will lend itself to a more cohesive team unit (that seems counter-intuitive...).
I can't really make an argument against Wagner here, though. He's right. And for Oliver Perez to be this up and down throughout his career, he has to be the type of guy who probably gives up on himself, says, 'I just don't have it today, so I'll wait until my next start'. I think Wagner has it right on the nose. Problem is, the question about Perez's attention span was really uncalled for, and Wagner answering it is crossing a line. That's the part that's not going to go over well.
Hopefully Perez comes back with a strong start, and hopefully the players don't start sniping at one another. Since this entry centered on Oliver Perez, I now cue the Southern Bureau.....
Thursday, April 24, 2008
OUTRAGEOUS
It's time to let it out - the Mets bullpen is a mess. It's worse than a mess. It's the mess a mess leaves behind. It's so bad you would think Isiah Thomas had a hand in it. And if you're going to point fingers, you can start with Aaron Heilman.The Mets have a huge problem right now. The Nationals...the worst team in baseball...took the Mets' bullpen behind the woodshed tonight.
This has been the pattern recently. The starting rotation hasn't been excellent, but they've been good. The numbers have been decent - most of the time giving up 3 runs, sometimes 4. But the Mets, especially lately, have been losing games by giving up 7 runs to the other team...or 8, or 10. Hang that on the bullpen.
A solution needs to be reached. A solution better than moving Aaron Heilman (4 homers allowed in 13 innings pitched, including a grand slam to light-hitting Felipe Lopez on Thursday night) up to the 6th inning instead of the 8th. He killed the Mets on Thursday with his sixth inning performance....usually he saves his Mets-killing until the 8th. So moving him around doesn't seem to be helping.
This is why I'm such a believer in trading Angel Pagan for some relief help. Pagan has already gotten into a slump (he's no .400 hitter, but at least people would overpay for him after his hot start), but his value remains high right now. And Moises Alou will be back within a week. Chances are he'll get hurt again this year, but right now the Mets need relief help. I know, who doesn't. And who's out there? I don't know. But the Mets need to do something, before it gets any worse.
E-MAIL: Steve in NYC commented on this very subject, among other things, with a response to a posting earlier this week:
"I am shocked that you think Reyes will not end his career as a Met. I don't see who the Mets would ever trade him for (especially, if not for Santana). I think the Mets need both Reyes and Wright on the team for the next decade and if Reyes plays his style of ball (including the dancing and handshakes), the Mets will give him a big contract before he gets to free agency. Who will give him more money than the Mets anyway? The important thing is if the Mets win, one would think that he would want to stay with the team he came up, grew up and became a champion with.
That being said, the Mets need to get their act together. I am the first to admit that I am a very pessimistic fan, but, after winning 5 straight and heading in the [W]right direction, the lose 3 straight, in the fashion they lost is ridiculous, no matter the time of the season. Sunday's loss to the Phils hurt the most because they showed a lot of fight by coming back, but Feliciano giving up the home run, opposite field just sucked!!
I would love to read some of your comments about Heilman and what to do with him and how long Willie should keep using him in big spots. How many homeruns is he going to give up in the 8th inning. You may have to start a watch for that this season and see if he breaks any records. Anyway, hopefully they will turn it around against the AAA Washington Nationals and continue through the weekend. I will be there routing them on this Saturday. LETS GO METS!!
Also, a few Ranger comments on the block wouldn't hurt, since they are a lot more exciting than anything coming out of Jets camp. Keep it in mind. This could be their year."
I am excited for the Rangers - I should get them on TV here in the first few games as well.
As for the Reyes thing, I just think he'll explore free agency at some point - I think that's where his personality differs from Wright. While Wright would be happy here forever, I think Reyes would bounce around later (much later) on. And I think the Mets would be OK with one leaving if they had the other stick around (it's so rare to have a Bagwell-Biggio situation where two guys spend their entire careers with one team like that - at the pro level, let alone coming up solely through their system).
Thursday, April 10, 2008
THE MAILBAG
For the first time in a very long time, we'll dig into the e-mail-bag.
I've been sitting on this one from Steve from Queens for a while, and it's sort of newsy right now, so there's really no better time to address it.
This was a forward, and the subject line had to do with the fact that the Mets are having a....less than manly, I guess....vote for some songs to play in the 8th inning of their games. (I've written before how embarrassing it is that the Mets ripped off the Red Sox with "Sweet Caroline" - see the fifth bullet here.)
Here's the content of the e-mail:
"[Following a derogatory subject line] But we have to do it.
The Mets are having the fans vote on the 8th inning song.
We need to ensure that ******* song from Friends is not the winner.
Send to every Met fan you know."
The choices were (I might be missing some here): "Waitin' on a Sunny Day" by Bruce Springsteen, "Brown-Eyed Girl" by Van Morrison, the aforementioned Neil Diamond song, "Living on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi, "I'll Be There For You", by the people who sang the 'Friends' theme song - Rembrandts, I believe, "I'm a Believer" by the Monkees, and my choice, had I voted, "Movin' Out" by Billy Joel. (I had my own Billy Joel list, you may remember, but that was obviously a waste of time.) Although I would choose Billy Joel, obviously, the Monkees are also a strong candidate, based on the "Ya Gotta Believe" theme through Mets history.
Anyway, apparently some Phillies fans stormed the voting site, and voted in Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up", which actually played during the home opener...and which is actually kind of funny and intelligent, for Phillies fans. So now this song vote isn't over - the Mets will apparently play a bunch of the songs, and pick a winner based on fan reaction. So help me if they end up keeping "Sweet Caroline".
A RESPONSE FROM JUSTIN IN NYC: Justin in NYC, always helpful in all things music-or-media-related (and a great idea guy), weighed in on yesterday's ESPNEWS crawl saga:
"in defense of espnews.. The reason the crawl gets dropped during certain commercials and not other is that different commercial time is sold by different companies. They keep the crawl up during their ad time, but have no control of the signal during ad time sold by your local cable company, or in your case, directv."
I guess that makes sense...but in that case, people advertising on ESPN on any cable system should not have any sort of phone number at the bottom of their ads. They should all be crawl-friendly.
I've been sitting on this one from Steve from Queens for a while, and it's sort of newsy right now, so there's really no better time to address it.
This was a forward, and the subject line had to do with the fact that the Mets are having a....less than manly, I guess....vote for some songs to play in the 8th inning of their games. (I've written before how embarrassing it is that the Mets ripped off the Red Sox with "Sweet Caroline" - see the fifth bullet here.)
Here's the content of the e-mail:
"[Following a derogatory subject line] But we have to do it.
The Mets are having the fans vote on the 8th inning song.
We need to ensure that ******* song from Friends is not the winner.
Send to every Met fan you know."
The choices were (I might be missing some here): "Waitin' on a Sunny Day" by Bruce Springsteen, "Brown-Eyed Girl" by Van Morrison, the aforementioned Neil Diamond song, "Living on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi, "I'll Be There For You", by the people who sang the 'Friends' theme song - Rembrandts, I believe, "I'm a Believer" by the Monkees, and my choice, had I voted, "Movin' Out" by Billy Joel. (I had my own Billy Joel list, you may remember, but that was obviously a waste of time.) Although I would choose Billy Joel, obviously, the Monkees are also a strong candidate, based on the "Ya Gotta Believe" theme through Mets history.
Anyway, apparently some Phillies fans stormed the voting site, and voted in Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up", which actually played during the home opener...and which is actually kind of funny and intelligent, for Phillies fans. So now this song vote isn't over - the Mets will apparently play a bunch of the songs, and pick a winner based on fan reaction. So help me if they end up keeping "Sweet Caroline".
A RESPONSE FROM JUSTIN IN NYC: Justin in NYC, always helpful in all things music-or-media-related (and a great idea guy), weighed in on yesterday's ESPNEWS crawl saga:
"in defense of espnews.. The reason the crawl gets dropped during certain commercials and not other is that different commercial time is sold by different companies. They keep the crawl up during their ad time, but have no control of the signal during ad time sold by your local cable company, or in your case, directv."
I guess that makes sense...but in that case, people advertising on ESPN on any cable system should not have any sort of phone number at the bottom of their ads. They should all be crawl-friendly.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
SWEETEN THE POT, SI
I'm pretty sure I've written about this before, but it has fallen under different contexts. So now I'm devoting an entire entry to it.
I cancelled my subscription to Sports Illustrated about three years ago - maybe four. When I started teaching, I started reading so many children's books and educational publications that I just wasn't reading the magazine, so I viewed it as a waste and cancelled.
Now, I have since subscribed to two magazines - TIME and American History. I read both cover to cover, but American History is quarterly, so it's not a big time investment (but it was a great idea to subscribe to it - I highly recommend it). TIME, obviously, is weekly, but I make time for it. As I progress through my teaching career, I have less planning time, more time not devoted to school work, so I can read a magazine. Maybe two. But I don't know that I'm ready to go back to SI.
And they aren't making it easy for me to come back. Each time they send me an offer, the free gift with the subscription is the same - it's an NFL windbreaker. No one must be biting, because they seem to be having a hard time getting rid of these things:
I think I would go back to SI - but I'm waiting for them to offer something really good. There's a chance I'll go back in October, 2008, if the Mets win the World Series and there's some kind of related gift offer. Anything Mets or Jets-related would draw me...but they need to do better than a windbreaker.
I'm still a little leery about these free gifts. The whole reason I got TIME was because they were offering a free AM/FM radio. I am under the impression that someday I'll find a radio that will allow me to tune into New York's SportsRadio 66/WFAN (660 AM) from my home here in Framingham, Massachusetts. So I bit. Suffice it to say, this radio is not the one - I'm lucky to get an FM station in Massachusetts on this thing, let alone AM in New York City.
So, Sports Illustrated, I'll come back. But I need something good - and it needs to be of good quality. I'm waiting for your next offer.
GOLF: Because I am doing fantasy golf this year, I now have an excuse to watch all of the tournaments, which is why I spent part of this snowy Saturday watching the Pebble Beach Pro-Am. A couple of thoughts:
1) Last year, HBO aired a documentary about Kevin James and Ray Romano participating in the event. It was awesome...but it didn't get a lot of airtime. I saw about 50 minutes of what I think was an hour-long show, and I didn't see it on again. Anyway, it was pretty intriguing, especially when Romano almost made the cut. I wonder if they're doing a follow-up this year, because Romano is in good shape to make the cut this year.
2) The probable joy of James and Romano when they found out they would be golfing together (with their pros) after the pairings came out could only have been rivaled by the agony felt by Don Cheadle when he found out who his amateur partner would be.....Kenny G.
A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: This e-mail from Rob in Jersey serves the purpose of informing, after yesterday's post about the Jets' schedule in 2008:
"Hi John. Regarding the NFL schedules, I don't think many people have caught on to the general change in the weighting procedure since the last divisional realignment. Before Houston joined the league and they went to six four-team divisions, it was three five-team divisions in the NFC, two five-team divisions and one six-team division in the AFC.
Each team played four out of five teams from a given division in the opposite conference. The team that was skipped was based on the previous year's finish. (In other words, a last place team from the year before would get to miss the first place team on the crossover.) Then there were, of course, 8 intra-divisional games (for a total of 12). The final four games were intra-conference games based in part on the previous year's finish and not restricted to just one division.
Now, teams play an entire pre-determined four team NFC division, six intra-divisional games and an entire pre-determined intra-conference division (for a total of 14). There are only two games on the schedule that are based on previous year's finish. Next year, for instance, the Patriots play both of the other AFC first place teams, Indy and Pittsburgh, in addition to the entire AFC West. I'm sure you've known all that silly minutia for eons, but I thought it might be instructive to some of your legions of readers. Call it a pre-emptive strike against people wondering why the Patriots have such a joke of a schedule after going 16-0!"
Thanks for that, Rob.
A COMMENT ON THE COMMENTS: The Southern Bureau weighed in on the Erik Bedard trade, and just to respond/clarify: I did think about him leaving the AL East, and how that could be a benefit...but I just get a feeling. And perhaps it will be just a one-year adjustment, and then Bedard is back to his old self. I don't know....again, just a gut feeling. And I will be rooting for him to do well, though I fear he might not do well in 2008.
I cancelled my subscription to Sports Illustrated about three years ago - maybe four. When I started teaching, I started reading so many children's books and educational publications that I just wasn't reading the magazine, so I viewed it as a waste and cancelled.
Now, I have since subscribed to two magazines - TIME and American History. I read both cover to cover, but American History is quarterly, so it's not a big time investment (but it was a great idea to subscribe to it - I highly recommend it). TIME, obviously, is weekly, but I make time for it. As I progress through my teaching career, I have less planning time, more time not devoted to school work, so I can read a magazine. Maybe two. But I don't know that I'm ready to go back to SI.
And they aren't making it easy for me to come back. Each time they send me an offer, the free gift with the subscription is the same - it's an NFL windbreaker. No one must be biting, because they seem to be having a hard time getting rid of these things:
I think I would go back to SI - but I'm waiting for them to offer something really good. There's a chance I'll go back in October, 2008, if the Mets win the World Series and there's some kind of related gift offer. Anything Mets or Jets-related would draw me...but they need to do better than a windbreaker.
I'm still a little leery about these free gifts. The whole reason I got TIME was because they were offering a free AM/FM radio. I am under the impression that someday I'll find a radio that will allow me to tune into New York's SportsRadio 66/WFAN (660 AM) from my home here in Framingham, Massachusetts. So I bit. Suffice it to say, this radio is not the one - I'm lucky to get an FM station in Massachusetts on this thing, let alone AM in New York City.
So, Sports Illustrated, I'll come back. But I need something good - and it needs to be of good quality. I'm waiting for your next offer.
GOLF: Because I am doing fantasy golf this year, I now have an excuse to watch all of the tournaments, which is why I spent part of this snowy Saturday watching the Pebble Beach Pro-Am. A couple of thoughts:
1) Last year, HBO aired a documentary about Kevin James and Ray Romano participating in the event. It was awesome...but it didn't get a lot of airtime. I saw about 50 minutes of what I think was an hour-long show, and I didn't see it on again. Anyway, it was pretty intriguing, especially when Romano almost made the cut. I wonder if they're doing a follow-up this year, because Romano is in good shape to make the cut this year.
2) The probable joy of James and Romano when they found out they would be golfing together (with their pros) after the pairings came out could only have been rivaled by the agony felt by Don Cheadle when he found out who his amateur partner would be.....Kenny G.
A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: This e-mail from Rob in Jersey serves the purpose of informing, after yesterday's post about the Jets' schedule in 2008:
"Hi John. Regarding the NFL schedules, I don't think many people have caught on to the general change in the weighting procedure since the last divisional realignment. Before Houston joined the league and they went to six four-team divisions, it was three five-team divisions in the NFC, two five-team divisions and one six-team division in the AFC.
Each team played four out of five teams from a given division in the opposite conference. The team that was skipped was based on the previous year's finish. (In other words, a last place team from the year before would get to miss the first place team on the crossover.) Then there were, of course, 8 intra-divisional games (for a total of 12). The final four games were intra-conference games based in part on the previous year's finish and not restricted to just one division.
Now, teams play an entire pre-determined four team NFC division, six intra-divisional games and an entire pre-determined intra-conference division (for a total of 14). There are only two games on the schedule that are based on previous year's finish. Next year, for instance, the Patriots play both of the other AFC first place teams, Indy and Pittsburgh, in addition to the entire AFC West. I'm sure you've known all that silly minutia for eons, but I thought it might be instructive to some of your legions of readers. Call it a pre-emptive strike against people wondering why the Patriots have such a joke of a schedule after going 16-0!"
Thanks for that, Rob.
A COMMENT ON THE COMMENTS: The Southern Bureau weighed in on the Erik Bedard trade, and just to respond/clarify: I did think about him leaving the AL East, and how that could be a benefit...but I just get a feeling. And perhaps it will be just a one-year adjustment, and then Bedard is back to his old self. I don't know....again, just a gut feeling. And I will be rooting for him to do well, though I fear he might not do well in 2008.
Friday, February 08, 2008
A BIG WEEK AT SHEA
If I were to rank the biggest off-season week in the history of Shea Stadium, this past week would be number one.I expected the Mets would try to steal some headlines from the Giants by introducing Johan Santana on Monday, but in reality, we all know you can't compete with a Super Bowl championship. So Monday and Tuesday were out, as far as the Mets were concerned.
But the Mets made the most out of the short week.On Wednesday, it was cliche-o-rama, with Johan Santana, as the Mets introduced their new ace, who will wear number 57, and who knows the team will take it "one game at a time", and they're going out there "to have fun". You've heard it all before - everything he said had been said many, many times before.
As much as Johan was an unexpected surprise these past few weeks, the Mets made the big announcement I've been expecting for a long time -
Billy Joel will perform the last concert at Shea Stadium. It's not when I thought it would be - "Last Play at Shea" will be held on Wednesday, July 16th, which is the day after the All Star Game, which I keep forgetting will also be in New York (at Yankee Stadium). Tickets go on sale in a week - I have to be there. Everyone in my family will be on some sort of phone trying to get tickets....I guarantee it. I also guarantee that during the concert, Billy Joel will make some sort of reference to the previous acts who performed at Shea, including the Beatles, and will probably pay them homage by covering a number of different groups' songs.
The only thing that will make this year at Shea better is closing it down with a World Series championship. How great would it be if the National League is able to pull out the All Star Game win in Yankee Stadium, granting the Mets home field advantage in the World Series, against whoever, allowing the Mets to win a World Series at home, in the last game at Shea, in Game 6 or 7 of the World Series? (I'll answer my own question: It would be awesome, but I'm not getting ahead of myself....the past two years the World Series was my expectation, and we all know both years fell well short. And I sure would love a World Series sweep - if it takes the Mets winning it on the road, I'll be OK with that.)
BEDARD TO SEATTLE: You probably remember that Erik Bedard is one of my favorite players in baseball these days. You might be shocked by what I'm about to say. First of all, it seems like Seattle gave up an awful lot for him - 5 players in exchange for Bedard. He's very good - but even the Mets got Santana for less. (I know nothing about the prospects - but 5 for 1 is a deal for a special type of player...and I'm not sure that's Bedard.) Now, I like Bedard a lot. But I get a bad feeling about him now going to the American League West. Don't get me wrong -I'll be rooting for him, and I'm actually excited that every fifth day I'll have a reason to watch the 10pm games....but I'm not sure he'll have as much success as he did in Baltimore.
COMING SOON: This e-mail has prompted me to lay out a schedule for the next few days (it also includes a clever play on words involving the name of the blog):
"Dear JohnnyMets,
Enough football and baseball. Where the heck is the five-part NASCAR preview to run under the headline 200 Miles (per hour) from the Citi?
Sincerely, Dave in Brighton"
First of all, it's just one part - but we're just two days away - it'll be posted Sunday night, a week ahead of the Daytona 500. Saturday will be a piece unrelated to any sport in particular, and then Monday night will begin about a month-long preview of the Mets. And pretty much all baseball all the time from there on out.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
A PATS FAN'S REACTION TO THE SUPER BOWL
The Wife, a Patriots fan, is recovering from the Giants' win over the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. She weighs in with this entry:
I should’ve known the Patriots’ downfall was coming. But unfortunately, I – and the rest of New England – forgot what it means to be a sports fan in this area. This was a cold, hard slap back into reality.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t plan a victory parade before the victory.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t apply for a trademark for “19-0” or “The Perfect Season” before you’ve had a perfect season.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t wear a red sweatshirt during the final game when your silly, gray hoodie has brought you luck all season.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t get your hair cut before the big game and you don’t let your girlfriend sit in the luxury box (even if she is a supermodel).
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t go on your husband’s blog and guarantee victory for your team. (Sorry, that was stupid of me).
We only need to go back in history – 1986 when Roger Clemens left the dugout during Game 6 to shave for the post-game interviews, 2003 when the Red Sox grounds crew painted the World Series logo on the grounds of Fenway before the ALCS was over – to see that these are things you DON’T DO! Because when you do do them, you get screwed. And even if you don’t do them, you’ll probably still get screwed.
No, our sports history is based on suffering, heartache and blame. And now the cycle continues. Just when we thought we had won enough championships in recent years to have gotten rid of all jinxes, superstitions, and plain ol’ bad luck, and could turn all haughty and boastful, the sports gods have brought us back to reality. Face it: this is Boston. This is our legacy. We all should’ve known better.
GO SOX!!!
The thing that stood out most to me here - I thought I knew everything about Game 6 of the 1986 World Series - but I didn't know about the Roger Clemens shaving thing. So I looked it up on google, and it was on a blog or two, but I didn't trust that. So I went straight to the videotape. Early in the game, Clemens clearly has a little stubble (not confirmed by The Wife, who said, looking at the grainy video, "I can't tell, he's like 12."), and kind of has sideburns. Then, later, during Gary Carter's at bat in the 10th inning, he's in the dugout, and he's clean shaven. I couldn't find a definitive image from the early part of the game - but someone online somewhere took this picture of Clemens from his TV, and it is clear that Roger shaved:
Now, I know we have to turn the page to baseball. The Southern Bureau can't wait:
"Lets talk baseball. Forget football.
Mets projected lineup: courtesy mets.mlb.com
SS Jose Reyes
2B Luis Castillo
3B David Wright
OF Carlos Beltran
1B Carlos Delgado
OF Moises Alou
OF Ryan Church
C Brian Schneider
THOUGHTS???"
I promise you - by Sunday night/Monday morning, I'll be full-fledged baseball. I'm working on a month-long season preview. Trust me. First, a couple of more football loose ends to tie up, then a brief NASCAR pit stop. Then away we go with baseball. Please bear with me.
I should’ve known the Patriots’ downfall was coming. But unfortunately, I – and the rest of New England – forgot what it means to be a sports fan in this area. This was a cold, hard slap back into reality.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t plan a victory parade before the victory.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t apply for a trademark for “19-0” or “The Perfect Season” before you’ve had a perfect season.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t wear a red sweatshirt during the final game when your silly, gray hoodie has brought you luck all season.
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t get your hair cut before the big game and you don’t let your girlfriend sit in the luxury box (even if she is a supermodel).
Being a sports fan in Boston means you don’t go on your husband’s blog and guarantee victory for your team. (Sorry, that was stupid of me).
We only need to go back in history – 1986 when Roger Clemens left the dugout during Game 6 to shave for the post-game interviews, 2003 when the Red Sox grounds crew painted the World Series logo on the grounds of Fenway before the ALCS was over – to see that these are things you DON’T DO! Because when you do do them, you get screwed. And even if you don’t do them, you’ll probably still get screwed.
No, our sports history is based on suffering, heartache and blame. And now the cycle continues. Just when we thought we had won enough championships in recent years to have gotten rid of all jinxes, superstitions, and plain ol’ bad luck, and could turn all haughty and boastful, the sports gods have brought us back to reality. Face it: this is Boston. This is our legacy. We all should’ve known better.
GO SOX!!!
The thing that stood out most to me here - I thought I knew everything about Game 6 of the 1986 World Series - but I didn't know about the Roger Clemens shaving thing. So I looked it up on google, and it was on a blog or two, but I didn't trust that. So I went straight to the videotape. Early in the game, Clemens clearly has a little stubble (not confirmed by The Wife, who said, looking at the grainy video, "I can't tell, he's like 12."), and kind of has sideburns. Then, later, during Gary Carter's at bat in the 10th inning, he's in the dugout, and he's clean shaven. I couldn't find a definitive image from the early part of the game - but someone online somewhere took this picture of Clemens from his TV, and it is clear that Roger shaved:
Now, I know we have to turn the page to baseball. The Southern Bureau can't wait:
"Lets talk baseball. Forget football.
Mets projected lineup: courtesy mets.mlb.com
SS Jose Reyes
2B Luis Castillo
3B David Wright
OF Carlos Beltran
1B Carlos Delgado
OF Moises Alou
OF Ryan Church
C Brian Schneider
THOUGHTS???"
I promise you - by Sunday night/Monday morning, I'll be full-fledged baseball. I'm working on a month-long season preview. Trust me. First, a couple of more football loose ends to tie up, then a brief NASCAR pit stop. Then away we go with baseball. Please bear with me.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
SUPER BOWL XLII (IN PROGRESS)
I'm not going to be posting after the game, so I figure in between the third and fourth quarters is as good a time as any. Congratulations to people who had Patriots 7, Giants 3 in the squares - double winners. This has been an exciting 7-3 game. Here are my thoughts:
- The Giants defense has been as solid as a Giants fan could have hoped.
- Tom Petty sounded AWESOME at halftime. I'm not a huge fan - I'm a casual 'Greatest Hits'-type fan....but he was great. I would have figured him for a horrible, Bob Dylan-type voice, but he was great.
- Big play by Kevin Boss just now - first play by the Giants in the fourth quarter. Shockey who?
- Tom Brady might actually be hurt....he's not able to evade the Giants rush. I thought that was a media-overblown story.
- I don't care what color his skin is, Mike Carey is an excellent referee. (He became the first black referee in a Super Bowl Sunday night.)
A couple of predictions I didn't have the chance to put on the site before the game, but they came in well advance of the game - my dad picked Patriots 31, Giants 20. And then there's this from Rob in New Jersey:
"Hi John. Longtime reader, 4th or 5th time emailer. Love the site (...and all the rest of the email versions of the b.s. sports radio callers use to butter up the hosts in the hopes of getting more than the usual 23 seconds of air time). Anyway, I saw your prediction for the Super Bowl and your rationalization, and I couldn't help but take umbrage. And I wanted to register my umbrage before kickoff.
The idea that the 2007 Giants are the 2001 Patriots incarnate has been making me laugh. The 2001 Pats lost on November 18th of that year (to the Rams) and never lost again. They entered the SB on an eight game winning streak. Several of those wins were decisive. The Giants enter today's game on a three game winning streak (all three playoff games). They lost two of their final three games. In the one win, Eli Manning fumbled FIVE TIMES and threw 2 or 3 picks (can't remember which). Yes, they played the Patriots tough, but the Giants have not come close to duplicating the impressive pre-Super Bowl run of the 2001 Patriots, in my opinion. (I could provide more facts and figures, but nobody wants that.)
I may be proven to be a dope as the game unfolds, but I wanted to make sure my assessment didn't come off as Monday morning quarterbacking. Pats 41 - Giants 13. Keep up the good work!
-Rob
Cherry Hill, NJ"
Point taken, Rob. But I wasn't really looking that far back - I just meant in terms of Super Bowl matchups - not many people gave the 2001 Patriots a chance against the powerful Rams team, except for those who really knew the Patriots. The same happened this year with the Giants, in my opinion.
- Back to the bullets - the Giants just scored to take a 10-7 lead in the fourth quarter.
- That score reminds me of another thing - it sounds like (and on this broadcast, I realize it could be skewed) there are more Giants fans than Patriots fans. Although, I guess there has been more for a Giants fan to cheer for than a Pats fan up until now.
One more e-mail - I haven't exactly been tortured by the fact that the Giants are playing the Patriots - it's been an easy decision for me to root for the New York team, and against the perfect season. But it's downright torturous for my cousin - I think he intended for this to be published:
"We'll, the worst has happened. The Patriots and the Giants- a Jets fan's nightmare. I don't buyall this BS about a close game. We haven't had a good old fashioned blow out in a while at the Super Bowl. It used to happen every year. The Patriots will put an exclamation point on their perfect season with a big win. I'll say 42-17. The weather will be good and their experience will prevent any early jitters. The Giants have to have their luck run out soon. They were supposed to be bad. Their coach was supposed to be on the hot seat. Yours truly picked them to be 5-11. I still haven't gotten over week 5 when the Jets had them beat. Look at their post season so far. Tampa had barely beaten anyone all year. Dallas was banged up and playing lousy at the end of the year. Green Bay came out of no where this year. Who knows how good they really were? If I sound bitter, well I am. Too many crazy Giant fans yelling Phil Simms is a Hall of Fame QB while I was in High School. Brady broke Simms' completion % record earlier this post season. Now let him squash the Big Blue on Super Bowl Sunday. And the best part is that recent history tells us the the Super Bowl losers usually fair poorly the following year. Next year is a green and white year. Wait until next year..... Cuz"
I'm heading back to the couch. This should be a great ending. If it merits more writing, I'll revisit it on Monday. Post your reactions, if you have any, in the comments, or send along an e-mail.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
WHAT A GUY
As anyone who has read my blog knows, I always tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially, for some reason, if they play a professional sport. I don't know why that has been the case - maybe because for my whole life, I've put these people up on a pedestal.
Recently, that has changed. It started probably not with the players, but with the dishonesty of the coaches, that started opening my eyes to the fact that no one in professional sports deserved the benefit of the doubt. That's why I trust the Mitchell Report's allegations more than I trust the denials of the players involved, vehement though they may be. And when individual players admit to their transgressions, it just makes me believe the Report as a whole even more.
Everyone involved in professional sports has been taken down a peg in my book. And Major League Baseball players seem to be a little worse than the rest. To see a player defend cheaters, it makes me angry. And when cheaters rank higher in a player's book than replacement players, I get even more angry. Here are the words of Brad Ausmus, as reported by Nick Cafardo in the Boston Globe this past Sunday. Ausmus is talking about whether it will be troublesome for players named in the Mitchell Report to be accepted in the clubhouse.:
"I think in the case of the replacement players way back, they had a lot tougher time blending back into the clubhouse. This is totally different. I certainly am not going to demonize a player who was on the Mitchell Report. I feel badly for all of those guys. At the very worst, if all the allegations in that report are true, we're not talking about murder here. They aren't bad people. Throughout time, and in different sports, you've always had people trying to beat the system. They didn't do it to hurt anybody else, they did it because they wanted to get stronger and better."
The part that bothers me most (besides the fact that he's giving cheaters a free pass) is the shot at the replacement players. I know I can be making enemies with this statement, and that the baseball players' union can hunt me down and kill me for writing it, but I don't blame the replacement players. These are guys trying to earn a living doing what they love. I can't say that if I was a little (OK, a lot) more talented, I wouldn't have crossed the picket line to play a couple of weeks for the Mets, and make a dream come true. And then maybe if I was good enough, I could catch on, and make a career out of it, a la Rick Reed, or Kevin Millar. But those were guys that were demonized, and ostracized in clubhouses, when they were regular guys, non-cheaters (maybe), trying to earn a living. (And I don't buy for a minute that they were 'stealing bread from major leaguers' plates' - was there ever an instance where anyone thought the replacement players posed a threat to anything the million-dollar baseball players stood for?)
I feel like in an indirect way, while Ausmus is saying people named in the Mitchell Report aren't bad guys, he is saying the replacement players were, and that bothers me.
I also realize that Ausmus was probably close with Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, and will be playing next year with Miguel Tejada, all named in the Mitchell Report, and maybe he didn't want to rock any boats. But if that's the case, a simple 'no comment' would have worked wonders here.
E-MAIL: It appears I may have won some sort of Swiss e-mail lottery now.....
Recently, that has changed. It started probably not with the players, but with the dishonesty of the coaches, that started opening my eyes to the fact that no one in professional sports deserved the benefit of the doubt. That's why I trust the Mitchell Report's allegations more than I trust the denials of the players involved, vehement though they may be. And when individual players admit to their transgressions, it just makes me believe the Report as a whole even more.
Everyone involved in professional sports has been taken down a peg in my book. And Major League Baseball players seem to be a little worse than the rest. To see a player defend cheaters, it makes me angry. And when cheaters rank higher in a player's book than replacement players, I get even more angry. Here are the words of Brad Ausmus, as reported by Nick Cafardo in the Boston Globe this past Sunday. Ausmus is talking about whether it will be troublesome for players named in the Mitchell Report to be accepted in the clubhouse.:
"I think in the case of the replacement players way back, they had a lot tougher time blending back into the clubhouse. This is totally different. I certainly am not going to demonize a player who was on the Mitchell Report. I feel badly for all of those guys. At the very worst, if all the allegations in that report are true, we're not talking about murder here. They aren't bad people. Throughout time, and in different sports, you've always had people trying to beat the system. They didn't do it to hurt anybody else, they did it because they wanted to get stronger and better."The part that bothers me most (besides the fact that he's giving cheaters a free pass) is the shot at the replacement players. I know I can be making enemies with this statement, and that the baseball players' union can hunt me down and kill me for writing it, but I don't blame the replacement players. These are guys trying to earn a living doing what they love. I can't say that if I was a little (OK, a lot) more talented, I wouldn't have crossed the picket line to play a couple of weeks for the Mets, and make a dream come true. And then maybe if I was good enough, I could catch on, and make a career out of it, a la Rick Reed, or Kevin Millar. But those were guys that were demonized, and ostracized in clubhouses, when they were regular guys, non-cheaters (maybe), trying to earn a living. (And I don't buy for a minute that they were 'stealing bread from major leaguers' plates' - was there ever an instance where anyone thought the replacement players posed a threat to anything the million-dollar baseball players stood for?)
I feel like in an indirect way, while Ausmus is saying people named in the Mitchell Report aren't bad guys, he is saying the replacement players were, and that bothers me.
I also realize that Ausmus was probably close with Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, and will be playing next year with Miguel Tejada, all named in the Mitchell Report, and maybe he didn't want to rock any boats. But if that's the case, a simple 'no comment' would have worked wonders here.
E-MAIL: It appears I may have won some sort of Swiss e-mail lottery now.....
Thursday, January 10, 2008
CALLED TO THE HALL
I have lots of problems with lots of things. Trouble is, with some of these things, here's the way my mind works:
1) acknowledge problem
2) obsess over how troubling the problem is
3) move onto another problem to obsess over
Rarely does 2a) happen, but in this case it has. 2a) is this: Think of solution to problem, publish it on blog, and solve problem.
Here's what I've solved.
The problem is election into the baseball Hall of Fame. I have a big problem with the fact that a guy is not a Hall of Famer one year (maybe on his own merit, maybe in comparison to the people he's up for election with in a given year), and then in succeeding years, he gets closer and closer and closer to election, until one January day he gets the call and suddenly, he's a Hall of Famer! (Two things - I realize this system worked for Hall of Famer Gary Carter, but it's flawed to me, no matter which person I idolize benefits. Also, I realize that this is not the only problem with the system, but it's the only one I'm solving.)
Now, this is big news up by me these days because of Jim Rice, and how close he has gotten this year, and how likely it is that he will get in next year, after 15 years of eligibility (I think I have that right....I'm going sans looking up information here). (Also note that this is Jim Rice, pictured below. He's the Red Sox player about to be tagged out at home by Gary Carter in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series.).
What makes Rice a Hall of Famer now, after all these years, when he barely got 30% of the vote his first few times out? (Actually, with Rice, it's quite simple - the media are lording it over him that they control his Hall of Fame fate, because he was a downright jerk to them when he was playing. Since the media always gets the last laugh [you listening, Roger Clemens?], and he didn't stay on their good side, he's paying the price.)
My solution to this whole thing - wait more than 5 years on marginal candidates before you vote. Maybe give it ten years, and only leave them on the ballot for five years total. This way:
1) We're not subjected to year after year of voting, where a guy inches closer and closer and finally makes it.
2) A player, instead of campaigning and trying to win votes after his first year of eligibility and seeing how many more votes he needs, can spend 10 years building the case for candidacy before anyone votes at all.
3) A player like Jim Rice, who ticked off the writers, can have a longer cooling-off period (but, really, when it comes down to the media, they have long memories, and will hold the grudge no matter what).
4) With a player who is a lock for the Hall of Fame, the commissioner can step in and do something positive for the sport - waive the waiting period, or declare a 5-year waiting period, and that player can get in sooner.
I just thought I'd weigh in - it's rare that I can complain about something and offer some ideas to make it better. So I'm taking advantage of that opportunity.
AN E-MAIL: Thanks to Rob in New Jersey, who heard my desperate plea for e-mail and answered...in reference to my post last week about the Mangini cell phone ads:
"I was going to post a comment, but I didn't feel like taking the time to set up a log-in. Plus, I could tell you were jonesin' for an email to this address.
Re: Magini's Razr phone commercials... It also took me several viewing before I got the point.
Even though I agree with your take on the ads, allow me to pose an alternate theory: could it be that everyone in the city with a stake in Jets' outcomes or with things that cause angst is chucking his phone in frustration and they just end with Mangini showing his particular brand of frustration as a way of illustrating why the phones are turning up embedded in walls? In other words, could they be trying to make us think that Razrs are getting embedded in walls all over the place as people have things - Jets related or not - digust them? Hmmmm..."
If you want to meet someone who has obsessed over this longer and given it more thought than I, meet Rob. I think he's right - that's probably where all of the phones came from. It never seemed right that Mangini had about twenty phones and was chucking them into things all over Jersey. Thanks for making sense of that, Rob.
That said, I think we can all agree that if that is Belichick's voice at the end of the commercial (and the more I hear it now, the more I think it is), it's gotta be driving him nuts that he's tagging the end of a commercial starring Eric Mangini.
1) acknowledge problem
2) obsess over how troubling the problem is
3) move onto another problem to obsess over
Rarely does 2a) happen, but in this case it has. 2a) is this: Think of solution to problem, publish it on blog, and solve problem.
Here's what I've solved.
The problem is election into the baseball Hall of Fame. I have a big problem with the fact that a guy is not a Hall of Famer one year (maybe on his own merit, maybe in comparison to the people he's up for election with in a given year), and then in succeeding years, he gets closer and closer and closer to election, until one January day he gets the call and suddenly, he's a Hall of Famer! (Two things - I realize this system worked for Hall of Famer Gary Carter, but it's flawed to me, no matter which person I idolize benefits. Also, I realize that this is not the only problem with the system, but it's the only one I'm solving.)Now, this is big news up by me these days because of Jim Rice, and how close he has gotten this year, and how likely it is that he will get in next year, after 15 years of eligibility (I think I have that right....I'm going sans looking up information here). (Also note that this is Jim Rice, pictured below. He's the Red Sox player about to be tagged out at home by Gary Carter in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series.).
What makes Rice a Hall of Famer now, after all these years, when he barely got 30% of the vote his first few times out? (Actually, with Rice, it's quite simple - the media are lording it over him that they control his Hall of Fame fate, because he was a downright jerk to them when he was playing. Since the media always gets the last laugh [you listening, Roger Clemens?], and he didn't stay on their good side, he's paying the price.)
My solution to this whole thing - wait more than 5 years on marginal candidates before you vote. Maybe give it ten years, and only leave them on the ballot for five years total. This way:
1) We're not subjected to year after year of voting, where a guy inches closer and closer and finally makes it.
2) A player, instead of campaigning and trying to win votes after his first year of eligibility and seeing how many more votes he needs, can spend 10 years building the case for candidacy before anyone votes at all.
3) A player like Jim Rice, who ticked off the writers, can have a longer cooling-off period (but, really, when it comes down to the media, they have long memories, and will hold the grudge no matter what).
4) With a player who is a lock for the Hall of Fame, the commissioner can step in and do something positive for the sport - waive the waiting period, or declare a 5-year waiting period, and that player can get in sooner.
I just thought I'd weigh in - it's rare that I can complain about something and offer some ideas to make it better. So I'm taking advantage of that opportunity.
AN E-MAIL: Thanks to Rob in New Jersey, who heard my desperate plea for e-mail and answered...in reference to my post last week about the Mangini cell phone ads:
"I was going to post a comment, but I didn't feel like taking the time to set up a log-in. Plus, I could tell you were jonesin' for an email to this address.
Re: Magini's Razr phone commercials... It also took me several viewing before I got the point.
Even though I agree with your take on the ads, allow me to pose an alternate theory: could it be that everyone in the city with a stake in Jets' outcomes or with things that cause angst is chucking his phone in frustration and they just end with Mangini showing his particular brand of frustration as a way of illustrating why the phones are turning up embedded in walls? In other words, could they be trying to make us think that Razrs are getting embedded in walls all over the place as people have things - Jets related or not - digust them? Hmmmm..."
If you want to meet someone who has obsessed over this longer and given it more thought than I, meet Rob. I think he's right - that's probably where all of the phones came from. It never seemed right that Mangini had about twenty phones and was chucking them into things all over Jersey. Thanks for making sense of that, Rob.
That said, I think we can all agree that if that is Belichick's voice at the end of the commercial (and the more I hear it now, the more I think it is), it's gotta be driving him nuts that he's tagging the end of a commercial starring Eric Mangini.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
I WON!!!!
This has been driving me nuts lately. Perhaps it's because it's on a blog, and out there for all to see (see the top right hand side of this page), but my johnnymetsmail@yahoo.com e-mail address gets all kind of junk mail. I never get junk mail at my usual e-mail addresses, but that's because I only release those to legit businesses. But I get a ton at this one.
So each time I log in, it says I have 3 or 4 messages, and I get my hopes up that someone has e-mailed the site (it just doesn't happen much anymore, since I added the comments section), and it turns out that they're all junk. But not just any kind of junk - trick junk. To wit (I italicize so you can just skip past the rest of the letter when you have had enough, and get back to my analysis):
"The Irish Lottery
P O Box 1010
11 G Lower Dorset Street,
Dublin 1, Ireland
(Customer Services)
Ref: UK/9420X2/68
Batch: 074/05/ZY369
We happily announce to you the draw (#1004) of the IRISH LOTTERY online
Sweepstakes International program held on Saturday 05 January 2008. It
is now available for claims and you are getting the final NOTIFICATION
as
regards this.Your e-mail address attached to ticket number: 56475600545
188
with Serial number 5368/02 drew the lucky numbers:27, 29, 30, 33, 40,
43,
Bonus 36,which subsequently won you the lottery in the 1st category i.e
match 5 plus bonus.You have therefore been approved to claim a total
sum of
£1.35 Million (One million, three hundred and fifty thousand, pounds
sterling) in
cash credited to file KTU/9023118308/03. This is from a total cash
prize of
£4,419,864 shared amongst the (2) lucky winners in this category
i.e. Match 6 plus bonus. All participants for the online version were
selected randomly from World Wide Web sites through computer draw
system
and extracted from over 100,000 unions, associations, and corporate
bodies
that are listed online. This promotion takes place weekly.
To file for your claim, please contact our fiduciary agent:
Name: Mr. Curtis Smith,
E-mail: irishclaimscentre01@live.com
Tel :+44 70457 36906
Tel :( +44)-7045726069
Fill the Below informations and send to the fiduciary agent for your
claims verification:
1.Full Name:
2.Full Address:
3.Marital Status:
4.Occupation:
5.Age:
6.Sex:
7.Nationality:
8.Country Of Residence:
9.Telephone Number:
Congratulations from me and members of staff of THE IRISH LOTTERY.
Yours faithfully,
Sir. Wilson Frank
Online coordinator for THE IRISH LOTTERY
Sweepstakes International Program
Congratulations Lucky Winner !!! "
I can't really have won, can I? If I ignored the first 100 messages, would they keep sending me notices that I won? They'd probably have given up on me by now if this was a legit organization, right? But the big problem here is that I could have won an Irish lottery, and I just don't know.
And I'll continue not knowing - because they'll continue sending me notices, and I'll keep hitting delete. And don't get me started on the guy in Africa who keeps asking me to send money like we're long-lost pals.
I don't know what to make of this, but I figured, since I usually print e-mails from that e-mail address, I might as well print that one. I do know this: If I'm not cashing in on a possible Irish Lottery win....I'm probably missing out on a lot of potatoes and beer.
So each time I log in, it says I have 3 or 4 messages, and I get my hopes up that someone has e-mailed the site (it just doesn't happen much anymore, since I added the comments section), and it turns out that they're all junk. But not just any kind of junk - trick junk. To wit (I italicize so you can just skip past the rest of the letter when you have had enough, and get back to my analysis):
"The Irish Lottery
P O Box 1010
11 G Lower Dorset Street,
Dublin 1, Ireland
(Customer Services)
Ref: UK/9420X2/68
Batch: 074/05/ZY369
We happily announce to you the draw (#1004) of the IRISH LOTTERY online
Sweepstakes International program held on Saturday 05 January 2008. It
is now available for claims and you are getting the final NOTIFICATION
as
regards this.Your e-mail address attached to ticket number: 56475600545
188
with Serial number 5368/02 drew the lucky numbers:27, 29, 30, 33, 40,
43,
Bonus 36,which subsequently won you the lottery in the 1st category i.e
match 5 plus bonus.You have therefore been approved to claim a total
sum of
£1.35 Million (One million, three hundred and fifty thousand, pounds
sterling) in
cash credited to file KTU/9023118308/03. This is from a total cash
prize of
£4,419,864 shared amongst the (2) lucky winners in this category
i.e. Match 6 plus bonus. All participants for the online version were
selected randomly from World Wide Web sites through computer draw
system
and extracted from over 100,000 unions, associations, and corporate
bodies
that are listed online. This promotion takes place weekly.
To file for your claim, please contact our fiduciary agent:
Name: Mr. Curtis Smith,
E-mail: irishclaimscentre01@live.com
Tel :+44 70457 36906
Tel :( +44)-7045726069
Fill the Below informations and send to the fiduciary agent for your
claims verification:
1.Full Name:
2.Full Address:
3.Marital Status:
4.Occupation:
5.Age:
6.Sex:
7.Nationality:
8.Country Of Residence:
9.Telephone Number:
Congratulations from me and members of staff of THE IRISH LOTTERY.
Yours faithfully,
Sir. Wilson Frank
Online coordinator for THE IRISH LOTTERY
Sweepstakes International Program
Congratulations Lucky Winner !!! "
I can't really have won, can I? If I ignored the first 100 messages, would they keep sending me notices that I won? They'd probably have given up on me by now if this was a legit organization, right? But the big problem here is that I could have won an Irish lottery, and I just don't know.
And I'll continue not knowing - because they'll continue sending me notices, and I'll keep hitting delete. And don't get me started on the guy in Africa who keeps asking me to send money like we're long-lost pals.
I don't know what to make of this, but I figured, since I usually print e-mails from that e-mail address, I might as well print that one. I do know this: If I'm not cashing in on a possible Irish Lottery win....I'm probably missing out on a lot of potatoes and beer.
Friday, June 22, 2007
AN ODE TO MIKE MAROTH
I have never been a good fantasy baseball/sports player. I play too much with my heart, and not enough with my head...and usually that comes back to bite me in the end. It's my Achilles Heel when it comes to fantasy sports. Mike Maroth is a perfect example of playing with my heart, not with my head.You may remember Maroth as the young pitcher on the 2003 Detroit Tigers who challenged the record for losses in the season. He refused to sit out down the stretch, battled through the rest of the season, and finished with a 9-21 record for a team that lost 119 games.
I had Maroth on my team that year, and the next. I think my big rationale was that we weren't punished for losses, and I liked the fact that he went out and pitched every fifth day, and considering he lost 21 games, he didn't pitch horrendously. Maroth, if I remember correctly, was often the victim of one bad inning, where things would fall apart, and his ERA would rise as a result. But over the course of the season, Maroth improved, and on a better team he would have done much better. I was working in the TV sports business at the time, and there were times when Maroth would be taking no hitters into the sixth or seventh innings, and it would cross the wires as such...before he would implode (but the AP Sports Wire would alert when a pitcher had a no-hitter after about six innings). So I saw promise in Maroth, and I rewarded him by always making sure he was on my fantasy team.
I think most people do this - they develop a loyalty to a certain player who doesn't really help their team, but who they feel like they can reserve a spot on their fantasy team's bench for, just to say he's on their team. For me it's Maroth. For Dave in Brighton, if his blockbuster strategy allowed it, it would be Oliver Perez.
I think my loyalty, and my pulling for an underdog like Maroth, stems from a life of rooting for underachieving baseball teams and football teams. Sure, the Mets and Jets are doing well now, but the majority of my life has seen them struggling. I've stuck with them, though, and it's made me more loyal, more likely to block out the bad stuff and focus on the good. That's the way it was with Maroth.
Last year, he was pitching as well as anyone on the Tigers' staff as they made their dominant run through the American League, off to a 5-2 start with a 4.19 ERA...then he got hurt. I think he showed what kind of a pitcher he could be. And I think the St. Louis Cardinals saw that. And I think they made a great trade on Friday, acquiring Maroth from Detroit for a player to be named later. Unfortunately, with Maroth a Cardinal, my days of pulling for him may be nearing an end. I will, though, be keeping a close eye on his starts.
ANOTHER TRADE: On the radio show Thursday (www.blogtalkradio.com/johnnymets, I talked about how this weekend the Mets would be getting the A's' lineup at full strength, because Milton Bradley had just come back from injury. Well, I didn't realize there have been some issues between Bradley and the A's, and now he's been dealt out of Oakland - to the Royals, in exchange for pitcher Leo Nunez.
COMMENTS/E-MAIL: Hilarious comment by the Southern Bureau. I've not deleted Rodrigo's comment just so the Southern Bureau's stays relevant. And then there's this e-mail from Justin from NYC - always entertaining when Justin's in the inbox:
"time for another addition of "Justin was just as screwed up as johnny when he was a kid"
As far as the baseball card situation...
I can tell you the exact date of this occurrence.. cause it was the night Letterman debuted on CBS: August 30, 1993.
I slept at my friend Izzy's house that night, so we could watch the big show. (Billy Joel was the musical guest, by the way) But at about 9 o'clock we started leafing through his baseball cards. Both of us had boxes and boxes of cards.. as well as albums completely filled up. We decided to draft teams. So we grabbed a handful of random cards, spread them out on the floor, and drafted our teams. I have no idea what we were gonna do to determine which team was better, but we picked anyway. Well, that took about an hour.. but we wanted to keep going. So we grabbed another handful.. and started adding to our teams. 25 guys on the major league roster, and 25 on the minor league roster. Well, soon.. we each had a major league team, a AAA team, a AA team and three A teams. Then the trading began. All i remember is that he held me up for hours as I tried to acquire Mike Myers, cause i needed a situational lefty for my AAA team.
(Myers was a tigers farmhand at that point).
So.. we got so into it.. We barely watched letterman. It was background noise while we wheeled and dealed..."
Saturday, March 10, 2007
PURE HILARITY
A couple of funny items, the first an e-mail, of course from none other than Justin in NYC, and then a joke of my own making:
"IM A COUPLE DAYS BEHIND.. I JUST READ ABOUT HOW YOU READ BASEBALL PREVIEWS.. AND IT ONCE AGAIN REINFORCED HOW YOU ARE INSANE.. JUST LIKE ME.
WHILE I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC SYSTEM FOR READING PREVIEW ISSUES (EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I FORCE MYSELF TO READ EVERY WORD AND NOT SKIP AHEAD TO MY FAVORITE TEAM, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE LISTED IN THE TABLE OF CONTENTS).. I DO HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC PROCEDURE FOR READING SPORTS ILLUSTRATED...
1) LOOK AT THE THREE PICTURES AT THE FRONT
2) I ALWAYS SKIP THE EDITORS NOTE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
3) I READ EVERY LETTER, AND COMMENT OUT LOUD ON WHETHER I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE LETTER WRITER'S OPINION
4) I READ THE SCORECARD SECTION (WHICH AS OF TWO WEEKS AGO HAS BEEN MELDED WITH THE SI PLAYERS SECTION, WHICH IS GOOD CAUSE THAT'S A COOL SECTION THAT I ALSO LIKE AND USUALLY READ 5) NEXT)
6) THUMB THROUGH THE MAGAZINE AND DECIDE WHICH ARTICLES I WILL EVENTUALLY READ AND IN WHAT ORDER (AGAIN.. THIS IS DONE OUT LOUD)
7) I READ THE INSIDE SPORTS SECTIONS (INSIDE BASEBALL, HOCKEY, THE NBA ARE MUSTS..AS IS THE ONCE A YEAR COLLEGE HOCKET ONE... NFL AND COLLEGE BASKETBALL ARE READ 75% OF THE TIME... TENNIS AND OLYMPIC SPORTS ARE ONLY READ IF IM TRAPPED IN THE BATHROOM AND I'VE READ EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE MAGAZINE. INSIDE MOTOR SPORTS IS NEVER READ UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
8) FINALLY I GO BACK AND READ THE ARTICLES IN THE PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED ORDER."
I feel like Justin just got through yelling at us. I've just come to the decision I prefer all lowercase to all caps. The funniest thing from Justin's e-mail has to be the fact that some of this is done out loud. The saddest thing...when I did get Sports Illustrated, I read it the very same way, but then I stopped reading the articles due to time constraints, and cancelled my subscription.
AND THEN THIS: The other night during the Rangers-Islanders game, Chris Simon swung his stick viciously and nailed Ryan Hollweg. Simon was suspended indefinitely by the NHL.
The NHL is trying to make players think of the consequences before they behave carelessly with their sticks. The NFL is now thinking about adopting a similar protocol for Tom Brady.
"IM A COUPLE DAYS BEHIND.. I JUST READ ABOUT HOW YOU READ BASEBALL PREVIEWS.. AND IT ONCE AGAIN REINFORCED HOW YOU ARE INSANE.. JUST LIKE ME.
WHILE I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC SYSTEM FOR READING PREVIEW ISSUES (EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I FORCE MYSELF TO READ EVERY WORD AND NOT SKIP AHEAD TO MY FAVORITE TEAM, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE LISTED IN THE TABLE OF CONTENTS).. I DO HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC PROCEDURE FOR READING SPORTS ILLUSTRATED...
1) LOOK AT THE THREE PICTURES AT THE FRONT
2) I ALWAYS SKIP THE EDITORS NOTE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
3) I READ EVERY LETTER, AND COMMENT OUT LOUD ON WHETHER I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE LETTER WRITER'S OPINION
4) I READ THE SCORECARD SECTION (WHICH AS OF TWO WEEKS AGO HAS BEEN MELDED WITH THE SI PLAYERS SECTION, WHICH IS GOOD CAUSE THAT'S A COOL SECTION THAT I ALSO LIKE AND USUALLY READ 5) NEXT)
6) THUMB THROUGH THE MAGAZINE AND DECIDE WHICH ARTICLES I WILL EVENTUALLY READ AND IN WHAT ORDER (AGAIN.. THIS IS DONE OUT LOUD)
7) I READ THE INSIDE SPORTS SECTIONS (INSIDE BASEBALL, HOCKEY, THE NBA ARE MUSTS..AS IS THE ONCE A YEAR COLLEGE HOCKET ONE... NFL AND COLLEGE BASKETBALL ARE READ 75% OF THE TIME... TENNIS AND OLYMPIC SPORTS ARE ONLY READ IF IM TRAPPED IN THE BATHROOM AND I'VE READ EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE MAGAZINE. INSIDE MOTOR SPORTS IS NEVER READ UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
8) FINALLY I GO BACK AND READ THE ARTICLES IN THE PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED ORDER."
I feel like Justin just got through yelling at us. I've just come to the decision I prefer all lowercase to all caps. The funniest thing from Justin's e-mail has to be the fact that some of this is done out loud. The saddest thing...when I did get Sports Illustrated, I read it the very same way, but then I stopped reading the articles due to time constraints, and cancelled my subscription.
AND THEN THIS: The other night during the Rangers-Islanders game, Chris Simon swung his stick viciously and nailed Ryan Hollweg. Simon was suspended indefinitely by the NHL.
The NHL is trying to make players think of the consequences before they behave carelessly with their sticks. The NFL is now thinking about adopting a similar protocol for Tom Brady.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
METS BOOK REVIEW
I'm going to spend a bit of time today writing about how I spent part of my off-season:
Last year at about this time, New York Daily News Mets beat writer Adam Rubin put out a book (seen at the right
) called "Pedro, Carlos, and Omar". The book is about the Mets' pursuit of, and free agent signings of, Pedro Martinez* and Carlos Beltran*. It also recapped the 2005 season. I did not read this book last year. But I was in Barnes & Noble about a month ago, and saw an updated version of the book, and bought it. And read it. It was OK.
The version of the book I have is called, "Pedro, Carlos & Carlos! and Omar", and it adds the addition of Carlos Delgado in 2006, after the Mets' failed negotiations with him the previous year. It also recaps some of the 2006 season, mainly the highlights.
I'm going to try not to be too critical, because I have never written a book like this, so I don't know how one goes about doing this. But I found this book to be awfully repetitive. Events were repeated over and over from chapter to chapter. Part of me wonders if it is because parts of the book were excerpted and printed in the Daily News, so Rubin repeated himself at times so the excerpts would make sense, but that strikes me as an odd way to approach a book. Another problem I had with the book was that there was a factual error in it, and anytime I see one factual error, it leads me to believe there are others which I may not have caught. In this case, it wasn't a baseball error, but it was in reference to the Patriots winning the Super Bowl against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I can't find the error as I do my fact-checking, but it was supposed to be Philadelphia Eagles, not the Steelers. I can't remember the context even...but that's carelessness. I have plenty of mistakes on my blog...but a blog isn't a book. Maybe I'm critical because I'm jealous that this guy put out a book on something I could have put out a book on. But if I put out the book, I know I wouldn't have two AFC teams facing each other in the Super Bowl.
The last complaint I have is that too many times Rubin refers to himself. "I asked him after the game...", "He told me.....". That bothers me. Don't throw yourself into a story. I don't care that you were talking to him, I just care what he said.
Other than those errors, the book let me re-visit what was a pretty entertaining 2005 season. The pain of Braden Looper, though, was a constant in the book. That was not fun. Pedro* got robbed so many times that year because of Looper - right from the very start - Opening Day. And my ill-fated VCR plan. (Not in the book.)
The final thing I will say about the book is that I remember it being billed as the pursuit of free agents Martinez* and Beltran*. One or two chapters talk about that...then it's a recap of the season.
Bottom line - save yourself some money, go through the Daily News archives, and you'll be getting the same information. (Or better yet, go through the 2005 johnnymets.blogspot.com entries!)
E-MAIL: Our first e-mail of the 2007 season comes from a true-blue (though mostly negative) Mets fan, Steve from Queens:
"Johnnymets -
I am glad that you are back to writing about the Mets. Hopefully this will be a fun filled season from start, but more importantly, to FINISH.
Just wondering your thoughts on the other team in NY. What do you make of the A-Rod and Jeter, no longer best friends, thing? I personally think A-Rod is crazy for saying the things he said to the media. "That he and Jeter don't go out to eat 4 or 5 times a week anymore". or that he doens't sleep over Jeter's home anymore. What is going on here. A-Rod has 25 million new friends a year and he is waisting people's time talking about how he and Jeter aren't what they used to be? I just don't get it. Please share your thoughts with us.
By the way, I love that the press on the Yankees is about those two, while the press on the Mets is about how players on the team thinks they can win the World Series this year and on Beltran trying to steal more bases.
See ya
Steve from Queens."
Yeah, good stuff from the Mets on Monday - Beltran* spoke about how he wants to try to run more, and Willie Randolph said he thinks Beltran* could give THE GREATEST BALLPLAYER WHO EVER LIVED, Jose Reyes, a run for his money in the steals department. The Mets are talking baseball, the Yankees are talking "Best Friends Forever".
It is just strange that this is what A-Rod talks about to the media -the relationship between him and Jeter. There must have been some kind of fight over a girl or something somewhere along the line that caused these two to have some sort of rift, and A-Rod is still sore about it, and felt the need to take a dig by mentioning this to the media on Monday. Weird. I no longer live in New York, but I follow the sports pages there pretty closely, and I didn't think the Jeter/A-Rod friendship was on many people's minds this week. I could be wrong.
And then why would you mention sleeping over each other's houses? That's an unnecessary part of the whole equation that we could do without knowing. What are you, 11-year-old girls? Or professional ballplayers?
RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM THE SOUTHERN BUREAU: I think the Southern Bureau mis-read my NASCAR bit...or I mis-wrote it. I wrote that before the scoring was out, so I anticipated being in the middle of the pack, based on my Daytona 500 drivers versus everyone else's. I think the Southern Bureau thought I meant I was comparing my drivers over the course of the season. This is because I am actually in last place after the Daytona 500...a shocking and unexpected development. Thanks for your concern, Southern Bureau, but I am well aware of the rules. And I will make my move next week.
Last year at about this time, New York Daily News Mets beat writer Adam Rubin put out a book (seen at the right
) called "Pedro, Carlos, and Omar". The book is about the Mets' pursuit of, and free agent signings of, Pedro Martinez* and Carlos Beltran*. It also recapped the 2005 season. I did not read this book last year. But I was in Barnes & Noble about a month ago, and saw an updated version of the book, and bought it. And read it. It was OK.The version of the book I have is called, "Pedro, Carlos & Carlos! and Omar", and it adds the addition of Carlos Delgado in 2006, after the Mets' failed negotiations with him the previous year. It also recaps some of the 2006 season, mainly the highlights.
I'm going to try not to be too critical, because I have never written a book like this, so I don't know how one goes about doing this. But I found this book to be awfully repetitive. Events were repeated over and over from chapter to chapter. Part of me wonders if it is because parts of the book were excerpted and printed in the Daily News, so Rubin repeated himself at times so the excerpts would make sense, but that strikes me as an odd way to approach a book. Another problem I had with the book was that there was a factual error in it, and anytime I see one factual error, it leads me to believe there are others which I may not have caught. In this case, it wasn't a baseball error, but it was in reference to the Patriots winning the Super Bowl against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I can't find the error as I do my fact-checking, but it was supposed to be Philadelphia Eagles, not the Steelers. I can't remember the context even...but that's carelessness. I have plenty of mistakes on my blog...but a blog isn't a book. Maybe I'm critical because I'm jealous that this guy put out a book on something I could have put out a book on. But if I put out the book, I know I wouldn't have two AFC teams facing each other in the Super Bowl.
The last complaint I have is that too many times Rubin refers to himself. "I asked him after the game...", "He told me.....". That bothers me. Don't throw yourself into a story. I don't care that you were talking to him, I just care what he said.
Other than those errors, the book let me re-visit what was a pretty entertaining 2005 season. The pain of Braden Looper, though, was a constant in the book. That was not fun. Pedro* got robbed so many times that year because of Looper - right from the very start - Opening Day. And my ill-fated VCR plan. (Not in the book.)
The final thing I will say about the book is that I remember it being billed as the pursuit of free agents Martinez* and Beltran*. One or two chapters talk about that...then it's a recap of the season.
Bottom line - save yourself some money, go through the Daily News archives, and you'll be getting the same information. (Or better yet, go through the 2005 johnnymets.blogspot.com entries!)
E-MAIL: Our first e-mail of the 2007 season comes from a true-blue (though mostly negative) Mets fan, Steve from Queens:
"Johnnymets -
I am glad that you are back to writing about the Mets. Hopefully this will be a fun filled season from start, but more importantly, to FINISH.
Just wondering your thoughts on the other team in NY. What do you make of the A-Rod and Jeter, no longer best friends, thing? I personally think A-Rod is crazy for saying the things he said to the media. "That he and Jeter don't go out to eat 4 or 5 times a week anymore". or that he doens't sleep over Jeter's home anymore. What is going on here. A-Rod has 25 million new friends a year and he is waisting people's time talking about how he and Jeter aren't what they used to be? I just don't get it. Please share your thoughts with us.
By the way, I love that the press on the Yankees is about those two, while the press on the Mets is about how players on the team thinks they can win the World Series this year and on Beltran trying to steal more bases.
See ya
Steve from Queens."
Yeah, good stuff from the Mets on Monday - Beltran* spoke about how he wants to try to run more, and Willie Randolph said he thinks Beltran* could give THE GREATEST BALLPLAYER WHO EVER LIVED, Jose Reyes, a run for his money in the steals department. The Mets are talking baseball, the Yankees are talking "Best Friends Forever".
It is just strange that this is what A-Rod talks about to the media -the relationship between him and Jeter. There must have been some kind of fight over a girl or something somewhere along the line that caused these two to have some sort of rift, and A-Rod is still sore about it, and felt the need to take a dig by mentioning this to the media on Monday. Weird. I no longer live in New York, but I follow the sports pages there pretty closely, and I didn't think the Jeter/A-Rod friendship was on many people's minds this week. I could be wrong.
And then why would you mention sleeping over each other's houses? That's an unnecessary part of the whole equation that we could do without knowing. What are you, 11-year-old girls? Or professional ballplayers?
RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM THE SOUTHERN BUREAU: I think the Southern Bureau mis-read my NASCAR bit...or I mis-wrote it. I wrote that before the scoring was out, so I anticipated being in the middle of the pack, based on my Daytona 500 drivers versus everyone else's. I think the Southern Bureau thought I meant I was comparing my drivers over the course of the season. This is because I am actually in last place after the Daytona 500...a shocking and unexpected development. Thanks for your concern, Southern Bureau, but I am well aware of the rules. And I will make my move next week.
Monday, October 23, 2006
NOW IT ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE
It was really bothering me that the Mets were eliminated from the playoffs, while Kenny Rogers was having so much post-season success (why? I won't bring up 1999 again).
It was really bothering me that the Mets didn't get their chance to ruin Rogers' near-perfect post-season.
It was really bothering me that Rogers was having a near-perfect post-season.
How could this happen? Well, naturally, he's cheating, that's how.
And all of a sudden, the Kenny Rogers story makes perfect sense.
I didn't see Game 2 of the World Series. (I can't bring myself to watch, really.) But I have heard multiple stories, seen a little bit of the video - and that ain't dirt Kenny. And there's picture evidence, which I've lifted off of ESPN.com, that shows that Kenny Rogers had this same thing going on in Game 3 of the ALCS. Coincidence? I think not:
It was really bothering me that the Mets didn't get their chance to ruin Rogers' near-perfect post-season.
It was really bothering me that Rogers was having a near-perfect post-season.
How could this happen? Well, naturally, he's cheating, that's how.
And all of a sudden, the Kenny Rogers story makes perfect sense.
I didn't see Game 2 of the World Series. (I can't bring myself to watch, really.) But I have heard multiple stories, seen a little bit of the video - and that ain't dirt Kenny. And there's picture evidence, which I've lifted off of ESPN.com, that shows that Kenny Rogers had this same thing going on in Game 3 of the ALCS. Coincidence? I think not:
You can clearly see the brown mark (pine tar?) in the same spot in both pictures. My theory? Maybe he just grips the ball better. But something unnatural is going on.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently Tony LaRussa came out to talk to the umps about this, but didn't really challenge it greatly. There's a bunch of conspirators out there, and this is one conspiracy I'm on board with. The rumors that LaRussa is not going after Rogers because of his friendship with Jim Leyland seem to be false - I'm going with the theory that LaRussa doesn't want to bust Rogers because then his own pitchers come under scrutiny, and they may be taking part in some untoward behavior themselves.
And thereby we have the Mets connection. The dominance of Jeff's Weaver and Suppan? Maybe they were cheating. Just a thought - there's a parallel here between Weaver and Rogers - mainly, they suck, and they're both pitching lights-out right now. Something's up.
(I would be remiss if I didn't bring up Oliver Perez's sudden success. I hate to point the finger at a Met....but while the accusations are flying around....)
Just a thought - assuming a good pitcher like Tom Glavine is just going with his regular stuff, he has a good first outing, then hitters see the likes of Weaver, Perez, John Maine (maybe), and then they get back to Glavine, who's not cheating, maybe his stuff looks a lot better the second time around, and that's why the Mets lose Game 5. Just a thought.
Long story short - I feel cheated. And I blame my own personal nemesis, cameraman-assaulting Kenny Rogers.
MAIL CALL: Just checked my e-mail - Dave in Brighton left me a message with the two pictures I just showed above. He asks, "What do you think, cheater?" I think I've stated my case. Sorry I didn't check e-mail before I wrote, I could have attributed the pictures to you, Dave, instead of where I got them from.
Friday, October 13, 2006
SO DISAPPOINTING
Cardinals 9, Mets 6 (Series tied 1-1)
Two inches. That's how close the Mets came to probably having a 2-0 series lead instead of being tied 1-1. Shawn Green missed catching Scott Speizio's triple by two inches. Maybe less. I'm not going to say that Green should have caught that ball - it was a very tough play. Actually, he kept the Mets in the game by getting a glove on it, preventing a home run, and keeping the game tied at 6. But had he moved his glove two inches to his left, the Mets would have had a 6-4 lead, and would have had Billy Wagner in the game in a save situation, and things could have been a whole lot different.
Tony LaRussa really made all the right moves in this game. Starting Speizio. Subbing in So Taguchi late in the 8th inning. Tyler Johnson to face Carlos Delgado to start the ninth. Putting Scott Rolen in along with Adam Wainwright in the 9th, and seeing Rolen rob David Wright of a base hit, making the second out of the ninth inning. Chalk one up in the LaRussa column.
I still feel confident in Wagner in save situations. Something's different with these guys in non-save situations, and it's very frustrating, but it always seems to be the case. Billy Wagner has been untouchable in save situations - he only gets himself in trouble when he puts people on. But in a tie game, he comes in and gives up a homer. Then two more runs. I don't think Willie Randolph made a bad decision putting Wagner in the game - his hands were tied. After lifting Maine, the Mets were going to be in trouble by the 8th inning, after using Chad Bradford (great outing), Pedro Feliciano (good third of an inning), Guillermo Mota (first bad outing in a while), and Aaron Heilman (awesome). They needed to use Wagner in the 9th - because there wasn't going to be a save situation anymore. The only thing to hope now is that he bounces back - and didn't throw too many pitches.
The one bad decision I think the Mets have made this post-season is keeping Cliff Floyd on the roster for the NLCS. He can barely walk, and barely lasted an inning and a half, and like I wrote about after Game 1, might not be available for more than pinch hitting duty. Endy Chavez has done a great job filling in, but he should have been given the left field job from the get-go in this round. Now the Mets are one reliever short, and could have jeopardized having Floyd in the World Series, if they make it. They should have allowed him to rest, because by doing so they would have improved their Series chances.
If you would have asked me what I wanted to see from the Mets in this game, I would have told you they need to jump out to an early lead, set Chris Carpenter in his place. And thanks to a Carlos Delgado 3-run homer in the first, that's what the Mets did. They led 3-0, 4-2, and 6-4, and blew those leads. That's not Mets baseball. FOX alluded to the fact that the Mets bullpen has been overworked - I don't think so. They just came off five days of rest. I agree they've been getting a lot of work, but they're not overworked.
That said, Game 3 will be huge for the Mets. Steve Trachsel needs to pitch well, and needs to go deep into this game. It wouldn't hurt the Mets to win big, too - run up the score a little bit so that the bullpen, if it is used, has some wiggle room. And Billy Wagner can sit a game out.
Some thoughts on a couple of players:
DELGADO: I meant to say this the other night, but I better not hear anymore that Delgado was the longest-tenured player to never reach the post-season. I don't care. The minute he played in Game 1 against the Dodgers this became a non-story. He's in the post-season. And man, has he thrived. His two homers tonight were huge - but so was his error.
MAINE: He was hurt by the error, but he isn't doing himself any favors struggling to find the plate. He's throwing too many pitches, and too many balls. I also felt that his August 22nd start against the Cardinals, where he got tagged for 7 runs, may prove to be important because he learned not to let Albert Pujols beat the Mets - he had all 7 RBI.
GREEN: I was just mentioning to my dad tonight that getting Shawn Green was a great deal for the Mets. I'm not sure how much I wrote about it at the time, but I wasn't a fan of the move. I thought Green was on the fast track towards "washed up", and wouldn't contribute. I was wrong. First of all, he's got right field locked up for the Mets - could you imagine if the Mets had Lastings Milledge out there in this series? They'd be in trouble. He's a threat in the lineup, and he's a good influence in the clubhouse. All positives. And he almost made the great play in Game 2 to get the Mets a win. Almost.
MEDIA: A couple of notes on the media. I started Game 2 listening to the first couple of innings on the radio, because I had to pick up my mom at the train station. Dan Schulman and Dave Campbell. Campbell was really ticking me off - he was very down on the Mets. He didn't give the Mets any credit - talking about how poorly St. Louis played, rather than how well the Mets played in Game 1. That bothered me.
Also, I love that super slo-mo camera FOX has - it's really good for breaking down a guy's swing. It's also a really good teaching tool, watching the way major leaguers swing. And for this series, they not only have the camera trained on the hitter, but on certain plays in the field. And I like that because it makes some of those plays look cool.
MAIL: Two entries in the mailbag - actually, one's from the comments section (The Southern Bureau one), and the other's from the mailbag (Steve in Queens). They're very related, so I'll post them both, then respond:
"Watching Jeff Weaver shut down the Mets for half the game reminded me again how the American League is going to KILL whoever the NL team is.
Weaver was CUT from an AL team just months ago for being TERRIBLE, and now he almost wins a game in the NLCS.
Unreal. I think a third straight sweep is on the way. But lets all enjoy the Mets run until then...for Johnny's daughter's sake."
"Johnnymets -
I understand your desire to have every team play each other at least once in the World Series, but you are a Mets fan first. I want to know who you think will be an easier matchup for the Mets in the WS. I think that the Mets would destroy Oakland and will have trouble with the Tigers. Therefore, I do not want the Tigers to make it to the WS. Putting aside your desire of WS matchups, do you agree or disagree.
Also, one of my friends from work was able to get me a ticket to tonight's game. As you well know, I am slightly concerned about the frigid weather that has been forecasted for this evening. Anyway, LETS GO METS.
Steve from Queens"
I'll go backwards here. First off, Steve is cold-blooded and doesn't like being out in the cold weather. So that explains that. Secondly, as for a possible World Series matchup, I think both of these comments are very similar.
I think it's safe to say the Detroit Tigers are going to the World Series (up 3 games to 0). And watching them play the past six games, I can't believe I once thought the Twins or Yankees would be tougher opponents. So to that end, I agree with you Steve - the Mets would probably be better off facing Oakland. (All of this assumes the Mets will play better in the remaining NLCS games and advance.)
As for how the Mets would do against the AL entry (Detroit), I have no idea. If any team has the bats to challenge the Detroit arms, it's the Mets (although it was also the Yankees). I'd like to see the Mets get that opportunity, that's for sure. I do think the Mets match up a whole lot better than St. Louis (they might be sweep numbers 1 and 3 in a row for the NL if they make it).
Losing Game 2 of the NLCS, and the chance for a sweep, hurts the Mets' chances of setting up their best pitcher (Tom Glavine) for Game 1 of the World Series. But I think Detroit-Mets makes for a great matchup - the Mets have the most AL-style lineup in the NL (and now AL-style starting pitching), and the Tigers play the most NL-style ball in the AL. We'll get into this more if I'm lucky enough to be writing a Mets-Detroit World Series preview.
Very big Game 3 for the Mets - and Steve Trachsel - Saturday night. It also wouldn't hurt for the A's to steal a couple and push the Tigers one or two more games.
Two inches. That's how close the Mets came to probably having a 2-0 series lead instead of being tied 1-1. Shawn Green missed catching Scott Speizio's triple by two inches. Maybe less. I'm not going to say that Green should have caught that ball - it was a very tough play. Actually, he kept the Mets in the game by getting a glove on it, preventing a home run, and keeping the game tied at 6. But had he moved his glove two inches to his left, the Mets would have had a 6-4 lead, and would have had Billy Wagner in the game in a save situation, and things could have been a whole lot different.
Tony LaRussa really made all the right moves in this game. Starting Speizio. Subbing in So Taguchi late in the 8th inning. Tyler Johnson to face Carlos Delgado to start the ninth. Putting Scott Rolen in along with Adam Wainwright in the 9th, and seeing Rolen rob David Wright of a base hit, making the second out of the ninth inning. Chalk one up in the LaRussa column.
I still feel confident in Wagner in save situations. Something's different with these guys in non-save situations, and it's very frustrating, but it always seems to be the case. Billy Wagner has been untouchable in save situations - he only gets himself in trouble when he puts people on. But in a tie game, he comes in and gives up a homer. Then two more runs. I don't think Willie Randolph made a bad decision putting Wagner in the game - his hands were tied. After lifting Maine, the Mets were going to be in trouble by the 8th inning, after using Chad Bradford (great outing), Pedro Feliciano (good third of an inning), Guillermo Mota (first bad outing in a while), and Aaron Heilman (awesome). They needed to use Wagner in the 9th - because there wasn't going to be a save situation anymore. The only thing to hope now is that he bounces back - and didn't throw too many pitches.
The one bad decision I think the Mets have made this post-season is keeping Cliff Floyd on the roster for the NLCS. He can barely walk, and barely lasted an inning and a half, and like I wrote about after Game 1, might not be available for more than pinch hitting duty. Endy Chavez has done a great job filling in, but he should have been given the left field job from the get-go in this round. Now the Mets are one reliever short, and could have jeopardized having Floyd in the World Series, if they make it. They should have allowed him to rest, because by doing so they would have improved their Series chances.
If you would have asked me what I wanted to see from the Mets in this game, I would have told you they need to jump out to an early lead, set Chris Carpenter in his place. And thanks to a Carlos Delgado 3-run homer in the first, that's what the Mets did. They led 3-0, 4-2, and 6-4, and blew those leads. That's not Mets baseball. FOX alluded to the fact that the Mets bullpen has been overworked - I don't think so. They just came off five days of rest. I agree they've been getting a lot of work, but they're not overworked.
That said, Game 3 will be huge for the Mets. Steve Trachsel needs to pitch well, and needs to go deep into this game. It wouldn't hurt the Mets to win big, too - run up the score a little bit so that the bullpen, if it is used, has some wiggle room. And Billy Wagner can sit a game out.
Some thoughts on a couple of players:
DELGADO: I meant to say this the other night, but I better not hear anymore that Delgado was the longest-tenured player to never reach the post-season. I don't care. The minute he played in Game 1 against the Dodgers this became a non-story. He's in the post-season. And man, has he thrived. His two homers tonight were huge - but so was his error.
MAINE: He was hurt by the error, but he isn't doing himself any favors struggling to find the plate. He's throwing too many pitches, and too many balls. I also felt that his August 22nd start against the Cardinals, where he got tagged for 7 runs, may prove to be important because he learned not to let Albert Pujols beat the Mets - he had all 7 RBI.
GREEN: I was just mentioning to my dad tonight that getting Shawn Green was a great deal for the Mets. I'm not sure how much I wrote about it at the time, but I wasn't a fan of the move. I thought Green was on the fast track towards "washed up", and wouldn't contribute. I was wrong. First of all, he's got right field locked up for the Mets - could you imagine if the Mets had Lastings Milledge out there in this series? They'd be in trouble. He's a threat in the lineup, and he's a good influence in the clubhouse. All positives. And he almost made the great play in Game 2 to get the Mets a win. Almost.
MEDIA: A couple of notes on the media. I started Game 2 listening to the first couple of innings on the radio, because I had to pick up my mom at the train station. Dan Schulman and Dave Campbell. Campbell was really ticking me off - he was very down on the Mets. He didn't give the Mets any credit - talking about how poorly St. Louis played, rather than how well the Mets played in Game 1. That bothered me.
Also, I love that super slo-mo camera FOX has - it's really good for breaking down a guy's swing. It's also a really good teaching tool, watching the way major leaguers swing. And for this series, they not only have the camera trained on the hitter, but on certain plays in the field. And I like that because it makes some of those plays look cool.
MAIL: Two entries in the mailbag - actually, one's from the comments section (The Southern Bureau one), and the other's from the mailbag (Steve in Queens). They're very related, so I'll post them both, then respond:
"Watching Jeff Weaver shut down the Mets for half the game reminded me again how the American League is going to KILL whoever the NL team is.
Weaver was CUT from an AL team just months ago for being TERRIBLE, and now he almost wins a game in the NLCS.
Unreal. I think a third straight sweep is on the way. But lets all enjoy the Mets run until then...for Johnny's daughter's sake."
"Johnnymets -
I understand your desire to have every team play each other at least once in the World Series, but you are a Mets fan first. I want to know who you think will be an easier matchup for the Mets in the WS. I think that the Mets would destroy Oakland and will have trouble with the Tigers. Therefore, I do not want the Tigers to make it to the WS. Putting aside your desire of WS matchups, do you agree or disagree.
Also, one of my friends from work was able to get me a ticket to tonight's game. As you well know, I am slightly concerned about the frigid weather that has been forecasted for this evening. Anyway, LETS GO METS.
Steve from Queens"
I'll go backwards here. First off, Steve is cold-blooded and doesn't like being out in the cold weather. So that explains that. Secondly, as for a possible World Series matchup, I think both of these comments are very similar.
I think it's safe to say the Detroit Tigers are going to the World Series (up 3 games to 0). And watching them play the past six games, I can't believe I once thought the Twins or Yankees would be tougher opponents. So to that end, I agree with you Steve - the Mets would probably be better off facing Oakland. (All of this assumes the Mets will play better in the remaining NLCS games and advance.)
As for how the Mets would do against the AL entry (Detroit), I have no idea. If any team has the bats to challenge the Detroit arms, it's the Mets (although it was also the Yankees). I'd like to see the Mets get that opportunity, that's for sure. I do think the Mets match up a whole lot better than St. Louis (they might be sweep numbers 1 and 3 in a row for the NL if they make it).
Losing Game 2 of the NLCS, and the chance for a sweep, hurts the Mets' chances of setting up their best pitcher (Tom Glavine) for Game 1 of the World Series. But I think Detroit-Mets makes for a great matchup - the Mets have the most AL-style lineup in the NL (and now AL-style starting pitching), and the Tigers play the most NL-style ball in the AL. We'll get into this more if I'm lucky enough to be writing a Mets-Detroit World Series preview.
Very big Game 3 for the Mets - and Steve Trachsel - Saturday night. It also wouldn't hurt for the A's to steal a couple and push the Tigers one or two more games.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
CLINCH NOT A CINCH
Pirates 3, Mets 0 (NYM: 90-58, PIT: 63-87)
Well, I didn't expect that. But I'm putting this weekend's sweep by the Pirates in the category of "Better now than in October". Here's the deal - the Mets are pressing. Similar to getting their butts kicked by the Red Sox in June - it was their first big series. Now they have that under their belt, and now they have the pressure of trying to clinch something, but failing, under their belt. The luxury of their huge lead is that they can afford to learn while doing these things.
The good news: the Mets can now clinch the division title at home, in front of their home fans...and I can watch the game. Part of the problem with Sunday was I didn't even get the Mets game. So I'm kind of happy they lost, and the Phillies won. I want to see them win the division. (Hopefully I'll get the game on SNY, too, just so I don't have to watch the awful Marlins broadcasters ruin what should be a very happy moment for me.)
One piece of mail to respond to:
"Dear Johnnymets,
I came across this nugget in the notes section of an AP story I read after the Mets loss Friday night:
"The Mets are 11-10 in games started by Martinez."
Wow. All this time I've been thinking that he was the key to the post-season. Turns out they'd be just as successful starting Trachsel in game one of the 2006 World Series. Thoughts?
Dave in Brighton"
Don't even joke about this. Everyone should remember the Mets struggled scoring runs for Pedro* during May, when Pedro* was pitching lights out and kept finishing with no decisions (and in most of those games the Mets went on to lose). That stat could easily be 15-6. Which is nearly Trachsel's record, because the Mets actually scored for him all year.
Finally, Saturday had the potential to be a great night - not only did the Mets have the chance to clinch, but The Wife and I were able to figure out how to secure the mobile to the crib in the nursery, as we await the arrival of The Baby. Here's a look:
And a closer look.....
Yes, the Mets mobile. It plays "Take Me Out To The Ballgame"...the only thing that would make it better would be if it played "Meet the Mets".
Hopefully I'll have a celebratory posting Monday night.
Well, I didn't expect that. But I'm putting this weekend's sweep by the Pirates in the category of "Better now than in October". Here's the deal - the Mets are pressing. Similar to getting their butts kicked by the Red Sox in June - it was their first big series. Now they have that under their belt, and now they have the pressure of trying to clinch something, but failing, under their belt. The luxury of their huge lead is that they can afford to learn while doing these things.
The good news: the Mets can now clinch the division title at home, in front of their home fans...and I can watch the game. Part of the problem with Sunday was I didn't even get the Mets game. So I'm kind of happy they lost, and the Phillies won. I want to see them win the division. (Hopefully I'll get the game on SNY, too, just so I don't have to watch the awful Marlins broadcasters ruin what should be a very happy moment for me.)
One piece of mail to respond to:
"Dear Johnnymets,
I came across this nugget in the notes section of an AP story I read after the Mets loss Friday night:
"The Mets are 11-10 in games started by Martinez."
Wow. All this time I've been thinking that he was the key to the post-season. Turns out they'd be just as successful starting Trachsel in game one of the 2006 World Series. Thoughts?
Dave in Brighton"
Don't even joke about this. Everyone should remember the Mets struggled scoring runs for Pedro* during May, when Pedro* was pitching lights out and kept finishing with no decisions (and in most of those games the Mets went on to lose). That stat could easily be 15-6. Which is nearly Trachsel's record, because the Mets actually scored for him all year.
Finally, Saturday had the potential to be a great night - not only did the Mets have the chance to clinch, but The Wife and I were able to figure out how to secure the mobile to the crib in the nursery, as we await the arrival of The Baby. Here's a look:
And a closer look.....
Yes, the Mets mobile. It plays "Take Me Out To The Ballgame"...the only thing that would make it better would be if it played "Meet the Mets".
Hopefully I'll have a celebratory posting Monday night.
Friday, August 18, 2006
FLYING A MILE HIGH
Mets 6, Rockies 3 (NYM: 73-48, COL: 59-63)
It's like Monday through Wednesday never happened. The Rockies are just about as good as the Phillies, and the Mets played the type of game Friday night against Colorado that they should have played all week against Philadelphia.
Steve Trachsel was good (again, good, not great), pitching 7 innings, giving up 7 hits and three walks. He always seems to be getting himself into jams, though. Despite the 12-5 record, I just don't have a lot of confidence in Trachsel.
The Mets' bats are continuing to come alive. Friday night it was future Hall of Famer David Wright who showed signs of life, going 2-for-4, doubling, with 2 RBI - his first big hit in a while. Endy Chavez (2-for-4) had the big blow in this one, homering off Byung-Hyun Kim to tie the game early on. Chris Woodward was also 2-for-2, filling in for Jose Valentin, who left Thursday's game in Philadelphia with a small injury (I think it's small). Woodward hasn't played well all year, so we'll take what we can get from him.
Dave Williams will be up from Norfolk to make Saturday night's start - hope he can at least keep the Mets in the game, so we won't have to leave a Rockies blowout early. The Mets will also be wearing 1986 uniforms for the Saturday and Sunday games - another reason I don't understand why they didn't pick a team that existed in 1986 to play this reunion game against, so they could wear throwbacks too.
MAGIC NUMBER: A tough loss for the Phillies Friday night, but I don't care, because it means the Magic Number goes down by 2 instead of just 1! We're now inside of 30 - down to 28. The Nationals beat the Phillies, 6-4, in Philadelphia. That's a bad loss for Philly, especially coming off such a successful series against the Mets. But, like I said, it doesn't matter to me.
MAIL CALL: With the fantasy football draft in the morning, I'm still without a team name. Apparently, my readers have trouble keeping their suggestions for team names clean, because I received very few suggestions. I did like the Southern Bureau's suggestion: "Fallopian Swim Team", but I don't think that will make the cut. No shortage of suggestions from my cousin Eddie: Here's the e-mail I got from him:
"John,
Here are some names for your fantasy team as you requested on your mets blog.
"Spit up, dirty diapers, and sleepless nights, oh my!!" (no explanation needed)
"Waaaaa!!" (Baby's 1st words when he gets a look at your roster)
"The Prodigy" (Refers to next year's team that the baby picks by spitting up on the player he/she wants. This is the 1st time one of Johnny's teams makes the playoffs.)
"Patets" (Combo of the Patriots and Jets- Nickname would be Patsies which is quite appropriate for your fantasy team)
Non baby names you could use:
"At Least I Can Spell" (John digs back into the past to try to change his luck)
"Winless in October" (no explanation needed- most people already know the Mets don't have a chance when they get to October; also approproate for your fantasy team)
"T.O's Hammy" (Your team will gimp through the season just as your star player will)
Eddie"
Well, at least someone put some thought into my query. I'm not going with any of these either. Although, "At Least I Can Spell" has some potential. I'm not feeling too confident about this year's team....I don't pick until #13 overall....I hope I can salvage some good players. I really can't wait for fantasy football season to get underway.
I've had to reject some of my own ideas, too. The Wife came up with "The Very Hungry Caterpillars", which would have been awesome, but it's too long to fit in Yahoo!. I might go with The VHCaterpillars. (It's a popular children's book.) Then there was "Goodnight (Warren) Moon", my idea - but again, more than the required 20 characters. I also thought about "The Cat in the Helmet", a play on the Cat in the Hat, but that one just isn't very good.
Official word: I'm going with the "Hungry Caterpillars".
FROM THE WORLD OF PRINT JOURNALISM: The newest "can't miss" show in the House Sponsored by DirecTV (and supported by TiVo) is "Tabloid Wars", Bravo's reality show, which follows reporters from the New York Daily News as they do their job. This show fascinates me because I'm not too familiar with the print world - I had my sights set on the television world after high school, so I'm not too familiar with newspaper deadlines and such. And as much as I enjoyed watching the footage of the reporter tracking the priest who had an affair, and accidentally getting a huge scoop by staking out a restaurant (that show isn't going to catch a better moment than that), I wish it focused on the sports department once in a while. Well, I finally watched the latest episode, and that's what they did.
I'm a little disappointed, because the angle Bravo showed was that of an intern dealing with his first deadline story, which was just about what I expected. Plus, he was covering a New York Liberty game. I'd much rather have seen a beat guy covering the Mets. It was neat, though, to see some aspects, and compare them to the TV world, but overall I was disappointed by it. I hope they revisit the sports department before the show ends its run.
THE KID'S KIDS: Hall of Famer Gary Carter's St. Lucie Mets played a doubleheader on Friday, losing Game 1, and they're winning Game 2 as I write this, but it's still early. Not sure if Carter is with the team on Friday - I imagine he is, and will come up to New York Saturday. Daytona lost - now we also have to keep an eye on Palm Beach, who moved to within a half-game of St. Lucie.
ALFONZO'S COMEBACK: Norfolk gave up a run in the bottom of the ninth to lose on Friday night, but Edgardo Alfonzo kept up his good hitting - a 1-for-3, starting at third base. He had a 2-out RBI, and also walked. His average is now .274. (That's better than Michael Tucker's when he was brought up, just FYI.)
It's like Monday through Wednesday never happened. The Rockies are just about as good as the Phillies, and the Mets played the type of game Friday night against Colorado that they should have played all week against Philadelphia.Steve Trachsel was good (again, good, not great), pitching 7 innings, giving up 7 hits and three walks. He always seems to be getting himself into jams, though. Despite the 12-5 record, I just don't have a lot of confidence in Trachsel.
The Mets' bats are continuing to come alive. Friday night it was future Hall of Famer David Wright who showed signs of life, going 2-for-4, doubling, with 2 RBI - his first big hit in a while. Endy Chavez (2-for-4) had the big blow in this one, homering off Byung-Hyun Kim to tie the game early on. Chris Woodward was also 2-for-2, filling in for Jose Valentin, who left Thursday's game in Philadelphia with a small injury (I think it's small). Woodward hasn't played well all year, so we'll take what we can get from him.
Dave Williams will be up from Norfolk to make Saturday night's start - hope he can at least keep the Mets in the game, so we won't have to leave a Rockies blowout early. The Mets will also be wearing 1986 uniforms for the Saturday and Sunday games - another reason I don't understand why they didn't pick a team that existed in 1986 to play this reunion game against, so they could wear throwbacks too.
MAGIC NUMBER: A tough loss for the Phillies Friday night, but I don't care, because it means the Magic Number goes down by 2 instead of just 1! We're now inside of 30 - down to 28. The Nationals beat the Phillies, 6-4, in Philadelphia. That's a bad loss for Philly, especially coming off such a successful series against the Mets. But, like I said, it doesn't matter to me.
MAIL CALL: With the fantasy football draft in the morning, I'm still without a team name. Apparently, my readers have trouble keeping their suggestions for team names clean, because I received very few suggestions. I did like the Southern Bureau's suggestion: "Fallopian Swim Team", but I don't think that will make the cut. No shortage of suggestions from my cousin Eddie: Here's the e-mail I got from him:
"John,
Here are some names for your fantasy team as you requested on your mets blog.
"Spit up, dirty diapers, and sleepless nights, oh my!!" (no explanation needed)
"Waaaaa!!" (Baby's 1st words when he gets a look at your roster)
"The Prodigy" (Refers to next year's team that the baby picks by spitting up on the player he/she wants. This is the 1st time one of Johnny's teams makes the playoffs.)
"Patets" (Combo of the Patriots and Jets- Nickname would be Patsies which is quite appropriate for your fantasy team)
Non baby names you could use:
"At Least I Can Spell" (John digs back into the past to try to change his luck)
"Winless in October" (no explanation needed- most people already know the Mets don't have a chance when they get to October; also approproate for your fantasy team)
"T.O's Hammy" (Your team will gimp through the season just as your star player will)
Eddie"
Well, at least someone put some thought into my query. I'm not going with any of these either. Although, "At Least I Can Spell" has some potential. I'm not feeling too confident about this year's team....I don't pick until #13 overall....I hope I can salvage some good players. I really can't wait for fantasy football season to get underway.
I've had to reject some of my own ideas, too. The Wife came up with "The Very Hungry Caterpillars", which would have been awesome, but it's too long to fit in Yahoo!. I might go with The VHCaterpillars. (It's a popular children's book.) Then there was "Goodnight (Warren) Moon", my idea - but again, more than the required 20 characters. I also thought about "The Cat in the Helmet", a play on the Cat in the Hat, but that one just isn't very good.
Official word: I'm going with the "Hungry Caterpillars".
FROM THE WORLD OF PRINT JOURNALISM: The newest "can't miss" show in the House Sponsored by DirecTV (and supported by TiVo) is "Tabloid Wars", Bravo's reality show, which follows reporters from the New York Daily News as they do their job. This show fascinates me because I'm not too familiar with the print world - I had my sights set on the television world after high school, so I'm not too familiar with newspaper deadlines and such. And as much as I enjoyed watching the footage of the reporter tracking the priest who had an affair, and accidentally getting a huge scoop by staking out a restaurant (that show isn't going to catch a better moment than that), I wish it focused on the sports department once in a while. Well, I finally watched the latest episode, and that's what they did.
I'm a little disappointed, because the angle Bravo showed was that of an intern dealing with his first deadline story, which was just about what I expected. Plus, he was covering a New York Liberty game. I'd much rather have seen a beat guy covering the Mets. It was neat, though, to see some aspects, and compare them to the TV world, but overall I was disappointed by it. I hope they revisit the sports department before the show ends its run.
THE KID'S KIDS: Hall of Famer Gary Carter's St. Lucie Mets played a doubleheader on Friday, losing Game 1, and they're winning Game 2 as I write this, but it's still early. Not sure if Carter is with the team on Friday - I imagine he is, and will come up to New York Saturday. Daytona lost - now we also have to keep an eye on Palm Beach, who moved to within a half-game of St. Lucie.
ALFONZO'S COMEBACK: Norfolk gave up a run in the bottom of the ninth to lose on Friday night, but Edgardo Alfonzo kept up his good hitting - a 1-for-3, starting at third base. He had a 2-out RBI, and also walked. His average is now .274. (That's better than Michael Tucker's when he was brought up, just FYI.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
