MEET THE METS - CARLOS DELGADO

A preview of the 2008 Mets, presented in the expected batting order, followed by pitching rotation, followed by impact bullpen/bench players. Today we focus on first baseman Carlos Delgado.

2007: .258 avg, 24 HR, 87 RBI, 71 runs, .333 OBP, .448 SLG

A year ago, it was second base that was looking like the Mets' big weakness, and I predicted that Jose Valentin, though he was the starting second baseman at the start of the season, wouldn't end the season the same way. This year, I'm making that same prediction for the Mets' first base situation.

I don't know who might unseat Carlos Delgado, but unless he plays better than he did last year, the Mets will need to find an alternative.

There's one potential saving grace here - Delgado is in the last year of his current contract. There is an option for a fourth year, which would be next year, or a buyout. Perhaps the fourth year will be an incentive that will cause Delgado to produce Carlos Delgado-type numbers (read: about 10 more homers and 20 more RBI than what he gave the Mets last year). And if not, because it's the last year of the contract, the Mets might turn elsewhere sooner than they would have otherwise.

There's one other piece to Delgado's poor season last year. I wonder how much the steroid rumors got to him (and whether or not there is some sort of legitimacy to them....but I'm not going to go there). You look at everything Roger Clemens is going through, and what are the first years the allegations against him come around? His Toronto years, when the numbers of his teammate Delgado also spiked. There were all sorts of reports last year about how slimmed-down Delgado looked, and his numbers certainly took a nosedive in 2007....but could that just have been because he knew of things in Toronto, and didn't speak up? Or because he was involved in them, and was afraid he'd get dragged into the report? Either way, that's now free and clear, and maybe he'll play 2008 with a clear mind.

So there's a couple of ways to go with Carlos Delgado. He could continue this slump that lasted most of last season, and continue to look like his career is coming to a quiet end. Or he could have one last hurrah in a contract year. Or he could bounce back from a slumpy season with a season more indicative of the type of player he has been throughout his career. If it's option one, I think the Mets won't waste their time going with some other option at first base. If it's either of the last two, it will be nice to have a version of Carlos Delgado with the Mets closer to the more productive 2006 version than the disappointing 2007 one.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY

Would it really be fair if I didn't interrupt the baseball preview on Valentine's Day to pay tribute to the last manager of the Mets to lead the team to a World Series appearance?

Bobby Valentine is in Japan these days, managing the Chiba Lotte Marines. I'm sure his name will be popping up in the next month or so as Major League Baseball extends eastward to open up its season.

I've never really had the chance to comment on Valentine, since the blog came into existence during the Art Howe debacle years.

Most people are either gung-ho in love with Valentine, or way in the other direction, flat-out hating him. I never loved him, but I never hated him...and you can't argue with the success the Mets had while he was manager.

I was mostly amused by Bobby Valentine's antics, the most entertaining of which was the "sneak-back-in-the-dugout-wearing-a-lame-disguise-after-being-thrown-out-of-the-game". That was funny. No one does that. He did. I loved it. Only rarely did I feel his antics got in the way of the game. He was also spirited - he cared, and it showed. You didn't get that same emotion out of his successor.

The one thing I'll fault Valentine for is the fact that some of the Mets mentioned in the Mitchell Report are closely connected with him - especially Matt Franco (who has denied the allegations), who followed Valentine to Japan. I feel like he's the type of guy (Valentine is) that would let players get away with stuff like this right under his nose if it would help them win. I get the impression he'd be one of the people sticking up for Roger Clemens wholeheartedly right now.

Anyway, Valentine is on a list that includes just three other men - Gil Hodges, Yogi Berra, and Davey Johnson - men who took the Mets to the World Series. Until another man takes the Mets one step further (looking your way, Willie Randolph), he'll be the one I look back fondly on for now. So Happy Valentine's Day.

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.

STILL UNSURE

I just don't know who to believe.

I'm back into the swing of school today, and I kind of lose touch with the sports world during most of the school day. I left at 5:20, and the car radio was on ESPN Radio. I thought the station was getting poor reception, because it seemed like I was picking up someone's phone call. Then a voice sounded like Roger Clemens...and I realized what I was listening to. But I don't know what to make of it.

I'll say this - Roger Clemens is fighting a battle he's not going to win - because he's still being evasive. How can we believe that Clemens is the one to believe when he's refusing to answer certain questions?

I almost turned around on him and believed him after I heard the tape of the phone call, and his vehement denials one more time. Then someone asked him about the B12 and the Lydocaine for the umpteenth time. And he said, "I never supplied anyone with anything I've ever been injected with." And the question was rephrased, and he answered the same way.

Almost as though he is setting us up for a situation where later, if it turns out there were steroids in his system (if his tendons do turn to dust, as he says, or he does get a third ear out of his forehead), he can say, "Well, I never provided that stuff. I had no idea what they were injecting into me. I thought it was B12." And we'll be expected to believe him then.

Then someone asked him if he thought people who used performance enhancers were cheaters, and drove that point home. Clemens dodged the question like batters dodged the pitches he used to throw at their heads.

And again, he was asked about Andy Pettitte. And that's flat-out unbelievable that he had no idea about this guy, with whom he did everything, doing something like injecting himself with HGH. And he said again, their situations are separate. No, they're actually quite related.

Just still sounds like Clemens is hiding something. And that he feels if he tough guys it enough, and denies loud and angrily enough, people will just say, OK, and back off. But it's not going to happen. Oh, by the way, bad idea taking it out on the media, Roger. Long after you storm out of the 20-minute media session, and long after your 5-7 minutes are up on '60 Minutes', and long after your appearance before Congress, they'll still be writing about you. And you're not giving them much that's positive to say.

I don't like writing about this stuff. I hate it. Justin from NYC is right when he writes about the fact that there are many bigger problems in the world than whether or not Roger Clemens took steroids. Tomorrow I'll post my 'Mets connections - Part II', and then hopefully we can leave this subject alone for a while.

MITCHELL REPORT REACTION II

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?


I hate that I've become so cynical - but part of that (or a lot of it, to be honest), is that I've become more honest with myself. I don't believe everything anyone connected with sports says anymore - and it's almost to the point where I don't believe anything anyone connected with sports says anymore.


So it's hard for me to know who to believe in the Mitchell Report. But I'm leaning towards the trainers, and less towards the players.


The trainers really had nothing to lose - well, I guess they had everything to lose - and that's why I believe they were honest. The ballplayers have a lot to lose (hard to say they have everything to lose) - and I think that's why they're not being honest.

Sure, I want to believe Andy Pettitte used HGH for only two days, and his conscience bothered him so much he stopped. Sure, I want to believe Brian Roberts took steroids ONCE, four years ago, and never since. I don't want to believe Roger Clemens never took steroids...but that's fine, because I don't believe any of them.

I am no longer surprised when a (usually football) coach walks out of a contract to take the next best attractive offer that comes along. (Thanks for that, Herman Edwards.) And I am no longer surprised when a player's name is linked to steroids. If Roger Clemens thinks I'm going to believe him any more than a guy named Brian McNamee, he's in the wrong profession. Athletes are no more believable than politicians. They say as little as possible, then hide behind the union. I don't blame them for it - but it damages their credibility. And the Mitchell Report is an instance when the players would have benefitted from having a little credibility left in their corner.

As it is, I'll take the Mitchell Report at its word, and I'll continue to be skeptical about whatever else I hear - especially when the source is a professional athlete.

I'll continue to throw my thoughts about the Mitchell Report out when time allows - I'm on winter vacation now, so there might be some time these next couple of weeks...although I do have some report cards to write. I do intend to write about all of the Mets connections to the report.


CONGRATS TO MY BROTHER: I'm very proud to say that Friday morning, my brother appeared on 'Imus in the Morning', playing with his company band. My brother plays lead guitar and sings, and was the star of the show - Imus raved about him all morning. My brother was also in the New York Daily News on Thursday in a profile of the founder of the band, the manager of a couple of New York City radio stations. After four years of johnnymets.blogspot.com, I think I'm no longer the most famous person in my family.

MITCHELL REPORT REACTION I

I think I'll break down my opinions on the Mitchell Report into a bunch of different postings. I don't know that this was the earth-shattering document a lot of people were expecting. I think it was about what I thought we'd see...but it left me with a lot more questions than answers. I'm pretty sure there have been Mets since the mid-90's who have used steroids other than Mo Vaughn and Matt Franco (surprise there - never would have expected that). But I'll get into that more another time.

What I want to spend my time on in Part I is Roger Clemens. First of all, it seems like a lot of people are shocked he was on this list. Really? I might be shocked that he started as early as when he was in Toronto...but not shocked at all that he was there. (P.S. - Why haven't I heard anyone yet using the words, "Maybe Dan Duquette was right.....?")

I am glad Roger Clemens was named in the report mainly for one reason (though there are a lot of other reasons right behind this one)....a white player needed to be prominently featured in this report. And there were a couple. But Roger Clemens compares favorably to Barry Bonds, talent-wise.

I get so tired of hearing about the race aspect of Barry Bonds and steroids. People were saying, "If Bonds was white, he wouldn't be treated this way...." Part of the problem is that Mark McGwire fell off the face of the earth, while Bonds was still playing and was a live target - so there was no white target. (Jose Canseco goes into a separate category, because he was the whistleblower.) Well, this should now take the race issue out of it, because Clemens is getting hit from all angles. His Hall of Fame candidacy is being questioned now, and that should ease the criticism that Bonds is being singled out because he is black. And if it doesn't, or if Clemens is given a pass...then this country still has a serious problem with race, and this will become prime example number one.

A NOTE ABOUT STEROIDS: Early in the day on Thursday, an e-mail made the rounds naming a bunch of high-profile major leaguers as being mentioned in the report. A couple of the names turned out to be accurate, but most were false - because if you name enough players, you're going to hit a couple. I hate that. You could name players all day and come up with a few that are guilty....and a couple who are still guilty who weren't named in the report. While I still feel that most of the players I mentioned on the blog last week probably took steroids, I have deleted that part of the entry, because I don't like the fact that anyone can throw names around and bring down people's reputations unsubstantiated. I know I don't have a ridiculous number of readers, but I felt like taking that down was the right thing to do. I wrote that in an emotional moment, when I was ticked off about this whole steroid thing. I will continue to write about steroids, and the report, but I will keep my thoughts about who else could have/probably did take steroids to myself, and stay with what has been published.

THEY ONCE WERE METS

With the ALCS and NLCS teams set, it's time to take a look at the rosters of those teams, and figure out which players once played for the New York Mets:

BOSTON RED SOX
There are no players on the Red Sox who used to play for the Mets. This surprises me. Should it? I feel like with all the player turnover in the majors, there should be a former Met on every team. Might be an interesting experiment to find out how many rosters don't have former Mets on them.

CLEVELAND INDIANS
Paul Byrd - I really liked Byrd when he was a Met (during the lean years of 1995 and 1996). He pitched pretty well with them...then became a Brave. And it was all over for me, as far as Paul Byrd was concerned.

COLORADO ROCKIES
Kaz Matsui - It's no secret in this space that I've always liked Kaz Matsui. I always thought he was a tremendously clutch hitter. He just couldn't perform in New York...and the Rockies are reaping all the benefits.

ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS
Tony Clark - Same role, different team.

I'm pretty surprised how few former Mets there are in this final four. But they're all pretty east former Mets to root for, to be honest.

ONE MORE THING: Apropros of pretty much nothing, other than to draw attention to it...Rafael Betancourt is having an amazing year. I had no idea until Monday night, when he came in to pitch the eighth inning for the Indians against the Yankees, and had a pretty dominant 1-2-3 inning. Among his numbers: a 1.57 ERA, 80 strikeouts, and just 9 walks. The other numbers, which are not in my head right now, were just as impressive.

Also, as I was doing my lookover of the rosters for the former Mets, I noticed there are quite a few former Red Sox among the final four (and a whole team of current Red Sox!). Most noticeably, Trot Nixon back in Boston as a member of the Tribe, with everything on the line. Also...how about Nixon owning Roger Clemens?! He homered off him again Sunday. I only know how dominant he is against Clemens because I always used to pick him in 'Beat the Streak' when the Red Sox played the Yankees and Clemens was pitching...but he's still got it. I missed the homer live - but I hope TBS played up how great Nixon's numbers are against Clemens.

OLIVER PEREZ: STOPPER

Mets 2, Yankees 0 (NYM: 37-28, NYY: 33-32)

That's more like it. In the first game I feel like I've been able to watch in more than a week, the Mets again looked like the team they were a little more than a week ago.

Oliver Perez put an end to the Mets' 5-game losing streak with 7-and-a-third innings of shutout ball, giving up 5 hits and just three walks, with 6 strikeouts. He got the win to improve to 7-5 - and he has a 2.93 ERA. The Mets didn't just beat anyone either...they stopped the hottest team in baseball, ending the Yankees' 9-game winning streak. And they beat Roger Clemens, which is always a nice added touch.

The Mets didn't solve all their problems in one night - Carlos Delgado struck out 4 times, and the 4-through-8 hitters combined to go 0-f0r-19. Carlos Gomez in the 9 spot was 2-for-3. The Mets did, though, play some outstanding defense all night long. The outfielders (Carlos Beltran and Gomez, specifically - I'm itemizing only because Shawn Green was his usual not-covering-a-lot-of-ground-self) turned a lot of fly balls into outs, and made some tough outs look easy at Yankee Stadium.

Jose Reyes was the main producer for the Mets (see below). Willie Randolph is trying to shake the Mets up a bit - with the offense struggling, he's changed the lineup a lot the past week. David Wright hit third Friday night (something he has been doing here and there), Carlos Beltran was hitting second, and Paul LoDuca was hitting fifth. The players have been changing in and out, starting in Detroit last weekend, and playing in the American League ballparks, with the DH. It continued through Los Angeles, and Shawn Green came back to the lineup, and it is still happening. I've said it a couple of years ago, and I'm saying it now - I like Carlos Beltran hitting in the two spot. And now that David Wright is hitting again, put him anywhere - I don't care. Wright has another long hitting streak going - he's hit in 16 straight after a 1-for-3 on Friday. FYI - his batting average is up to .287.

MTA johnnymets.blogspot.com Player of the Game: Jose Reyes gave the Mets a big kick in the pants Friday night with the way he played - 3-for-3, a homer, and both runs batted in for the Mets. He also stole 3 bases for 35 now on the year.





NBA FINALS: No one asked, but I'm sure you were wondering how I felt about the Spurs beating the Cavaliers in the NBA Finals. It was about all I could have asked for in a league I care very little about - a new championship matchup, and it only took 4 games to decide. I'm glad it's out of the way.

SUITS AND TIES: I'm pleased that the NFL has lifted a tiny piece of its controlling tendencies to allow Mike Nolan to wear suits when he coaches 49ers home games. I think it's nice, and something more people should do. Here's the baseball tie-in (pun intended) - some say it's ridiculous that baseball managers wear uniforms...I'm indifferent. But if they started wearing suits, I think that would look equally ridiculous in the dugout.

Anyway, the point I wanted to bring up is that I came across a picture of Nolan, and he's wearing a tie clip towards the bottom of his tie. I have a tie clip, and for the past three years, since I wear a tie to school, I've been wearing the tie clip around the middle of my tie. I feel like I've been making a fashion faux pas for three years now. Below you see the comparison - who's wearing it correctly? Or is there no right or wrong way? (Maybe Nolan's only wearing it low because of all the headsets and stuff an NFL coach must wear...or he's miked for sound.)

We are in that rough stretch of the season, where the Mets take a West coast swing during the school year. It's a tough trip for the Mets, no doubt, because of all the miles, but it really wreaks havoc on my routine.

Anyway, since I won't be writing about the game, I thought I'd give my two cents on the Roger Clemens thing. First of all, I confess to letting my thoughts wander today to the idea, and the way the announcement was made. That was pretty cool. I did imagine a little bit what it would be like to be at a ho-hum Mets game, and then suddenly have an announcement of that caliber. Not that Roger Clemens was becoming a Met, mind you, but something that newsworthy being announced during a 7th inning stretch. It would be pretty amazing. Glad Yankees fans had a chance to enjoy something like that. It's only been 7 whole years since they had a world championship or something big to celebrate.

The other thing that I noticed about the Roger Clemens thing is that it was kind of surreal. I have a lot of schoolwork to do (should be doing it now), so I couldn't focus on the games much on Sunday. But I was switching around right before the Mets started, and I saw the Roger Clemens press conference:

This wasn't the angle I was watching it from, but I needed an illustration. It didn't seem real...it seemed surreal. I wasn't sure it was really happening, but I saw the "live" bug in the corner of the screen, and said, it must be true...they can't joke about something like this. But I was thinking the whole time I was looking at the press conference that it might be fake - I half-expected Buster Olney to pop out and ask fake questions, a la Steve Phillips:

Anyway, I hope Clemens fails hugely. But I needed to get that out there.

OTHER THOUGHTS: It's very upsetting to me that I barely mention David Wright in good terms anymore. He is having an awful start to the year, but it's magnified because that means his awful numbers are his actual stats. Here's what I mean - in the past, Wright's slumps have been disguised at the end of the year, so when he hit .239, his average dropped from .300 to .280, still good. But this year, when he's hit .239, his average is .239. And in the past, when he hit 2 homers in 30 games, that means he only had 26 for the season, instead of more. Now, he just has 2 homers, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. I still firmly believe that Wright will bounce back...he's just digging himself a deeper hole to have to come out of. What also upsets me is that the Southern Bureau is quickly losing all faith in Wright's ability to come back...and there's nothing I can do or say to get that faith back. The only way it will happen is for Wright to start hitting.

BEAT THE STREAK: Speaking of hitting, I'm still at 12 games after Manny's day off (back-to-back with an off-day, gotta love it). Albert Pujols and the Cardinals are just getting underway. Hopefully I'll have a 13-gamer on Tuesday, when it's Ivan Rodriguez against good ol' Horacio Ramirez (now with Seattle).

9 AND A HALF UP

Mets 5, Phillies 4 (NYM: 42-23, PHI: 33-33)

This is going to cause some wear and tear on the bullpen - and I think the Mets are going to start paying for it this week. Back-to-back extra innings games, and now a trip out west to play Los Angeles, Arizona, and then back east at Philadelphia. I'm not expecting the best road trip....but maybe the Mets will show how good they are and come away with a winning record. (This is the last tough road trip the Mets have this year - at least as far as mileage goes.) - johnnymets.blogspot.com, Sunday, June 4, 2006, after the Mets lost a 12-inning game to the Giants, 7-6.

It's the darndest thing. I'm overly optimistic nine and a half times out of ten, and the half time I get cautious, the Mets roll off a 9-1 West Coast/East Coast road trip. Honestly, even in my most exaggerated hopes about this trip, I didn't expect a sweep in Philly to cap it off (or a 9-1 record overall). But I think that qualifies as a "winning road trip", and shows just how good the Mets are. They're at the next level.

On Thursday afternoon, the Mets got 4 runs in the first, and managed to hold on for the 5-4 win. It's going to be weird when the Mets are now home, and they won't be hitting first. I don't know what they'll do if they don't get the chance to jump out on top in the top of the first. On Thursday, the early lead was courtesy of a double by Endy Chavez, driving in a run, then a 3-run David Wright homer (number 14 on the year, 55 career). Carlos Beltran* had a sac fly, driving in a run. His "Player of the Week" performance last week lifted his average so much that I didn't even realize it, but Beltran* is hitting an even .300 on the year. David Wright is up to .335, and this week Wright is the leading vote-getter among NL third basemen in the All Star Balloting.

An added bonus - the Mets won a Steve Trachsel start. He is so unreliable. You know what I think I'd love? The Red Sox need pitching. I'd love to see the Mets deal Trachsel to the Red Sox. I don't know what the Mets would get in return, but I'd love to see the way Trachsel is treated by the Boston media. He'd get killed. And he'd be miserable. Of course, a trade would probably light a fire under him, and he'd become a good Steve Trachsel for a couple of months, but eventually, it'd catch up to him. I'm still not convinced he can handle the pressure of a winning team. (Right now, though, the Mets are winning by so much, there isn't much pressure at all.)

Lost in much of this winning, by the way, is that Billy Wagner has been pretty solid. He picked up two saves in Philadelphia, and neither one was particularly nerve-wracking (as far as I can tell - I actually didn't see Thursday's game because of school, and the other night he was saved by David Wright's incredible double play...).

The Mets are getting lots of attention right now...as the cream of a pretty crappy National League crop. I think they can handle it. And I'm really enjoying this season.

The Orioles are at Shea Friday through Sunday, as the Mets come home to interleague play. Alay Soler goes against Erik Bedard Friday.

MY TWO CENTS ON THE RECENT EJECTIONS OVER PITCHING INSIDE: I don't often step up on my soapbox to declare what's wrong in the world of baseball, so I hope you'll indulge me every once in a while. I want to talk about today's practice of umpires issuing warnings, then ejecting a guy if he pitches inside, and comes too close to hitting someone. I hate it. But....I think it's absolutely necessary in today's game. Here's why.

First of all, this is a hot-button issue today because Wednesday night Randy Johnson was ejected for throwing at Eduardo Perez of the Indians after Derek Jeter was hit, and after both sides were given warnings. Also Wednesday, Ozzie Guillen put in a rookie pitcher to throw at a member of the Texas Rangers (might have been Hank Blalock, but that's not really important), the rookie threw a few inside, didn't hit the guy, then got him out, and Guillen yanked him from the game, yelled at him, and then the kid was sent to the minors after the game. There's your background info. (I guess that doesn't have to do exactly with my soapbox issue, but it's somewhat related.)

Anyway, I liked the old days, where a pitcher could brush back a player, there could be retaliation, maybe a brawl, then it was over - a dead issue. (Maybe there wouldn't even be a brawl, because the players knew to expect it.) The problem is, that won't happen today...because young people feel entitled. I really think that's the problem. Young players feel entitled to hanging out over the plate, and not getting hit with pitches, and if you hit them with a pitch, well, darn it, I'm going to come out there and charge the mound. Heck, you don't even have to hit me, you just have to pitch inside, dangerously close to hitting me, and I'll come out there. Right, Manny Ramirez? It's just part of a spoiled society, I think, which doesn't want to be made to feel uncomfortable. I wish it could go back to the way it used to be...but it won't. And so the players can't police themselves - they're too immature, and the thing would never end. There would be retaliation after retaliation, because everyone would want the last say. So the umpires have had to step in to put a stop to it. And I don't like it. But you know what....it's working.

Going back to the Sean Tracy thing (he's the White Sox pitcher who was sent down after not hitting the batter), I have a big problem with that whole situation. Ozzie Guillen put that kid in an awful situation. Of course, he's not the first to do something like that - but really, if the kid makes the effort to throw at the guy, and then ends up getting the out, isn't that better for the team? It's an out. People are comparing this to the Sean Estes deal against Roger Clemens from 2001. There's a big difference here. First of all, Hank Blalock (or the targeted Ranger) wasn't doing the pitching for the Rangers. So he arguably didn't deserve to be thrown at. Sean Estes was carrying the weight of everyone who had ever been thrown at by Roger Clemens on his shoulders, and he couldn't hit him (Of course, then, I was psyched that Estes did homer off Clemens, which thought was better than physically hitting him). (I was especially peeved at Estes, though, in 2002, when he had been with the Cubs for about a week, and was throwing haymakers in a brawl with that team, when he wouldn't stand up for his Mets teammates in 2001.) Anyway, if anyone ever deserved to be thrown at, it was Roger Clemens, against the Mets, with Mike Piazza catching. (For those who don't know - he beaned Piazza really bad [don't tell me he didn't mean to - he practically caught Piazza between the eyes...and based on Piazza's career numbers against Clemens, and the homers he had hit off Clemens recently, and Clemens' career history and his great control....it was intentional], then, in the 2000 World Series, threw the shattered bat at Piazza.) So don't compare Estes to this kid Tracy. Estes wimped out. Tracy was put in an unfair situation.

THE KID'S KIDS: The St. Lucie Mets have hit the skids a bit recently. They lost Wednesday night to Vero Beach - their fourth straight loss following a nine-game winning streak. The winning pitcher for Vero Beach? A. Bastardo...so I think that explains that. Yup, A. Bastardo. That's right. Look it up.

FANTASY UPDATE: The What If Mets are 62-67. The schedule rotates, and I'm entering a (theoretically) easy part of the schedule. I've got the Cardinals and the Cubs coming up. People are just killing the Cubs right now - one score the other day was like 37-11. Seriously. When I played the Cubs last, I beat them like 3-2 in 12 innings. So I'm either that bad, or not lucky enough. We'll see if I can make some hay in the standings - I'm 5 back of the wild card. The schedule actually goes: Reds, Pirates, Astros, Cardinals, Cubs. Only the Reds and Pirates have winning records. I need a big streak...winning streak, that is.

BEAT THE STREAK: Back to square one, thanks to nada from Brian Giles. Oh well. I'll try to get leadoff man Jose Reyes to lead me off on a new streak Friday night against the O's. Meanwhile, the wife was working on a season-high 8-gamer...but Ty Wigginton ended that one on Thursday night with an 0-for-4.

BILLY, BARRY, AND BOONE....AND MUCH MORE

Leading off, good news leading up to the World Baseball Classic - Billy Wagner is not participating. Wagner withdrew from the WBC on Wednesday, saying he didn't think he'd be effective enough this early on. He says he's not a good pitcher in March, and didn't want to bring down the U.S. team. I'm glad he won't be suffering a season-ending injury during the WBC, but part of me was hoping Wagner got that "bad pitching early on" out of the way in the tournament, and was ready to go by the time the Mets' season started.

Secondly, 2B Bret Boone retired Wednesday, saying he just didn't have the motivation to play anymore. Boone's numbers have fallen off dramatically the past couple of seasons...just saying....I don't think he was going to give the Mets those types of huge numbers this year. Actually, I'm willing to bet he wouldn't produce anything close to those numbers. And he was probably thinking the same thing.

Lastly (in my opening remarks, anyway), one day of Barry Bonds dressed like a woman for 'Giants Idol' was amusing. Day Two, on Wednesday, was borderling disturbing. Also, take note, ESPN - Pedro Gomez isn't suited to doing anything that isn't remotely serious. He looked pained trying to smile in his stand-up (on-camera piece) in his 'Giants Idol' report from Arizona.

IN OTHER 'BALLPLAYERS I DISLIKE' NEWS: Roger Clemens is pitching for Team USA in the WBC. With the Astros the past couple of years, and now with the U.S., I've decided I am tired of rooting for the team Clemens plays for, while rooting against him. I don't want to root for him to pitch poorly, get knocked out in the second inning, and then root for the Astros/Americans to come back and win. So despite my like of the Astros (in other words, they're a team I usually don't mind rooting for), I will root for no further Astros success until Roger Clemens is no longer on that team....unless they call up his son Koby. And speaking of Koby....are you kidding me that he homered off his dad the other day? And then Clemens brushes him back? Yeah, how long have they been planning that media coup? For 18 years, probably.

AND NOW TO 'BALLPLAYERS I LIKE': Al Leiter is entering the rotation of Team USA - replacing C.C. Sabathia, who withdrew from the team along with Wagner. That'll be fun to watch - I like rooting for Leiter still.

HE'S NUMBER ONE: The talk out of the Atlanta Braves' camp on Tuesday was that Tim Hudson will be the team's Opening Day starter, taking over the number one role from John Smoltz. Smoltz said he's fine with it - he's just happy to be starting and healthy entering the year. You may remember Smoltz' arm almost fell off at the end of last year's playoffs. (Hopefully the Mets will give Smoltz plenty of time to rest this year, with a nice October off.) Meanwhile, I was surprised to read that Hudson will be the Braves' sixth Opening Day starting pitcher in the past six years. I thought there'd been more stability there recently.

COMMENTS ON THE 'COMMENTS': It's only fitting that Kevin would be the first to comment - he's done so much for this site out of the Southern Bureau (also, the publicity he has given the site is unmatched - both on the web and over the airwaves). More on him later. As for The Wife, I'm anticipating many a comment from her, and yes, I do feel very bad for Mrs. Wilk. But this is a Mets site, darn it, not a 'Scrubs' blog.

AS PROMISED, MORE FROM KEVIN/MAILBAG/'86 METS ROUNDUP: Three topics in one shot here - first, the e-mail:

"Johnny...

You going to see this movie??

http://www.game6film.com

Before you get all excited - watch the trailer. I think its a Red Sox love story. Ugh.

kevin
JMDBSDC Southern Chief."

Well, I watched the trailer. If you're going to do the same, I recommend you treat yourself to the "Large Trailer". Why would you choose the small one, that's what I want to know. Go ahead - check it out....I'll wait.........

As you might expect, I have lots of thoughts on this movie. First of all, it's a brilliant concept. I love the idea - "What were you doing that night?" It's great. But I think it's all wrong here. First of all, the game seems to serve as something of a backdrop (I have no basis for this, but that's what it seems like to me), and I feel like it would be torture for me to see the movie (which, of course, I'm probably going to do anyway). I think I'll be sitting there with my antennae up looking for any clues as to what it was really like to be a Red Sox fan at that moment - or looking for factual errors....or trying to re-live that night. It's an obsession for me. So I think I will be disappointed. But I have to check it out anyway.

Next, if you explore that site (how long did it take you to even figure out where the links were? I dragged my mouse across the screen about ten times before I realized those words on the newspaper were the links...but that's just me. I thought it was a big screen that was just promoting the "Where Were You?" contest.), you'll see that you can read other people's submissions about where they were. This is another obsession of mine - I like hearing about the champagne and T-shirts being hurried away from the Red Sox clubhouse after the Mets tied it up....Keith Hernandez in the clubhouse after making the second out....Ron Darling's yet-to-be-told on johnnymets.blogspot.com story about that night.

I skimmed through the stories about where people were, and I came across one that particularly struck my fancy - a guy who was a freshman at BU, from New York, living in Warren Towers (a dorm at Boston University where I and every one of my readers has lived...unless my readership increases dramatically soon), surrounded by Red Sox fans (both true blue and wannabe). He has a good story going, and answers my question about what it would be like had the Mets been any good when I was in college in Boston...but he loses me when he insists that Ray Knight was on third base after the wild pitch to Mookie Wilson. The wild pitch advanced Knight to second, not third, and he scored when the ball went through Buckner's legs. Now, the other fact that disappoints me about this guy is that he insists that Wilson would have beaten Buckner to the bag (which I agree with) had Buckner caught the ball. But he says that would have won the game for the Mets. All that ensures is that Knight would have gone to third, and Wilson would have been at first for, I think, Howard Johnson. So at best HoJo wins the game - at worst it's extra innings. I hope that guy doesn't win the contest - because he needs to get his facts straight.

Speaking of getting facts straight - I have a very poor long-term memory, unfortunately. I know people who can remember things from when they were 2 or 3 years old. I have trouble remembering much about when I was younger. So, sadly, I'm not sure where I was the night of Game 6. Chances are, I was at home, or at my friend Steven's house. I know we watched some of the World Series at Steven's. I feel like those were Games 1 and 2, though. Either way, I need to talk to my dad and try to remember about the night of Game 6. I can't believe this hasn't come up before - but I DON'T know where I was. I sure do remember the game, though - perhaps all of my future watchings of Game 6, on ESPN Classic and on tape, etc. - have diminished my original memory of the event. But that's probably a topic for the day I appear on Dr. Phil, with my wife and future child - as to why my obsession with the '86 Mets makes me an awful husband/father.

Oh - one more thing about that movie - seeing Bebe Neuwirth in the movie would probably also confuse me, because while the guy Michael Keaton plays is cheating on his wife with Neuwirth, I'm going to be thinking that Neuwirth is cheating on Frasier. Because if that movie is taking place in '86, she's Lilith, darn it.

I need to go to bed - it's too late for a school night - but coming tomorrow, I'm going to try to touch on Wednesday's Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, on which I heard Dan talk to Darren Daulton for a little bit. And callers came to Daulton's defense!

Phillies 5, Mets 4 (PHI: 7-6, NYM: 6-7)

Kaz Ishii's first inning did in the Mets Monday night. Ishii gave up a leadoff single to Jimmy Rollins, then walked two straight to load the bases. I think he threw something like 11 straight balls - he just couldn't find the plate. Then Ishii bore down, he gave up an RBI single to Pat Burrell, struck out Jim Thome, gave up a long fly ball to score another run, then got a nice play by future Hall of Famer David Wright on a foul pop to end the inning, trailing 2-0. The Mets made a run at the end of this game - but if Ishii finds the plate in the first, it could be a whole different game.

A couple of bright spots on defense to mention - Kaz Matsui went way far to his left to pick up a grounder by Bobby Abreu in the second inning and throw him out at first - he's been struggling lately, so it's good to see him do something well. Then in the third, as the Phillies expanded their lead to 4-0, Cliff Floyd made a running catch into the left-center field gap that saved a run (there was a runner on second). It's the second time I've seen Floyd cover a ton of ground like that and make the running catch - the first was one of the first two games of the season in Cincinnati. Floyd, by the way, made his first start since April 11th, after missing some time with a strain.

In the bottom of the sixth, with the Mets down 5-0, Felix Heredia all of a sudden lost the plate. He was throwing all over the place, with the Mets announcers making comparisons to Rick Ankiel. He had to leave the game - it looked like he had a problem with his thumb. I'm not positive about this, but I think Heredia missed a bunch of time in spring training with numbness in his hand. If so, this could be a recurrence. I wish the announcers would have mentioned something about his problems during the spring (I know he had some problem, I'm just not sure it was the numbness), but they didn't. Fran Healy and Ted Robinson are driving me nuts again this season - but that's a topic I'll save for another night.

In the top of the eighth, the Mets were in a position to start a comeback, after a 1-out double by Victor Diaz. The key here - one out. After the next batter flew out to center field, Diaz was doubled off second - he lost track of the outs. The worse news? Third base coach Manny Acta seemed to have lost track of the outs too. Not a good thing.

The ninth inning shows why the Mets are going to be very exciting all year. I wrote down before the ninth, with the Mets down 5-0 and the top of the order coming up, if any top of the order can start a team towards five runs, it's this team. So then THE GREATEST BALLPLAYER WHO EVER LIVED, Jose Reyes, singled, and so did Kaz Matsui, and so did Carlos Beltran*, scoring Reyes, making it 5-1. After Mike Piazza struck out looking on a pitch down the pipe (Piazza actually hit well in this game - he might be coming around), Cliff Floyd blasted a 3-0 pitch into the upper deck to make it 5-4. Unfortunately, future Hall of Famer David Wright struck out, then Doug Mientkiewicz hit it on the nose but right at the second baseman to end the game.

The problem with the Mets' winning six in a row last week was that they lost 5 in a row to open the season. Now, after two losses, the Mets are again a game below .500. They need to go on another run to put some distance between them and the .500 mark.

In order to do that, they need Wright to start hitting again. After he hit his second homer of the year last week, he has cooled way off. Teams are starting to pitch him way inside, and I think it's messing with his head. He doesn't look comfortable at the plate these days. I seem to remember a slump like this at the major league level for him last year, and I think he broke out of it with his 2-homer, 7 RBI day in Milwaukee. He needs a game like that real soon (Philly is a great park for slump-breaking) to get him back on track.

I hate to admit it, but Roger Clemens is having a lights-out season. He pitched another seven scoreless innings Monday night against Atlanta. That game, incidentally, is going to the 11th right now, still 0-0. The second straight night Atlanta has gone 9 innings 0-0.

Which brings me to another point - Sunday night, Atlanta and Philadelphia went into extras, tied 0-0. The Braves got a run in the top of the tenth, then Dan Kolb blew the save (he was horrid - he threw a ball away on a bunt, and then loaded the bases before the Phillies won it). I'm starting to wonder if the closer is going to become a less-important part of the game. I wonder if teams are just going to start getting away from gearing their whole game towards the closer. Right now, it's still the case that if you're up by 3 runs or less, the ninth inning belongs to the closer. But I think that may start to change, especially if it's a one-run game and you have a starter going good. I think Jack McKeon's view (I have a guy out there doing a great job, I'm not going to buy into this closer stuff) might start rubbing off on other people...especially if it's working. I don't think teams will start going with a closer-by-committee, I just think we're seeing the end of the dominant closer/saves category as guys like Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera, Troy Percival, etc. near retirement, and the closers around baseball continue to struggle.
Sorry I didn't write yesterday - I didn't watch the Mets lose to the Marlins, so I didn't have much to say. Also, sorry about the phone problems - hope you enjoyed the wife's take on things. I have to admit, I did. I have to earn some money this week (I'm on spring break - which means work at Channel 4), so I won't be able to watch the Mets Tuesday night or Wednesday night. I will, though, try to post what I follow of those games on the AP wire.

THE GREATEST BALLPLAYER WHO EVER LIVED PULLS THROUGH IN THE CLUTCH

Mets 1, Astros 0 -- 11 Innings (NYM 3-5, HOU 4-3)

Tension was building at the House Sponsored by DirecTV last night. Yes, the Mets were on. Ishii was pitching a great game; Clemens was pitching a great game. (I confess, I only saw from the 8th inning on.) John was pacing the room, nearly pulling his hair out. Let me tell you, I give my utmost thanks to THE GREATEST BALLPLAYER WHO EVER LIVED (Jose Reyes), who blooped a hit in the bottom of the 11th to win the game for the Mets.

I don't have much more to say than that, because from my point of view, it was a great win, yay, shut off the TV. Whereas from John's point of view, the game warrants endless paragraphs of muckety-muck analysis. I'll leave the analysis to him for next week.

I will say that the Mets are making a respectable comeback from their dismal start to the season. Let's hope they can keep it up.

Also, John tells me that I need to issue a mea culpa for dissing Pedro* in yesterday's blog. Apparently, Pedro*'s comments about not wanting a ring were "taken out of context". Which to us fans in Boston, we know that means that Pedro* opened his big mouth and then later realized he shouldn't have and backpedaled. So Pedro* apparently says he wishes the Sox luck and he doesn't know when he'll get his ring, and something about the Sox being champions and he's a champion too. Champion might not be the word I'd use...

Sorry for the short blog today, but there's work I should be doing and I have few comments except for "Yay, the Mets won last night!"

THE WIFE, PART II

OK - so upper management of JMDBSDC has told me that I am NOT allowed to turn this into a Red Sox blog for the week. I must discuss the Mets. Hmm ... that's a toughie. So I'll turn to JohnnyMets himself (since that's why you read anyway) and get his thoughts.

1) John says he's going to be really p.o.'ed if he can't watch the Mets tonight. As you recall, John hasn't seen the last two Mets games, which they've won. As you may also recall, the House Sponsored by DirecTV needs a working phone line to get full reception, which we don't have right now. However, John insists that we can get some of the games, and hopefully the Mets will be one of them. I'd better hope so, else I have one grumpy husband tonight.

2) The Mets square off tonight against Roger Clemens and the Houston Astros. This should be one exciting game, which is why it's even more important that we receive the game tonight. Will there be a beaning? A fight? Tune in to JMDBSDC tomorrow for details...

3) And here's John's insight at its best. He thinks that in the first week and a half of this season, there have been more blown saves than there have been in some entire seasons. Latest victim: Armando Benitez, who blew a 3-run lead last night. Funny, I wasn't even watching that game. For those of you who don't know the story, I am the official Armando Benitez jinx, and he blows every game I watch him play. As you can imagine, that was not a good thing when he played with the Mets. Dave from Brighton, I expect you'll do some numbers-crunching on John's theory and get back to us on that.

OK - now for the mail bag:

"Dear KathyMets,

That's too bad about the sadly misnamed House brought to you by
DirecTV. One of the most frightening perils of homeownership is being
responsible for fixing problems like that one. I hope you take good
care of the 'blog. Maybe you can spice it up with some vitriolic
anti-Mets views. Or some pictures.

Since you specifically requested some "Around the League" Sox talk...

--Is it too early to say "Renteria, gimme a break." They should change
his number to 643.

--I say Wells ends up with a 5.35 ERA. Do you take the over or under
for entertainment purposes?

--And on the Sox WS rings... Not enough bling, too much, or just right?

Signed,
Dave in Brighton"


Dave-

You raise several points. I hope I can address all of them. First of all, I am not going to fill this space with vitriolic anti-Mets views. You see, marriage is all about supporting your spouse, even if you think they're going to be disappointed every year by the teams they root for. I'll leave it at that, because if I say more, John is going to get mad. Not good for the marriage.

I'm looking into the picture thing. I'm just getting used to this blog thing, so pictures are asking for a lot. But I'll try.

RE: Renteria. It's probably a bad thing to sign the player who makes the last out for the opposing team, letting you win the World Series for the first time in 86 years. But I'm willing to give him a chance. It's only April. Early May, I'll reassess.

RE: Wells. I was vehemently opposed to signing him in the first place. What kind of drugs did Theo take after that Championship?? Signing on an overweight, 41-year-old, drunken man who gets into bar fights is not cool. I say he ends up with OVER a 5.35 and at least one barstool thrown in his face.

RE: rings. Beauties. I love 'em. Just enough bling for me.

OK - our next writer:

"John/Kathy....

Seeing the ring ceremony yesterday was great. It was good to see Lowe and Roberts come back...because they were such key parts of last year.

But a player who was a key part of the franchise is set to get a ring too, and I wonder if they'll do a ring ceremony for him...or give it to him in private. I'm talking about Nomar.

Nomar is the one that brought the fans back to Fenway when the team wasn't very good. He was the one who all the kids bought jerseys of. He's the one that made the Red Sox cool again....remember...for a long time...they were bad...and that stadium was far from sold out.

Then he got hurt...the media soured on him....then skewered him...then traded him....and you know the rest.

Fact is...he still gets a ring because he was on the 2004 team. Question for the house....should the Red Sox have a ceremony for Nomar at Fenway before a game?? Or...should they give him the ring in June when they play each other at Wrigley in front of the Cub fans?? Or....just ship it FedEx??

I would like to see the Fenway faithful get to say "thank you"....but I don't think that will happen.

kevin
JMDBSDC Southern Bureau Chief"

Kevin-

I sadly don't think that will happen either. I think the situation with Nomar and the Red Sox is just too bitter right now. It would be cool for the Sox to give the ring to him at Wrigley, but I think it will really come via DHL sometime this week. (Yes, not FedEx. The Sox made a big point during the telecast that the rings were shipped via DHL.)

Also, my final comment for the day: I used to be a Pedro* fan. I cheered him when he knocked Zim to the ground and threatened to pop Posada in the head. However, the fact that he says he doesn't even want his ring makes me mad. Just friggin' take it and be happy that you won the World Series! Pedro*'s whole shenanigans make me hope he stinks with the Mets. (Sorry, John)

That's it for the day - hope you're enjoying the blog this week. (Though I also hope you're looking forward to the return of JohnnyMets next week.)

Game 1: Mets 10, Rockies 3; Game 2: Mets 4, Rockies 2 (58-61, 7 GB of wild card)

An interesting thing happened on Thursday night. After the softball game, we went to get pizza and beer at the local bar (more on the softball game later), and the Giants-Panthers NFL Preseason game is on the TV. They do a score update at the bottom of the screen, and underneath the score of game one of the doubleheader, Mets 10, Rockies 3, it says "NYM: 7.5 games back of the wild card." It could be that they just needed a stat to put there, but I think of it as an omen. Especially after the big win in game 2.

Al Leiter pitched very well, but again threw way too many pitches, so he left the game in the sixth inning trailing 2-1. It was 2-1 into the eighth, when Eric Valent, our boy here at johnnymets.blogspot.com, hits a pinch-hit solo homer to tie it. Then, with a 3-2 count and one out, one man on, in the top of the ninth, who else but future Hall of Famer David Wright with the first of what will be many dramatic game-winning homers to give the Mets the 4-2 lead. Mike Stanton pitched an excellent inning and a third to get the win.

The Mets won game one big. 10-3, a typical game in Colorado. The Mets' offense clicked, and Kris Benson pitched very well. And the Mets beat Shawn Estes, who I hold a grudge against. I don't know if the Mets do, but I sure do. Here's why. (I might have written this back when the Mets played the Rockies earlier in the year...if I did, sorry, but it bothers me so much I'm writing it again.) Estes, as you all remember, wussed out of throwing at Roger Clemens in his first at-bat against the Mets at Shea Stadium after he threw the bat at Mike Piazza (it was also the first at-bat after he had thrown at Piazza's head). Estes threw behind Clemens, because he wasn't on the team when Clemens did all this stuff to the Mets, and he didn't want to nail him. (Estes did homer off Clemens, which was good, but I wanted blood.) Anyway, that wasn't so bad.......until, last season, Estes is playing for the Chicago Cubs, it's early in the year, very early in the year, and there's a benches-clearing brawl. Who's out there, swinging away at the opponent, but one Shawn Estes?! He's been with these Cubs for a month and a half, and he's out there fighting for them, but he wouldn't throw one stinking baseball at Roger Clemens to back up his batterymate while he was here in New York??! That makes me so friggin' mad. So thank goodness the Mets beat him up yesterday.

A related situation happened in game two of the doubleheader Thursday night. Joe McEwing took a beating in the game. He had at least three Colorado runners take him out hard at second base, and after the third runner, J.D. Closser, slid into him, McEwing didn't get up. He had to be helped off the field. I don't know if he'll be back at all this season. We'll see. But anyway, Braden Looper faces Closser in the eighth inning, and he drills him good. It was a tie game at the time, and Looper put the potential winning run on first base, and got ejected at the same time, but that's good teammating. Way to go Braden! Especially considering Stanton pitched awesome in relief of Looper, and the Mets won the game. If they had lost, I might have been a little pissed.

As for Future Hall of Famer David Wright, he was 5-for-10 in the doubleheader, 2-for-6 in the first game, 3-for-4 in the nightcap. The homer was Wright's 5th (en route to at least 755), and the RBI's brought his total to 15. Piazza, Jose Reyes, and Matsui might be on the DL, but maybe Wright could be the spark to lead this team to the playoffs, or at least keep things rolling until those guys get healthy. (And now that McEwing is hurt, we need one of those middle infielders back soon.) Also on the injury front, Victor Zambrano was placed on the DL Thursday with the elbow problem. I think Matt Ginter will pitch in his place on Sunday.

Would you believe the Mets are now tied with the Phillies in the standings? The Astros trailed 7-2 late in the game on Thursday, and came back to beat Philly 12-10. So the Mets picked up a game and a half on the Phillies. The Mets can pick up some more ground in the wild card race this weekend. They trail the Giants by seven games, and they have three games in San Francisco this weekend. Steve Trachsel goes Friday night, and Tom Glavine returns from his car accident on Saturday afternoon.

As promised, the softball game. So we won big, behind the pitching of my wife! That's right. She played in her first game of the season, and took the mound no less. (She usually keeps score, but we need two women on each team, and she had to be an emergency fill-in). So she pitches two innings, giving up just two runs, catching a pop-up, and recording a strikeout. She got the win. As for the third baseman, he played better. I think just one error in Thursday night's game. So I think there are just 2 games left in the season (don't expect another appearance by the wife). We're 8-2, and I would say we are definitely in the top 3 of the league. Too bad we'll never know, since there is no playoff system.

Let's go Mets!