***Official 2006 NLCS Cards v. Mets Thread*** - Page 53

wh1t3bread · #**521** 10-18-2006, 09:20 AM

Brain,

Your post shows everything that is wrong with this forum. You make a very good argument with some very good points. But then you end it with this:

[ QUOTE ]

The mets smell around the playoffs once or twice a decade, so its hard for you to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just have to ask why? Why do that? It's not particularly funny or even clever. All it's going to do elicit a negative response that doesn't dissect your (what I think are good) points.

Needle77 · #**522** 10-18-2006, 09:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The mets smell around the playoffs once or twice a decade, so its hard for you to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why I keep coming to this thread, I should stay away from it. But honestly, WTF. I'm glad the Cards make the playoffs, but they are the new Braves. The Cards fans in this thread just piss me off. They make it as if its wrong to be a Mets fan.

This Met team will be back next year. Their rotation will be much better. I really hope they can come back to win this series I do, but if they are a year away, they are a year away. If they do get beat tonight, it was obviously by a team that was better at the moment. That's why they don't hand out trophies in the regular season. If anything, the Mets "over-achieved" considering I saw a whole lot of "experts" having the Dodgers beating them. Trust me, I know that means nothing, but I'll take a positive when it's there.

mother_brain · #**523** 10-18-2006, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Brain,

Your post shows everything that is wrong with this forum. You make a very good argument with some very good points. But then you end it with this:

[ QUOTE ]

The mets smell around the playoffs once or twice a decade, so its hard for you to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just have to ask why? Why do that? It's not particularly funny or even clever. All it's going to do elicit a negative response that doesn't dissect your (what I think are good) points.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, feel free to omit the personal jab at the team. It was a jab at Bob, not all mets fans.

Wynton · #**524** 10-18-2006, 10:12 AM

Tough loss for the Mets. That home plate ump really did seem to expand the strike zone, at unfortunate times, but can't blame him for the loss. The Mets just are not getting the timely hits.

I have to pose a question about Pujols play on Floyd's at bat. To me, it looked like Pujols had no reason to jog to first rather than toss the ball to the pitcher. Am I crazy for thinking that he did that purposely to force Floyd to run on his bad ankle?

And if Pujols actually did that, is it a legitimate tactic or bush league?

JordanIB · #**525** 10-18-2006, 10:51 AM

Ok, so I've decided my media blackout only pertains to a certain other message board and listening to the FAN all day at work as I usually do.

And hopefully cutting through all the crap in this thread and finding just the baseball stuff to talk about.

The shot at the Mets was uncalled for. It does seem like a lot of the Cards fans here are the exact antithesis of the ones I met and enjoyed while out in St. Louis on my baseball road trip this summer. But I guess the baiting comes from both ends here and the worst in a couple folks comes out.

Wynton, on the Pujols play, my first thought also was "Man, what a prick!" But then I realized that if a Met made that play, I'd be the first one to say that he was well within his right to do so. No sense in making a throw and risking something going wrong when you can take the ball yourself and beat the guy to the bag. So while it seemed somewhat dickish at first, I think it's completely legit.

Let's get some of that Shea magic going...The last Game 6 there was a certain roller up along the first base line...Hopefully that's good karma.

One pitch at a time, One inning at a time, One game at a time. Throw strikes, don't give guys free passes, and let's see some patience at the plate.

It sucks to have lost 50% of the rotation a week before the playoffs, but such is life. If this year isn't the year, you can bet Omar will address the weaknesses and we'll be back for another run in '07.

But that's a topic for another day. We ain't done yet!

Wynton · #**526** 10-18-2006, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Wynton, on the Pujols play, my first thought also was "Man, what a prick!" But then I realized that if a Met made that play, I'd be the first one to say that he was well within his right to do so. No sense in making a throw and risking something going wrong when you can take the ball yourself and beat the guy to the bag. So while it seemed somewhat dickish at first, I think it's completely legit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that is the justification for the play. Still, the fact that you had the same immediate impression makes me think that there is reason to believe that Pujols, in truth, made the play as he did specifically to force Floyd to run.

I'd actually like to see the play again now.

mother_brain · #**527** 10-18-2006, 11:31 AM

I didnt see the play cause i was playing poker during the game, but i remember wondering why Randolph PH w/ floyd without a man on when you're down by 2. But im pretty sure it was one of those manager decisions that didnt make much difference one way or the other.

With regards to Pujols, he has run to the base himself everytime he can beat the runner this year. Less chance of an error and about 20% of the time the pitcher doesnt cover the bag anyway (especially carp). Its also a good way to get your pitcher hurt if they collide with the runner.

wh1t3bread · #**528** 10-18-2006, 11:32 AM

I'm not sure if Pujols made the play to "force" Floyd to run. I think it was a VERY smart play as he knew Floyd cannot run and ran it to first rather than risk a possible error in a toss to the pitcher.

Very heads up play by Pujols, IMO.

Wynton · #**529** 10-18-2006, 11:42 AM

I can't fault the guy for making the safe play, particularly if that is the way he routinely handles it.

But let me put it this way: would it bother you if Pujols actually decided to play it the way he did solely because he knew Floyd was hurting, rather than for any other reason? Frankly, I'm not entirely sure that it should bother me, but I guess it would.

wh1t3bread · #**530** 10-18-2006, 11:46 AM

If that was his only reason then yes it would bother me. That would be a cheap play in my opinion with the only specific purpose to possibly injure the opposing player.

I wouldn't rank that up there with Bertuzzi or Haynesworth or the Miami Player hitting people with his helmet, but still bad.