Master Index of Archived Threads


Metly Triple Crown

Elster88 Jul 16 2010 10:46 PM

Woulda been better if I did this a couple of days ago. Young handsome David Wright leads the Mets in home runs and RBI, and his .310 batting average entering today's game barely trails Angel Pagan's .311. What Mets have won the Metly triple crown? (I'm requiring 350 at-bats for a batting average win, except in strike years). All statistics courtesy of my favorite database: ultimatemets.com It's been done 5 times. Gimme the player and the year.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 16 2010 10:50 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Jason Bay, 2010. Oh sorry, I thought this was the triple crown of suck. Tommy Davis, 1967

Valadius Jul 16 2010 10:50 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Mike Piazza, 2000.

Elster88 Jul 16 2010 10:51 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Maybe too easy for the CPF. I figured Piazza would go quick, Tommy Davis I thought was harder. Tommy Davis in 1967 hit .302 with 16 homers and 73 RBI. (Bob Johnson hit .348 over 230 at-bats, Bob Heise .323 over 62) Mike Piazza in 2000: .324, 38, 113. (Alfonzo also hit .324 that year)

batmagadanleadoff Jul 16 2010 11:03 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Cleon did it in '71, although he shared the HR lead (14) with a few other Mets. Does that disqualify him?

Elster88 Jul 16 2010 11:05 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Not to me. You guys are good. Cleon Jones in 1971 hit .319 with 14 homers and 69 RBI. Agee and Ed K also had 14 as batmags said.

Zvon Jul 16 2010 11:06 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Good question. I'll let the guys with the brains answer this while I sit back, watch, and learn.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 16 2010 11:07 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

How about Eddie Murray (93) and Steve Henderson (77)?

Elster88 Jul 16 2010 11:11 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

They were both close, both were best in two of the three stats and came in second in the third. Murray was tops in BA at .285 and RBI at 100. Bobby Bo beat him in home runs 34 to 27. Henderson was tied for the lead with 12 home runs and high in RBI with 65. His BA was second, .297 to Lenny Randle's .304

Zvon Jul 16 2010 11:19 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

I'll give it a shot. Rusty?

Zvon Jul 16 2010 11:23 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

OO, just looked at the database. That was a Kingman year >< DOH!

Elster88 Jul 16 2010 11:27 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

No on Rusty. He was close from 1973-75. 75: first in RBI with 105, second in homers with 19 (Kong - 36), and third among qualifying hitters in batting average at .282 74: first in RBI with 78, second in homers with 19 (Milner - 20), third in BA at .258 73: first in RBI (76), third in HR (15), second in BA at .279 (Millan - .290)

Zvon Jul 16 2010 11:28 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Ho-Jo

Elster88 Jul 16 2010 11:29 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Incomplete answer again? Half credit: 1989 hit .287 with 36 and 101 (6 guys had higher BAs, but all had less than 200 at-bats)

Zvon Jul 16 2010 11:32 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

whoops. Ho-jo in 1989. Rico Brogna in 1995? thats amazin. I would never have known that if I didnt look. U live, u look up, u learn

Elster88 Jul 16 2010 11:34 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Jul 17 2010 06:12 AM

You're looking them up? D-bag. No more answers accepted from Zvon. Honorable mention to Rico Brogna in 1995, hitting .289 and leading the team with 22 and 76. Brett Butler beat him hitting .311 over 367 ABs in 90 games, if 350 is an acceptable minimum for at-bats. (Bobby Bonilla hit .325 in 317 ABs (80 games).) One more to go. Edits: Getting the numbers right. Edit: Yes, Zvon you are a doooooosh.

Zvon Jul 16 2010 11:36 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Zvon Jul 17 2010 01:02 AM Re: Metly Triple Crown

I guess I should have copied what you posted before you edited it (ha, for numbers, yea, right). Lets just steer clear of each other here Elster. Mkay? And you don't have to worry. I won't get involved in any more of your threads.

Elster88 Jul 17 2010 06:14 AM Re: Metly Triple Crown

I agree that you shouldn't get involved in a trivia thread if you are going to look up and post the answers. Anyway, one more to go.

Rockin' Doc Jul 17 2010 08:05 AM Re: Metly Triple Crown

I agree with Elster (well not about Zvon being a dbag). I agree the spirit of trivia questions have always been understood (at least by myself and I believe most others here) to be tests of CPF members knowledge and recollection, not to see who can look the information up the quickest on UMDB or Google. If you don't know and can't resist looking it up, then don't spoil the quiz for others by posting the answers.

Zvon Jul 17 2010 01:07 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Is this really an issue here? Is there a rulebook I should have a copy of? If its an accepted fact that we are not to look stuff up, then fine. As you can see, if your read this thread, I was happy to just see what answers came up. I waited a while before I got involved, hoping to see these answers. Maybe the quiz maker should simply say "DO NOT LOOK UP ANSWERS!". I dunno... That's not what I took offense with, anyway. I have no problem not doing the quiz's that are posted here. From now on, I won't. What I don't appreciate being called a cheater and having a fellow board member request to admins that I be banned from doing something here for a 6 month period. Something as trivial as this quiz.

Edgy DC Jul 17 2010 09:44 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

I didn't see the request, but it would appear he quickly withdrew it. Of course there'll be no ban. Of course, you don't have to withdraw from his or any other threads.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 18 2010 04:48 AM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Zvon wrote: Maybe the quiz maker should simply say "DO NOT LOOK UP ANSWERS!". It really should go without saying.

Zvon Jul 19 2010 01:51 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

At the top lemme say don't read this with any animosity in my words. There isn't any from this side of the screen. The only reason I come here is to interact with other people, other Met fans. These days everyone going off to their own little corners of the virtual world and doing their blogs and whatnot which to me is, pretty much, just writing to ones self. There are many exceptions, blogs that expand your horizons, and I suppose you could say that's a form of interaction too. I prefer hanging at a place with others. All kinds of people. Even that asshole Elster88. I would rather we all got along, but that would be an unreasonable expectation, here or in the real world. I would prefer the real and actual freedom of speech, which I think we pretty much have here, to a point. And that point is decided by the admins, who try to be impartial. I don't care to be called a doosh, but it don't bother me anymore than if some idiot at a ballgame shouted something in my direction. I don't care to be called a cheater, but I know I'm not a cheater in any way shape or form and that I played this rather interesting quiz with nothing but the best of intentions and in good spirit. As far as the banning business, well, thats a joke. But an asshole like Elster won't see it that way. I don't know what his problem is with me, nor do I care. I'll avoid him like I would the guy at the ballgame who thinks a good time is puking on whoever's sitting close enough. Inevitably that guy ends up in a corner, puking on himself. He can choose how he wants to be percieved here by those that don't really know him, and I can choose to ignore him. As far as the "rules that go without saying", I'll just assume there are plenty of them and I hope that one by one I find out what they are. I'll make up a few of my own as we go along, and I'll even share em with you right up front. Zs rule #1: Steer clear of Elster and Elster like assholes. Don't waste your time on them. Zs rule #2: Don't try to expand your knowledge during any CPF quiz's. Or, as I'm sure someone will point out, do that thing but keep it to yourself. Zs rule #3: No need to be honest and friendly here in every case. You don't have to tell anyone you looked up anything. Now thats it. I will now ban myself from this thread. *CLICK BLEEP

Edgy DC Jul 19 2010 02:27 PM Re: Metly Triple Crown

Elster certainly has a history of being aggressive. But I like to think that calling somebody a doosh should be far less offensive than calling them a douche, as the playful mis-spelling is indicative of a self-depracating tone that sort of takes the wind out of the insult. Sort of a how-insulted-can-you-be-by-one-who-can't spell-his-insults sort of thing. So please don't take it to heart. As for the infraction, if you're tempted to give up thinking and look up the answers to a quiz (as we all have been), let us all please be mindful of those still playing and keep the answers to ourselves. Meantime, I'm about to throw up an AWESOME KWIZ!