Master Index of Archived Threads


Stinnett / Humber

Frayed Knot Sep 09 2006 12:59 PM

* It's been mentioned here that we're only a player or two away from the 800th Met - and that it could be Humber if/when he gets into a game or the first new player next year if he doesn't. But aren't you MBTN/UMDB types counting the one or two guys who, because they occupied a spot on the reg season roster (and therefore a uni number) even tough they never appeared in a game, as part of that 800? And if so, should Humber be incuded now? * Have any of our "two-timers" ever had their NYM appearances seperated by as much time as Kelly Stinnett's 11 year span?

TransMonk Sep 09 2006 01:21 PM Re: Stinnett / Humber

Frayed Knot wrote: * Have any of our "two-timers" ever had their NYM appearances seperated by as much time as Kelly Stinnett's 11 year span? David Cone: 1987-1992, 2003. There's one other as well...it was an Aflac question this week. I don't recall the second one.

SteveJRogers Sep 09 2006 01:27 PM Re: Stinnett / Humber

TransMonk wrote: ="Frayed Knot"]* Have any of our "two-timers" ever had their NYM appearances seperated by as much time as Kelly Stinnett's 11 year span? David Cone: 1987-1992, 2003. There's one other as well...it was an Aflac question this week. I don't recall the second one. Alex Trevino?

TransMonk Sep 09 2006 01:43 PM

Nope, just found it: Bob Miller 1962, 1973-1974. Trevino was 1978-1981, 1990.

Yancy Street Gang Sep 09 2006 07:44 PM Re: Stinnett / Humber

Frayed Knot wrote: But aren't you MBTN/UMDB types counting the one or two guys who, because they occupied a spot on the reg season roster (and therefore a uni number) even tough they never appeared in a game, as part of that 800? And if so, should Humber be incuded now? No. Only the guys who appeared in at least one game are counted, and the number is currently at 798. Humber would be 799 if and when he plays, and number 800 will probably be a guy who debuts in 2007.

Valadius Sep 09 2006 11:28 PM

Now consider this: If more than one new face trots out onto the field in the first inning on Opening Day next year, who would we consider the 800th Met?

Willets Point Sep 09 2006 11:30 PM

We determined a couple of years ago that it would go by batting order appearance.

Johnny Dickshot Sep 09 2006 11:32 PM

We had this same situation on opening day 2003 for the 700th Met. IIRC, there were 698 on opening day, with Floyd, Rey Sanchez and Glavine all debuting: After some debate it was decided that they would be Mets in the order they were announced in the lineup. Glavine got the honor then peed all over it.

Valadius Sep 09 2006 11:33 PM

Even if we were the home team? Suppose one of the multiple players vying for #800 comes out of the game with a freak injury in the top of the first while playing in the field. Would they not count, even though they obviously took the field as a Met?

Willets Point Sep 09 2006 11:34 PM

A lot of peeing with you lately.

Johnny Dickshot Sep 09 2006 11:47 PM

="Valadius"]Even if we were the home team? Suppose one of the multiple players vying for #800 comes out of the game with a freak injury in the top of the first while playing in the field. Would they not count, even though they obviously took the field as a Met? I'd say in that case you'd have to count him first, since his contribution, whether it be a third of an inning fielding, or whatever, would have begun and ended before the others. There was a possibility, I think, that Glavine'd get knocked out in the first in the opener, which was at home. Fortunately he stayed around and took several innings of beatings before getting pulled. That's what I meant by peeing on the honor.