Master Index of Archived Threads


How bad was our namesake?

iramets Mar 06 2007 10:37 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 06 2007 11:08 PM

I know I'm all over the place with this data from retrosheet, so I'll try to isolate this bit in its own thread. The past few hours I've been looking over the splits between players' lifetime performances vs. lefties and vs. righties. There's a pretty wide range,even amon great players in their career differentials. Some great ones, like Al Kaline, have about a ..050 difference in OPS, which is almost nothing. What it means is you didn't have to worry if a lefty or righty was going against the Tigers, at least as far as Kaline was concerned. He'd hit 'em both about the same. But if you were managing a Willie Stargell, well, he had a huge differential, about .200 OPS points, meaning that against a tough lefty you could give Stargell a rest and you probably wouldn't get too badly hurt in doing so. You know who I found had a very large differential? You guessed it. Ed K. Against righties, he was a decent hitter, with a .718 OPS --not great by any stretch, but not too terrible in the 1960s on a bad club. Against lefties, though, he was unbelievably inept--his OPS was .542. Do you have any idea how bad that is? I'll tell you: Rey Ordonez had a lifetime OPS in the .590s. (And hardly any differential--he sucked both ways, almost equally.) Ed K. (according to retrosheet) had an OPS against lefties that was some fifty points worse than Rey Ordonez. He had a .264 OBP--not BA, OBP vs. lefties, and a .278 SLG. He was ba-a-a-a-a-d. Of course the managers who batted him some 787 times against lefthanders weren't doing their best thinking, either. He had 6 HRs against lefty pitching in those 787 ABs. You'd think eventually someone would tell him to grab some pine, wouldn't you, and let somebody else play first base?

iramets Mar 06 2007 10:43 PM

Also this argues against platooning--of course, Donn Clendenon was a better batter against left-handed pitching, that was no contest. But Clink was also better than Ed K. against righties by a slight margin, over their careers.(.727 OPS vs. Ed's .718.) You could siit Clink down when he was exhausted and not get hurt very much at all, IOW, but he was simply a better all-around hitter than Kranepool, and probably a better fielder as well.

iramets Mar 06 2007 10:53 PM

Some differential figures from the 1986 players (over their careers) Hernandez had almost nothing. a 046 difference in OPS, and Carter's wasn't much bigger, about .072, but Strawberry had a huge one--.156. Essentially, Strawberry batting against lefthanded pitching was really nothing special at all: 238 BA, .317 OBP, .441 SLG, 758 OPS. Shawn Green put up better numbers than those four stats last year.

TheOldMole Mar 07 2007 02:47 AM

I remember seeing Kranepool come up against Curt Simmons in 1963, and swing feebly against three jug-handle curves.

iramets Mar 07 2007 05:03 AM

TheOldMole wrote: I remember seeing Kranepool come up against Curt Simmons in 1963, and swing feebly against three jug-handle curves. Prolly Sunday, May 26, 1963 (D) at Busch Stadium (I assume you saw it on TV?) NY N 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 - 4 11 0 STL N 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 x - 7 16 1 Actually, you gottta give Ed credit: he struck out four straight ABs against Simmons, though possibly not all on a curve, though that's how I'd bet. METS 1ST: Piersall doubled; Neal grounded out (second to first) [Piersall to third]; Hunt walked; Cook struck out; Kranepool struck out; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Mets 0, Cardinals 0. METS 3RD: Cook made an out to shortstop; Kranepool struck out;Hickman doubled; Moran singled [Hickman scored]; Sherry grounded out (second to first); 1 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Mets 3, Cardinals 1. METS 4TH: Rowe struck out; Piersall singled; Neal singled [Piersall to third]; Hunt singled to first [Piersall scored, Neal to second]; Cook flied out to right; Kranepool struck out;1 R, 3 H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Mets 4, Cardinals 3. METS 7TH: Hunt singled; Cook out on a sacrifice bunt (first to second) [Hunt to second]; Kranepool was called out on strikes;Hickman was walked intentionally; Moran flied out to right; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Mets 4, Cardinals 3. The really odd thing about this is that Casey got disgusted (it took him untl the All-Star break almost), sent Ed down to Buffalo for two months, called him up in September, just in time to face--Curt Simmons! He promptly struck out, to lead off the game against Simmons (this was when Casey was on that "Ed. K--natural leadoff guy" kick. "He's tall, he's slow, he plays first base, he bats .209--what more could you want in a leadoff hitter?" He had improved in the minors that year, though, to give Casey the benefit. Ed still went 0-for-4, but this time he only struck out twice. I'm not sure if this highlights Casey's cluelessness or his perversity. "Ya think ya got any better learning how to hit lefties, busher? Let's see how the Buffaloes learned ya, kid."

iramets Mar 07 2007 05:25 AM

From 1964 through 1967, K-pool was an everyday player, averaging over 100 ABs per season vs. lefties, and he was pretty brutal. You'd have to think that eventually Casey or Westrum would have gotten the idea, but no. Hodges came in, reduced him to 54 ABs his first year, 1968, and never nearly that many again. He was lifetime 3 for 23 against Simmons.

Edgy DC Mar 07 2007 07:30 AM

On the subject of platooning, 1969 was remembered, among other rthings, as a year the Mets won while platooning at four positions, but I gather that Hodges got the picture by the end. And by 1970, Ed was out of the scene, and if Clendenon needed occasional relief from a tough righty, it was Shamsky or Jorgenson relieving him. It's funny. 'Pool started in the National League Championship Series against righthanders Niekro, Reed, and Jarvis. Clendenon started the four games against lefties in the World Series, with Ed only facing Palmer in his lone start. The good news for Ed is that he came back from the minors a better hitter for pretty much the rest of his career.

RealityChuck Mar 07 2007 05:48 PM Re: How bad was our namesake?

="iramets"]Of course the managers who batted him some 787 times against lefthanders weren't doing their best thinking, either. Sure they were. You're falling into the common fallacy of believing that people in the past thought like we do now. Casey Stengel never heard of OPS, so that thinking he'd base personnel decisions upon it is a fallacy. The advantages of platooning were well known, of course, but the exact numbers were rarely considered in the early 60s. People would note that a batter got hits, but did not break it down between righties and lefties (I'd say that Earl Weaver was the first to begin to go into details like that). Kranepool's was getting enough hits to manage at a ML level, and they probably knew he hit righties better, but the exact numbers were not available to him. Also, in 1965-68, who did the team have that would do any better? Greg Goossen?

iramets Mar 07 2007 07:27 PM Re: How bad was our namesake?

RealityChuck wrote: You're falling into the common fallacy of believing that people in the past thought You're putting yourself in the position of defending the indefensible. Stengel could certainly see (they had eyes back in those days) that the young Kranepool wasn't getting on base nearly as often as the young Mickey Mantle had, and that the Not-Reaching-The-Little-White-Thingie (NRTLWT, as it was crudely termed back in them primitive days) was much worse against lefthanded pitchers. Now, while it's true that Stengel didn't have the sophisticated tool we now call CTROYS (Compared To Rey Ordonez, You Suck) it is believed that Stengel had once briefly seen a light-hitting shortstop and, in his spare time away from the physics lab, was working on the complex theory that stated that a big, dumb, slow, firstbaseman should be able to reach base more often than a defensive wizard shortstop. Kranepool was a terrible firstbaseman whose awful team desperately pushed him into the lineup because of a dearth, as you note, of other options. In retrospect, they probably would have been better off to play him at Buffalo for a few more years, and play Hickman and Harkness and Frank Thomas and Throneberry and Dick Stuart and Ken Boyer while he grew up and learned how to play the game. Certainly the Mets never won a thing until they realized that Kranepool would never be an everyday 1B man in the National League.

RealityChuck Mar 08 2007 12:26 PM

It's only indefensible if you're living in 2007. Stengel wasn't. You're persisting in the fallacy. Stengel could only see that Kranepool was hitting .257, and that he hit righties better than lefties. Since they weren't keeping track of every bat, he had no firm idea of how much a difference it was. Kranepool's numbers in 1964 (assuming we're talking about Stengel) were remarkably similar to those of Jim Hickman that year. Should the Mets have benched Hickman? Remember, given there were no lefty/righty splits, the numbers would have shown the two to be equivalent. The Kranepool/Mickey Mantle comparison is bogus. If you insisted all players played at Mantle's level, then you could never field a team. I agree that Ed should have spent more time in AAA, but the decision to keep him on the roster had to do with other issues. ] Certainly the Mets never won a thing until they realized that Kranepool would never be an everyday 1B man in the National League Yes, that was the key factor. Getting Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Cleon Jones, Ron Taylor, Bud Harrelson, Gary Gentry, Nolan Ryan, Gil Hodges, Art Shamsky, Jerry Grote, and Tug McGraw had nothing to do with it.

iramets Mar 08 2007 12:51 PM

Well, getting Hodges was key, for sure. He made that realization about Kranepool's limitations. Did I say that was the only choice he ever made, or that Kranepool's reduction to a part-time player was the only factor in the Mets' success? How about you make up an argument you don't like and go argue with it? That would make you very happy, I'm sure. You seem convinced that fancy modern stats (which you've expressed your disdain for several times on this site) are what allow managers to make critical decisions, which is just plain silly. Stengel went on his instincts which led to some conclusions that were good and some which stunk. Modern stats can pinpoint exactly what was loopy in Stengel's thinking--in this case, OBP shows that he rarely understood when various batters had no talent for getting on base. Why he decided that the young Kranepool was a good choice for batting leadoff is "Instinct Gone Bad"--there's no other reason for suspecting he would be any good for getting on base, and he wasn't. It was just a quirky move that we now have tools to describe. "IHe didn't know" doesn't excuse Stengel's foolish thinking. He knew that you need men to get on base at the top of the order, and chose exactly the wrong person to do that for him. Hickman had a few years on Kranepool in 1964. Hickman had spent considerable time in the minor leagues, in the St. Louis system. Kranepool had spent less than a full season in the minors and was only 19 in 1964--he could have benefitted from a few more seasons, and he later said so himself. Do you need a signed confession from Stengel that he fucked up, too, or is Kranepool's word enough for you? Did I insist that all players play at Mantle's level, or are you arguing with yourself again? Stengel could plainly see the advantages of playing someone very young if he showed ability--Kranepool showed very little, and he played him in MLB anyway. Not too swift, in my book. What were the "other issues" you allude to?

RealityChuck Mar 08 2007 06:59 PM

="iramets"]Well, getting Hodges was key, for sure. He made that realization about Kranepool's limitations. Did I say that was the only choice he ever made, or that Kranepool's reduction to a part-time player was the only factor in the Mets' success? How about you make up an argument you don't like and go argue with it? That would make you very happy, I'm sure. I can't help it if you can't see your own lapses of logic. Let's review: ]Certainly the Mets never won a thing until they realized that Kranepool would never be an everyday 1B man in the National League. This is a clear post hoc ergo propter hoc*, and I was just pointing out the logical absurdity of the statement. To imply that platooning Kranepool had any causal effect, as you do, is pure nonsense. ]You seem convinced that fancy modern stats (which you've expressed your disdain for several times on this site) are what allow managers to make critical decisions, which is just plain silly. While I am highly skeptical about the stats -- mostly because the inflated predictive claims -- I am not arguing against them in this case. I am granting every statement you have made about how Kranepool hit, and ironically, I am agreeing on your assessment of his abilities. My point is that, by using the stats to judge Stengel's decisions, you are assuming Stengel had access to the stats; that he thought like you do. As I said originally, understanding that he didn't and couldn't is very difficult, as you are proving in great detail. For the record, I think the stats are a great analysis tool (which is how you're using them here). It's only when they try to predict that they're terrible (PECOTA is wrong over 80% of the time, yet people continue to use it), and, of course, they do nothing to explain why things happen. I will indicate where you fall victim to the projective fallacy (i.e., the belief that people in the past thing like you do) in italics from now on. ]Stengel went on his instincts which led to some conclusions that were good and some which stunk. Modern stats can pinpoint exactly what was loopy in Stengel's thinking--in this case, Once again, you're stuck in the fallacy. Stengel's thinking was perfectly sound for the time. If you're invoking "Modern stats," you're assuming Casey could have gone to his computer and pull up the data and run an analysis of it. That's the fallacy from which your entire argument derives. At best, your only argument was that if Stengel were managing today, this would be a stupid move. But he isn't managing today. You cannot use OPS or lefty/righty splits to comment on his managing because they were not available to him. ] OBP shows that he rarely understood when various batters had no talent for getting on base. Fallacy again. You're assuming that OBP was a consideration. Managers in the 60s looked at BA, not OBP. ] Why he decided that the young Kranepool was a good choice for batting leadoff is "Instinct Gone Bad"--there's no other reason for suspecting he would be any good for getting on base, and he wasn't. Fallacy again. You're assuming that you choose a leadoff hitter with a high OBA, which is how things are in 2007, not 1964. Also, Kranepool lead off a total of six time in 1964, so it's not like Stengel was insisting on it (Casey's statements to the press always have to be taken as a grain of salt), And, of course, a good manager is one willing to experiment (especially when your team is going nowhere and you're trying to develop talend). Finally, the roles of the batters in the batting order were not as strictly defined as they are today. ]It was just a quirky move that we now have tools to describe. Then the accurate statement is, "If Stengel has been managing under the principles of 2007, it was a stupid move." However, he was managing in 1964, a fact keeps eluding your grasp. ] "IHe didn't know" doesn't excuse Stengel's foolish thinking. He knew that you need men to get on base at the top of the order, and chose exactly the wrong person to do that for him. Fallacy again: "exactly the wrong person" if it happened in 2007. "You need men to get on base at the top of the order" is also a 2007 assumption. Ditto "foolish thinking." Granted, you want people to get on base, but they were looking at BA back then. And since Kranepool batted first only six times in 1964, it's hard to make the case that Casey was pushing all that hard for the move. ]Hickman had a few years on Kranepool in 1964. Hickman had spent considerable time in the minor leagues, in the St. Louis system. Irrelevant to my point. The fact is that they had essentially the same numbers that year. From any analysis in 1964, the two players were equivalent. If anything, since Kranepool was a couple of years younger and had little minor league experience, those numbers were very promising. ] Kranepool had spent less than a full season in the minors and was only 19 in 1964--he could have benefitted from a few more seasons, and he later said so himself. Do you need a signed confession from Stengel that he fucked up, too, or is Kranepool's word enough for you? I already agreed that Kranepool needed more time in the minors. But, then, looking at the numbers for 1964, a manager would see a young player who was handling major league pitching as well as Jim Hickman. There was no need to send Hickman down, so why send Kranepool down? ]Did I insist that all players play at Mantle's level, or are you arguing with yourself again? You were the one who made the equivalence: you said that Kranepool wasn't as good a Mickey Mantle. Hardly a fair comparison for any ballplayer, and I'm just reducing your (lack of) logic to an absurdity. Sure Kranepool wasn't as good as Mantle, but that's meaningless. I'm sure Casey knew Kranepool was no Mickey Mantle. ]Stengel could plainly see the advantages of playing someone very young if he showed ability--Kranepool showed very little, and he played him in MLB anyway. Not too swift, in my book. But Kranepool put up similar numbers to Jim Hickman, and was several years younger. Isn't that a sign of ability? Since Stengel had no access to OPS or lefty/righty splits, he -- or any manager of the time -- would see him as a potentially talented mid-level major leaguer who had some problems with lefthanded pitching (I agree that Stengel would have known that; he just couldn't have known how vast the difference it) ]What were the "other issues" you allude to? The fact that he was a popular player who drew fans to the ballpark. So let me make my main point clear: You assume throughout that Casey Stengel was managing Ed Kranepool in 2007. That is the fallacy. The amusing part is that you are so blind to it that you cannot even grasp that it exists, which proves my original point. *Look it up.

iramets Mar 08 2007 07:10 PM

Help me, Rhonda.

MFS62 Mar 08 2007 07:32 PM

My wife and my best friend through college both went to James Monroe High School (Bronx) when Kranepool went there. They both agreed on one thing - Kranepool was a jerk. I'm sorry I don't have any figures to back that up, 1964 or 2007. Later

KC Mar 08 2007 08:03 PM

Even James dismissed JERK in the early 90's as being unreliable. All these statistical acronyms make me dizzy.

iramets Mar 09 2007 06:14 AM

KC wrote: Even James dismissed JERK in the early 90's as being unreliable. All these statistical acronyms make me dizzy. OK, now you've ot me, KC--what's "JERK"? If it's a predictive measure that doesnt work, then are supposing that every technique of analysis is unchangible? T me, it' to James credit that he revises his view on analytic tools, and sometimes changes how he feels about their usefulness. As to our poor friend Chuck here (Rhonda didn't help, alas), you seem to be under the delusion that current analytic techniques apply on to current baseball, which is wrong. We can apply current analysis to baseball well before it was analyzed a the time in that way, and our studies will tell us useful things about the game, even back then. Because he didn't use the term "OBP", Stengel doesn't get excused for not realizing that getting on base is good. That only make sense, as does things he did recognize, like power hitters should bat in the 3-4-5 spots, and guys who don't hit well should get the fewest at bats by batting lower in theo rder. Back then, as now, the object of a lineup was to win games, and to score runs. It was easier for Stengel, because no one had articulated rules or formulas and because other managers were equally clueless, to justify doing moronic things like batting Ed Kranepool leadoff, on his "hunches." Because no one could show him, at the time, exactly why this was a very, very stupid idea, doesn't make it smart. The way your thinking works, no one could criticize his stupid strategies (and he had tons of fhem) at the time because we hadn't worked out our current statistical analyses yet (and if someone had, you would have dismissed him as a crazy crackpot spouting radical and untested ideas). But if we dare to criticize him now, we're guilty in your eyes of applying anachronistic notions to poor Stengel's benighted time. IOW, there's no right tme for someone to criticize Stengel's thinking., so we should all just stop analyzing baseball, which I suspect would suit you fine. Sorry. If you don't liike read this stuff, then don't read it. I'll continue to apply statistical analysis to baseball as I please, and I'm perfectly content if you would rather read something else. I don't work for you. BTW, if you think Kranepool was a popular player, you weren't in the Polo Grounds and Shea. Fans disliked Kranepool intensely. He had zero personality, he pissed his teammates off with his colossal arrogance, he was greeted with choruses of boos and cries of "STIFF!!" when he batted, Hodges made a point of cutting him down to size when he arrived (and only partially succeeded) and he continued as one of the most clueless, entitled, puffed-up egos ever to play for the Mets. Now, Ron Hunt--that was a popular young Met. Rod Kanehl. Tug McGraw. Bud Harrelson. These guys played hard, they hustled, they strove to improve. You should have been there. Kranepool was everything that was wrong about managing by hunch.

Edgy DC Mar 09 2007 06:28 AM

Whoosh.

Frayed Knot Mar 09 2007 07:00 AM

"Fans disliked Kranepool intensely. He had zero personality, he pissed his teammates off with his colossal arrogance, he was greeted with choruses of boos and cries of "STIFF!!" when he batted" Not to mention borrowing Chico's soap and not returning it.

KC Mar 09 2007 07:14 AM

ira: >>>he pissed his teammates off with his colossal arrogance, he was greeted with choruses of boos<<< Sounds like this very forum's early days.

cooby Mar 09 2007 07:43 PM

Hodges made a point of cutting him down to size when he arrived (and only partially succeeded) What kind of manager belittles a seventeen year old?

iramets Mar 10 2007 08:27 AM

Nobody's taking about belittling teenagers, Cooby. --unless you think sending them to the minors (or college) is a degrading experience. I'm pointing out how Hodges, upon arriving at the Mets as manager in 1968, when Kranepool had reached the age of 23, made the decision (over the course of that season) that the Mets needed a firstbaseman who could hit like a firstbaseman. They tried trading for Dick Allen and Joe Torre, and finally in June of 1969 got Donn Clendenon. For the rest of his career with the Mets, through 1978, Kranepool was never the regular first baseman again, backing up such guys as the Hammer and Torre. Duke Snider, Hodges' teammate on the Dodgers and the Mets, probably did feel like belittling the punk in 1963--supposedly, the lefty slugger offered the young lefty some batting tips and Ed K supposedly refused the offer, saying to the future HOFer, "You're not hitting so well yourself." If I was the Duke, I would have duked him.

cooby Mar 10 2007 02:56 PM

that's not what you seemed to be saying, but thanks for the clarification

MFS62 Mar 11 2007 09:07 AM

iramets wrote: BTW, if you think Kranepool was a popular player, you weren't in the Polo Grounds and Shea. Fans disliked Kranepool intensely. He had zero personality, he pissed his teammates off with his colossal arrogance, he was greeted with choruses of boos and cries of "STIFF!!" when he batted, Hodges made a point of cutting him down to size when he arrived (and only partially succeeded) and he continued as one of the most clueless, entitled, puffed-up egos ever to play for the Mets. Now, Ron Hunt--that was a popular young Met. Rod Kanehl. Tug McGraw. Bud Harrelson. These guys played hard, they hustled, they strove to improve. You should have been there. Kranepool was everything that was wrong about managing by hunch. Ira, I think the fans' feelings toward Kranepool were compound by a few things: The Mets may have had a chance to draft Rusty Staub first instead of Ed. Staub was drafted by Houston. In those days, Houston (an expansion team "born" the same year as the Mets) won an overwhelming majority of the games between the two teams. Staub became a much better hitter than Kranepool. It was the typical fan case of "shoulda' , woulda' , coulda'. But in this case, they were correct. Later

Johnny Dickshot Mar 11 2007 09:23 AM

There was no draft in '62. A team could sign amatuers to their heart's content.

Edgy DC Mar 11 2007 09:47 AM

Which we've been over. Fans' opinions of Kranepool had nothing to do with Staub, any more than it had to do with any other amateur signed by a Major League team that off-season.

iramets Mar 11 2007 09:47 AM

Respectfully, MFS62, I don't think the comparison to Staub was very harmful to Kranepool--they were both huge, slow lefty 1b/corner OF guys who'd reached the majors a very tender age, but Staub didn't develop much more quickly than Kranepool. It's only in retrospect (their careers took very different paths after the mid-1960s) that Rusty's overwhelming superiority becomes clear. Kranepool earned all of the hostility that Mets fans heaped on him all by himself, I think, though the Mets were his enablers, you might say, in thrusting him into a prominence that let him feel he was actually doing better than he really was. He made the All-star team very young, mainly by dint of appearing to be the best player (Hunt was hurt) on a god-awful team, but it remains to be seen if putting a struggling young player on an All-Star does more good than harm. I think that designation made an impression of Ed that he was much better than he was, and his desire to improve his game, never great, just went straight to Hell after that. It's kind of hard to understand humility when you've just been told that you're the best player on your team, and Ed wasn't struggling particularly hard against drawing that conclusion, which was too bad, mainly for him. We've seen this phenomenon several times, right now with Milledge, in former times with Jefferies and Kent, where a young player, probably out of insecurity as well as immaturity, decides he's earned some respect that he hasn't quite earned (n his teammates' eyes) just yet. It seems to help in the long run when teammates can decide to give some tough love, but tough love is hard to give when the kid with an attitude problem is getting strong signals that he IS as good as he thinks he is. If Milledge makes the A-S team this year, I don't think it will be a character-builder for him, and Hodges was able to begin the process of building Ed's character somewhere in the middle of his eighth MLB season, which seems a little late to me to do much good.

dinosaur jesus Mar 11 2007 10:13 AM

If Miledge makes the All Star team this year, he'll be having a hell of a season. Character issues can wait if he plays like that.

Edgy DC Mar 11 2007 10:22 AM

Or the Mets will have fallen apart.

iramets Mar 11 2007 10:25 AM

Well, yeah, because he's got a load of distinguished teammates. If Milledge makes the A-S team, and none of them do, that's great for his development as a ballplayer, but it won't do much to "show some humility, rook," as a wise man once advised. I think Kranepool's self-assessment of his own flaws as a player, never great to begin with, took a bad wrong turn after his All_Star status, and I doubt that Milledge will see that he has a lot to learn from his teammates or manager if he makes the A-S team this year, especially if he does so and no other teammate does. I don't want to get into a whole thing about Milledge, just to illustrate a point that some young players are poor judges of their own abilities, and lack thereof, and that some players (like Kranepool) seem to stop making progress very early when they are given positive feedback that in a more mature player might simply mark the beginning of MLB achievements.

KC Mar 11 2007 11:19 AM

Kranepool made the team for 18 freakin' seasons ... from the year I was born until I was like a senior in high school. Sure, his making some of the clubs and his role on those teams is largely due to some long periods of suck- itude, poor decision making, and lousy teamates competing for his spot. These were the Mets, afterall. I don't care if he got along with teamates, dissed ol' man Duke, or if he was coddled my managers, or brought up too quickly, or if he stayed around too long. He's freakin' Eddie K, Steady Eddie, Krane ... and the naming of this forum was internet genius. So there.

iramets Mar 11 2007 11:38 AM

KC wrote: Kranepool made the team for 18 freakin' seasons ... from the year I was born until I was like a senior in high school. Sure, his making some of the clubs and his role on those teams is largely due to some long periods of suck- itude, poor decision making, and lousy teamates competing for his spot. These were the Mets, afterall. I don't care if he got along with teamates, dissed ol' man Duke, or if he was coddled my managers, or brought up too quickly, or if he stayed around too long. He's freakin' Eddie K, Steady Eddie, Krane ... and the naming of this forum was internet genius. So there. Don't forget he also had continence problems, and a lingering yeast rash. Pardon me for dissing your idol.

KC Mar 11 2007 11:53 AM

He ain't my idol, I'm goofin' on you. Maybe we should rename the forum to Sons of Barry Lyons. Catchy, no?

iramets Mar 11 2007 12:02 PM

="KC"]He ain't my idol, I'm goofin' on you. Maybe we should rename the forum to Sons of Barry Lyons. Catchy, no? Sorry. I can't tell the wingnuts from the sarcasm-impaired without a scorecard. How about you append some sort of indication when you're being a goofball--maybe some indication of sarcastic-content, maybe some sort of percentage or something?

KC Mar 11 2007 12:32 PM

Wingnut is generally a safe bet, I was never a big fan of the sarcasm content added to posts. If people don't know you're being sarcastic, be more so. Say Ed sued us and forced a forum name change. I think aloud, what would be a cool Mets forum name? Sons of Barry Lyons is too Hornish. Lenny's Car Wash Straw's Right Field Line tradenolannow.com passonreggie.net Coleman's Tarp Talk Sergi, uh, nevermind ...

Edgy DC Mar 11 2007 01:03 PM

Ed doesn't see a good thing right in front of him. Keep the C there, and we're gold.

KC Mar 11 2007 01:54 PM

hekilledacat.com cameracarter.net The Franchise Forum - I'm great, everyone hates me, I like it that way. The Shoe Polish Forum blackcat.com The Kong's Kingdom Hammer Time

ScarletKnight41 Mar 11 2007 01:56 PM

I kind of like blackcat.com

KC Mar 11 2007 02:05 PM

Hans beat us to it.