Oddfellows Local

Sure to be buried in discussion of their second straight shutout, destined to get less attention than two ridiculousy unnecessary and counterproductive sacrifice bunts, and with the Yankees all the way to third place, tough to crack the papers at all, so thought it’d be worth pointing out the fact that tonight’s starting Mets lineup was 8/9ths odd:

7 Jose Reyes, SS
10 Endy Chavez, RF
5 David Wright, 3B
15 Carlos Beltran, CF
3 Damian Easley, 2B
21 Carlos Delgado, 1B
17 Fernando Tatis, LF
11 Ramon Castro, C
57 Johan Santana, P

That’s the oddest lineup I’d come across since we last raised the subject and found an 8-men odd lineup from May 20, 2004:

57 Eric Valent, LF
25 Kaz Matsui, SS
31 Mike Piazza, 1B
43 Shane Spencer, CF
20 Karim Garcia, RF
23 Jason Phillips, C
27 Todd Zeile, 3B
9 Ty Wigginton, 2B
29 Steve Trachsel, P

Oddly enough (get it?!) the right fielder in both lineups provides the only even number.  It’s entirely possible I overlooked an odder starting nine at some point this year — the current personnel leave almost no chance for an even starting squad, but as always if you happen find occurrances such as this — also, all-ascending or all-descending lineups, so rare I’ve found none in 46 years — you know where to send it. Gary Cohen may be aware of the two-sixes controversy, but it’s not like Big Media is on this story yet.

* * *

Roster move: Tony Armas to the disabled list, Carlos Muniz back up again.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

One comment

  1. Jon Springer says:

    Submitted by bob (not verified) on Thu, 07/10/2008 – 11:11am.
    Chris thinks I am kidding but I would like him to split from Mike Francesa.

    And, the point of the call was Johan Santana was struggling due to his TEAM, just like Chris does with Mike during this ‘crossroads’
    time.

    Writer Chris Illuminati of Philly Blurbs said this after viewing the video, “video proof that the Dog won’t bark about any particulars of the rough patch he and Mike are going through.”

    Complete coverage at
    http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/blog_index.php/?p=31789

    Neil Best, for Newsday, said after viewing the video, “I heard that live yesterday. Weird, but amusing! Thanks. Neil”

    Now appearing in Deadspin’s report on the matter:
    http://deadspin.com/5021276/mike-and-the-mad-dog-divorce-inevitable

    Kevin Canessa has had the foresight of a Mike and the Mad Dog Split since this post.
    http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/search/label/WFAN

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/35817-who-actually-scooped-the-impend

    He deserves that credit!
    __________________

    ps, Chris said a few days before, “And, you know, Neil Best thinks he has something and he’s a good reporter and I like Neil. Again, I would never talk to him about anything like this because for whatever the reason, this is a guy who killed my book. That’s sensitive to authors, and don’t forget, I’m John Grisham. That’s sensitive.” and then added, “I’ve talked to him about it, but I don’t forget that. He went out of his way to bury that book, same day I was on the Today show. C’mon. But listen, Neil thinks he has something, so he’s going to track me down in the middle of a weekend and he’s going to track Mike down in the middle of a weekend and he’s going to write something.”

    Call WFAN at 718.937.6666 with a 2 point question.

    Ask a sports question. Then follow up with a question directed at Dog – “So, Chris, did you really enjoy flying solo recently? Do you think the show was better solo as Bob from Cranbury pointed out last week to you?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1PQTXGd9T8

    I’ll be DVRing

    delete edit reply report to Mollom
    Bob, you seem to have

    Submitted by Jon Springer on Thu, 07/10/2008 – 2:55pm.
    Bob, you seem to have mistaken this for a blog that gives a crap about Mike and the Mad Dog. What gives?

    delete edit reply report to Mollom
    Weren’t uniform numbers,

    Submitted by Dave Mackey (not verified) on Fri, 07/11/2008 – 8:29am.
    Weren’t uniform numbers, when originally conceived, intended to indicate batting order?

    delete edit reply report to Mollom
    Only to a degree. That’s

    Submitted by Jon Springer on Fri, 07/11/2008 – 1:52pm.
    Only to a degree.

    That’s how they were assigned by the Yankees when they first did it (though the Yanks weren;t the first, its when they did it that the practice caught on) but not all teams fell into line with that particular method of issuing numbers.

    delete edit reply report to Mollom
    Nothing to add here, just

    Submitted by Gene F. (not verified) on Sat, 07/12/2008 – 5:13am.
    Nothing to add here, just kudos for the thread title.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *