Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Tom Brady's surgeon apparently not good enough for Mets

The New England Patriots trusted Dr. Neal ElAttrache enough to have him perform reconstructive knee surgery last year on three-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback Tom Brady. But according to the New York Times, ElAttrache is the Dodger team doctor that the Mets have accused of misdiagnosing Jose Reyes' hamstring tendon tear in May. Now the Dodgers have responded by stating that the Mets have "official documentation" that ElAttrache correctly diagnosed Reyes.

As Metsblog notes, this story has truly alarming implications for the state of the Met organization. Why did the Mets continue to insist that Reyes had a calf strain if they knew it was actually a hamstring tendon tear? By refusing to acknowledge the true story, did the Mets allow Reyes to run and make the injury worse, instead of giving it time to heal or perhaps scheduling surgery so that Reyes could make it back more quickly?

Metsblog also quotes Adam Rubin, who told Kiner's Korner:

"Almost uniformly [players] said that they were pushed to play though injuries that would have landed them on the DL had they been with other organizations."

We can debate all we want over what free agents the Mets should pursue or who should be the manager or GM, but none of that will matter if the Mets cannot be trusted with the health of their players.


Squawker Lisa has helpfully suggested that Carl Pavano should be a Met next year.

Let's see - Pavano has a lot of trouble staying healthy, and did not seem to be able to handle New York when he was with the Yankees. Also, he will be 34 next year and will probably want more money and years than he is worth. Thanks, Lisa!

When I told my fellow Squawker what I thought of her idea, she replied that Pavano won 14 games in 2009, more than any Met pitcher. In fact, she added, no Met even had 14 homers.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it may not be such a bad idea. After all, Kenny Rogers was 34 when he came to the Mets during the 1999 season after failing with the Yankees. Rogers went 5-1 down the stretch to help the Mets reach the playoffs for the first time in 11 years.

Once Rogers was in the playoffs, well, that was pretty ugly. But at least he helped the Mets get there.

Pavano, by the way, has great postseason numbers: 1.71 ERA and 0.95 WHIP along with 24 strikeouts and only three walks in 26 1/3 innings. He is 2-1, with Sunday's Yankee game the only loss.

Still, if the Mets' big offseason acquisition turns out to be Pavano, it will be hard not to think of Charlie Brown returning from trick or treating and announcing, "I got a rock."


Uncle Mike said...

If Jose Reyes really is as good as Met fans believe he is, then Met management had better gets its act in gear, so as not to cause additional damage its players. After all, they're selling baseball, so why would you provide improper maintenance for your product?

I hate trying to sound objective.

About Carl Pavano: Not only does he do very well when he's not a Yankee, but he does well against the Yankees. Can you imagine Pavano pitching seven shutout innings for the Mets, against the Yankees, at Yankee Stadium II? Lisa would need oxygen. I wouldn't like it too much, either.

Anonymous said...

I was reading another blog this morning on MSNBC re. a potential Freeway series, and someone stated that the 2000 Subway Series had very low TV ratings. So I took a look at his source (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml) and wouldn't you know it, he was right! In fact, the 1996, 1998, and 1999 WS ratings were pretty low too.

And if you compare the TV ratings from ANY WS from 1980 through 1992 (which just happens to coincide with the Yankees "glory" years) to the ratings from 1993 through last year, it seems that TV ratings were higher when the Yankees were not involved.

Geez, how about that? In the 1980's, the Yankees were sucking it up and WS ratings were high; then mid-90's until now, the Yankees were on a spending spree and WS ratings were down. Go figure. Maybe people really are more interested in baseball when you have two "Cinderella" teams, or two teams that haven't been there in a long time. After all, the 2004 WS (Red Sox) was the highest-rated WS of this decade. In fact, 2004 is the highest rated WS since the 1994 strike, with the exception of the 1995 WS (Braves-Indians). Imagine the ratings if the Cubs could ever get there?

Hmmm, does that suggest that maybe the Yankees just don't command the attention that they claim they do? Apparently so, since the numbers don't lie.

Numbers don't lie, but they can be made to tell any story you wish, so go ahead MINJ, tell me a story, just try to refute these numbers, I need a good laugh!

Anonymous said...

Anon ...better go back and check your ratings again...

Since the 1994 strike the ratings dropped significantly. After the strike the highest rating was '95 (19.5 rating) followed by the Yankees in '96 (17.4). The Subway Series was lower..most likely due to the fact it was all NY (12.4). As for this decade the Red Sox (15.7)in 2004 barely squeaked by the 2001 Yankees Series (15.6. The 2007 World Series with the Red Sox was one of the lowest of all time (10.6). Last year's WS was the lowest ever (8.4). Another reason that attributes to lower ratings (besides the strike) is cable TV and the access to many other sports and non-sports shows which coincide with the WS.

As far as the 80's ...the Yankees in '81 had the second highest WS rating behind the '80 series.

Try not to skewer facts to make your own story sound better.


Go Yankees 2009 !!!

Anonymous said...

BTW ..I got these ratings from the same place you claim to...


I think you need to go back to school for reading comprehension.


Go Yankees 2009 !!

Anonymous said...

All you Yankee haters can kiss my ass.

Yanks in 6.


Paul from Boston said...

Does anybody really care about ratings other than the networks?

To reinforce Peggy's point - last year was a "Cinderella team" vs. a team that hadn't been in it for years. Didn't do much for ratings. Although my theory on that is nobody outside of Philly wanted to hear those stupid cowbells so nobody other than Geno watched games 1 or 2.

'07 was pretty weak yet I sure enjoyed it. Guessing a Dodgers or Angels fan isn't really going to be too worried if anyone on this coast watches a Freeway Series.

So even if your numbers added up, Anon, I have to think you could have found something better to try and bait Uncle Mike with.

Paul from Boston said...

Correction to my second paragraph - nobody outside of TB wanted to hear the cowbells. Only Geno and Phillies fans tuned in.

Bklynfan said...

I could really care less about the ratings -- as long as it's my team playing, who cares who is watching?

Paul from Boston: Sorry you're team got knocked out -- I was looking forward to a NY/Bos ALCS.

Anonymous said...


I've been to Rays and Marlins (this year vs Yanks)...there is NOTHING more annoying than those cowbells...TRUST ME !!! lol. At least the rally monkey is funny..I've watched some of the spoofs they play at the Angels games on youtube and I admit ...I had a chuckle over them.

I'm so happy some fans can keep it to plain old LOUD cheering like the Yankees and Boston. No gimmicks needed. We don't need hankies, monkeys or cowbells to shake the Stadium just a winning team.


Go Yankees 2009 !!!

Anonymous said...

Peggy, Peggy, Peggy, I wish just one time you people could read an opinion from the "other side" (non-Yankee) and open your eyes and minds and see the truth for what it is. The "just say no to YES" network has you people so brainwashed that you can't sh*t or see straight.

"Since the 1994 strike the ratings dropped significantly." - I agree, the numbers confirm this. What I was trying to say is that if you break the ratings chart into two periods, pre-strike and post-strike, you will see that those years where the Yankees were in the WS were NOT (repeat NOT) the highest-rated WS in either time frame. You even said so yourself ("...the Red Sox (15.7)in 2004 barely squeaked by the 2001 Yankees Series (15.6..."). And pre-strike, the highest rated WS was 1980, Phils vs. Royals, which had a significantly higher rating and share (see the chart) than the 1981 WS. The reason that the 2001 WS had a high rating was likely due to the D'backs getting there in only their 4th year of existence, and people were intrigued at the possibility of a new team putting the smackdown on the Yankees, which they most certainly did. That and the whole post-9/11 thing too.

So do I need to go check my ratings again? No, my statements were accurate. YOU need to take off your blinders and open yourself up to the TRUTH.

Anonymous said...


You weren't stating an opinion...just mistating facts in parts of your posting. If you are crediting 9/11 for 2001 then you should take into consideration that the Red Sox ratings were so high because people wanted to see if they could finally win after 86 years of futility which most likely was the reason since the ratings were a paltry 10.6 for 2007 MUCH lower than any Yankees WS. As Paul astutely pointed out tho'... the ratings don't really matter to the fans of any particular team just the networks. I can say that I have read that TBS is happy as can be that the Yankees are back because they have received their highest ratings since telecasting playoffs ..especially the Yankee/Twin games.. :o). I'm just hoping Yankee games are telecasting right through till the final game of the WS with the Yankees winning Championship #27 !!!

The Yankees will always be #1 in my rating system... :o)...

Boss is back ... time to get to work ...have a good day all ...


GO Yankees 2009 !!!

Anonymous said...

btw, I think you meant to say "skew", not "skewer", the facts. Check your usage of the English language, please.

And it sounds like you are the one "skewing" your facts. Bottom line is, and this is consistent with the point I was trying to make, is that the Yankees do NOT generate the highest WS ratings. Period. End of story.

Anonymous said...

Anon, who the hell gives a rat's ass about what you and your non-Yankee viewpoints have to say.

Go preach on a Mets and Red Sox blog and commiscerate with your other fellow misfits.


Anonymous said...

oooh, I struck a nerve. Can't handle it when you can't argue the fact that you aren't number 1? HA HA HA HA

Oh well, like they say, you can't spell Yankees without S-U-C-K.


Theeeeeeeeeeee, Yankees SUCK!

Uncle Mike said...

Anon, or should I say Ed Drossman: You wanted me baited, you got it. You are, indeed, the master baiter.

Did you even watch the 2001 World Series? Since when did winning a World Series with a come-from-behind rally in the bottom of the 9th of Game 7 constitute a "smackdown"?

No, a "smackdown" is closer to what Peggy hit you with. As New York's own Senator Pay Moynihan used to say, You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. And as baseball fan Carl Sandburg used to say, Figures don't lie but liars can figure.

The very fact that you use the word "smackdown" suggests that you are more interested in "professional wrestling" than in baseball, in which case your opinion isn't worth the electrons they're "printed" on.

The growth of cable TV, and the massive amounts of choices it gives to viewers, means that TV ratings aren't what they used to be for anything. The most-watched prime-time series show in U.S. history is the "MASH" finale in 1983: A 77 share. That broke the record of "The Fugitive" in 1967: 72. "Cheers" in 1993? 64. "Seinfeld" in 1998? 58. "Friends" in 2004? 43. "Everybody Loves Raymond" (a show for Met fans)? 29.

Do you see how it works? Instead of the old 7 channels (CBS-2, NBC-4, Metromedia-5, ABC-7, Independent-9, Independent-11 and PBS-13), there are now, literally, hundreds to choose from, and if somebody had to choose between the World Series on NBC, a CBS sitcom or an ABC cop drama in the Seventies, he could now choose anything from CNN's news to the Discovery Channel's Shark Week to E!'s "Keeping Up with the Kardashians."

Keeping up with you is easy. If we think it's worth the time and the effort. Maybe it isn't.

Uncle Mike said...

Of course, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was popularly known as "Pat," not "Pay." I apologize for the typographical error, but that's the only error I had.

And if the Yankees suck, what does that say about 26 of the other 29 teams, who are now done -- including yours? I'm presuming you are who I think you are, and a Met fan; barring that, that you're not a fan of the Angels, Phillies or Dodgers, and you probably couldn't name more than 5 players on any of those teams.

Lisa Swan said...

I can't believe we've been having an all-day argument on TV ratings!

Where do I stand on this? I don't care if the Yankees get a 0.1 share. I just want them to win it all.

Anonymous said...

I am not Ed Drossman, never heard of him. But I am good at putting the worm on the hook. You, on the other hand, are the masturbator. Try not to get the two confused.

I did not watch game 7 of the 2001 WS, but after I heard the result the next day, I watched the replays and highlight reels endlessly. I even downloaded a video clip onto my PC of Luis Gonzalez's big hit, showing the winning run scoring, and the players all celebrating, the fans going crazy, and most importantly the Yankee dugout quiet as a mouse, everyone's head down in shame, trying not to be noticed. I watch it whenever I need a little "pick me up". It's great!

I would absolutely call it a smackdown, given the way that the D'backs rallied against your "all-world" closer (please). It was definitely a "smackdown" kick-in-the-crotch. And that is my opinion. That's my story and I'm sticking to it - HA!

I'm not arguing that the trend over the past 30 years is that the ratings have steadily declined. The numbers prove that. What I'm saying is that in either sample, pre-strike and post-strike, the Yankees did NOT have the highest rating of any WS in either sample. Are you with me? Did I talk too fast? Please don't make me explain it again, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Try to keep up with me, ok?

Doesn't it make you wonder though? With the explosion of cable TV and the hundreds of channels to choose from, that people are choosing to watch something else other than the WS, even when the Yankees buy their way in. (I should say "especially" when they buy their way in, since those WS years are NOT the highest rated).

You can guess who I am all day, but you will never know. I am Anonymous. But I will tell you this: the more you dump on the Mets, the more I'm going to dump on the Yankees.

Does that make me a Met fan? Are the Mets my favorite team? No. Are the Red Sox my favorite team? No. Don't get me wrong, I like the Mets, and the Red Sox, and the Angels, Dodgers, D'backs, Phillies, pretty much every team except for one. And we know which team that is, don't we? That's right, the team that SUCKS, the team whose name you can't spell without the letters S-U-C-K, theeeeeeeeeee Yankees SUCK!

Search This Blog