batmagadanleadoff

=Methead post_id=25404 time=1572373412 user_id=61] Newsday really stepped up their game

Edgy MD wrote: He's one of those silhouetted generic baseball action figures that I include in all of the base set Batman cards. He can be anybody you want him to be. Willie McCovey. Tim Harkness. Ginger Baker. Anybody. He stands out more there, I think because both Bats and Robin are guiding the observer's eye towards him. How's this? I put the whole baseball action scene in there. I think the problem was that without the charging base runner for context, the first baseman looks more like a surfer. ]<br>I decided it was Amed Rosario getting himself caught in a rundown between first and second to let a run score.<br></td></tr></table><br><br>Excellent choice!<br /><p><br /></td></tr></table><br /><br /><p><br /><TABLE width=800 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5><TR><br /><TD class=posthead>Edgy MD<br> Oct 28 2019 08:32 AM<br /><br><br /><span class=postsubject>Re: I Give Up Day 2019 </span><br><br /></td><br /><TR><br /><TD class=postbody><br /><p><br />Please don't get me wrong. I was curious, but not complaining. I find First Base Silhouette Guy beguiling either way.<br /><p><br /></td></tr></table><br /><br /><p><br /><TABLE width=800 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5><TR><br /><TD class=posthead>batmagadanleadoff<br> Oct 28 2019 08:36 AM<br /><br><br /><span class=postsubject>Re: I Give Up Day 2019 </span><br><br /></td><br /><TR><br /><TD class=postbody><br /><p><br /><table class=quote width=600><tr><td><B>Edgy MD wrote:</b><br><br>Please don't get me wrong. I was curious, but not complaining. I find First Base Silhouette Guy beguiling either way.<br></td></tr></table><br><br>I never took it as a complaint. But I don't mind it if it was. I like constructive criticism.<br /><p><br /></td></tr></table><br /><br /><p><br /><TABLE width=800 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5><TR><br /><TD class=posthead>batmagadanleadoff<br> Nov 01 2019 10:27 AM<br /><br><br /><span class=postsubject>Re: I Give Up Day 2019 </span><br><br /></td><br /><TR><br /><TD class=postbody><br /><p><br />There's an off-year Election Day just around the corner, coming up on us this Tuesday. And on this Fonebone Friday, Typeweriter Chewing Gum's got just the right Batman cards for the occasion. Plus a coupl'a videos featuring a raucous Penguin campaign rally, a riveting Batman/Penguin debate that evokes the best of Lincoln v. Douglas and a video revering the strength of voters. So get out and vote.<br/><br><br/><br><br/><br><br/><br><YOUTUBE id=[YOUTUBE]SrmAs4rkRi8[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]l63SRpGXBHE[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]bKjhaSlr0Jg[/YOUTUBE] https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48995924318_4db266e402_c.jpg> https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48996468701_f6e838d6af_c.jpg>

=LWFS post_id=25208 time=1572064347 user_id=84] You don't want to watch Irishman on bootleg, friendo.

Edgy MD wrote: Without looking up the others, I know Lolich's was the only one of his career. Lolich, by the way, in his much-derided lone season with the Mets, had a 3.22 ERA in 192 2/3 innings. Those numbers would get him at least a taste of Cy Young support today. I never got the derision aimed at Lolich the Met. Maybe it was that he wasn't so fond of being here (the team or the city? or both?). Maybe he was unreasonably blamed for fan favorite Rusty Staub's departure. Maybe some fans were expecting the prime of Lolich, when he was Cy Young caliber. But Lolich was a very solid pitcher for the Mets. Go beyond the stats and check out his game by game log if you have the time.

Frayed Knot wrote: -- Selig talks often of how his major accomplishment was 'raising the revenue' but neglects to mention the cost (in number of eyeballs) of his actions If you wanna be purely cynical about this -- well, so what? Money is the end. So long as tbey continue to make more money than ever, what do they care if nobody watches?

He's one of those silhouetted generic baseball action figures that I include in all of the base set Batman cards. He can be anybody you want him to be. Willie McCovey. Tim Harkness. Ginger Baker. Anybody. Here's that whole scene: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48957918026_820a19c1c7_c.jpg> But the action figures on Seaver's Batman69 insert card aren't generic. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767657401_b5f6164bbd_c.jpg> [FIMG=555]https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/03/16/obituaries/16charles1-print/merlin_135556284_77c25c52-03ce-421c-be30-7bb4b3ce13e4-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale[/FIMG]

A new release and a tweak. Happy Fonebone Friday! https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48956209347_aaba1d9e9b_c.jpg> https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48956209382_00b2577311_c.jpg> https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48624550522_183978c296_c.jpg>

I eliminated Joe Girardi from getting the Mets manager gig about seven seconds after I heard he was (allegedly) a candidate. They're gonna hire another Mickey Callaway. He'll be different, but the same.

I had lunch at Burger King the other day. I'm trying to cut down on this type of fast food meal and as a result, I think that I've eaten fast food burgers just twice in the past six months. If I'm going to have a fast food burger, I'd prefer Shake Shack or Five Guys -- and out of the major national chains, I guess I'd prefer McDonald's over BK. But it was Burger King the other day. And it wasn't that I just happened to be around a Burger King and decided spontaneously to go for the Whopper that takes two hands to handle. No, I planned this lunch. It was on my mind for a few days. So why am I posting this in this here thread about The Irishman? Because I'm jonesing to see the movie. I've been anticipating it for about a year, now. Earlier this year, I even read the book upon which the movie's based -- I Heard You Paint Houses. There's a Burger King near me -- about a 10 minute drive away -- not really walkable. And occasionally, there's this Asian woman that'll make her rounds at that BK, selling perfect quality bootleg DVD's of movies currently in theaters or recent releases that haven't yet made their way to cable TV and the regular DVD market. So I was hoping that she'd be there and that she'd have a copy of The Irishman. She was a no-show. But I waited in vain there for about 45 minutes -- about 10 minutes to eat my food and about a half hour or so killing time surfing the web on my smartphone. And BTW, BK's whoppers definitely got smaller. The bun is about the same size, but the burger is no doubt about it smaller. I really didn't mind because the burger is goddamn awful and if I ever had to eat it without the ketchup and tomato and onions and pickles and cheese that BK puts on it, I might puke before the first bite even settles in my stomach. But it did make for a very odd and unsatisfying burger to bun ratio.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Name the Met who owns this sort-of rookie season: [th]G [/th][th]PA [/th][th]AB [/th][th]R [/th][th]H [/th][th]2B [/th][th]3B [/th][th]HR [/th][th]RBI [/th][th]BB [/th][th]IBB [/th][th]SO [/th][th]HBP [/th][th]SH [/th][th]SF [/th][th]GDP [/th][th]SB [/th][th]CS [/th][th]BA [/th][th]OBP [/th][th]SLG [/th][th]OPS[/th]162663587102167247189768513120622107.284.357.441.799 This 162-game rookie/not-rookie season was brought to you by ... Steve Henderson! [FIMG=500]https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/s81AHzW7qlhbqky1Tw4s7OcWVZ8=/800x479/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ZNGLOWT7OZFBVMB6TFBIVRY744.jpg[/FIMG] His actual rookie season, though only 99 games, was enough to leave him only a hair behind Andre Dawson in the Rookie of the Year voting. [TABLE][TR][th]Rank[/th][th]Name[/th][th]Tm[/th][th]Pts[/th][/TR][TR][TD]1[/TD]Andre Dawson[/TD][TD]MON[/TD][TD]10.0[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]2[/TD][TD]Steve Henderson[/TD][TD]NYM[/TD][TD]9.0[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]3[/TD][TD]Gene Richards[/TD][TD]SDP[/TD][TD]4.0[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]4[/TD][TD]Floyd Bannister[/TD][TD]HOU[/TD][TD]1.0[/TABLE] For a few minutes there, it looked like the Tom Seaver trade, as unpopular as it was, might be a trade the Mets would win. I had a feeling it might've been Henderson. You hardly ever hear talk anymore about Henderson's wondrous magical first five or six months as a Met. For a few minutes there, it looked like the Tom Seaver trade, as unpopular as it was, might be a trade the Mets would win.

Edgy MD wrote: Did Louie the Lilac empty his Tommy gun into J.D. Davis' guts? I dunno, but those are just regular ol' splats. Maybe it was Berle, himself. [FIMG=555]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/5/5a/BatmanS2E10_02.jpg/400px-BatmanS2E10_02.jpg[/FIMG]

Frayed Knot wrote: =kcmets post_id=24992 time=1571829312 user_id=53] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24989 time=1571808689 user_id=68]How come none of the announcers bothered to point this out? Because Buck sucks a TON of dick, perhaps? I'm watching the highlights on MLB Tonight re-run and Reynolds was all over Springer. Biggest play of the game, probably cost a tie at least. - Springer claims he couldn't have reached 3rd and didn't want to pass Tucker on the base paths which is ...umm, bullshit. If you start running up on him then just stop running. But he clearly wasn't looking at his runner while he was bunny-hopping his way to 1st.

Frayed Knot wrote: =kcmets post_id=24992 time=1571829312 user_id=53] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=24989 time=1571808689 user_id=68]How come none of the announcers bothered to point this out? Because Buck sucks a TON of dick, perhaps? I'm watching the highlights on MLB Tonight re-run and Reynolds was all over Springer. Biggest play of the game, probably cost a tie at least.

Frayed Knot wrote: Should be on 3rd, cousin George!! If you're going to dance towards 1st base then you better be damn sure it's actually going out. That's exactly what I was thinking. For a long time. In the World Series, no less. How come none of the announcers bothered to point this out?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Did Homeboy Sandman even mention Tim Bogar??? You're not gonna believe this but he does. At the 14 seconds mark. In fact, Bogar's the first Met to be mentioned.

Tim Bogar makes the cover of not one, but two Mets programs. That's two more than Mets Cy Young award winner R.A. Dickey. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48942340168_65c6458788_c.jpg> https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48942890006_446ba3f0ff_c.jpg>

=kcmets post_id=24823 time=1571602641 user_id=53] Took Nationals in 6, seems like their year and I can help but find some humor in they'll do without The Diamond God.

Frayed Knot wrote: And there's also a reluctance to want to see a 93-win team over one who won 107.... Why's that? (Not me.)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Off the top of my head... Stengel, Berra, Green... I think that's it, right? (Not counting Torre, who managed the Mets before going to the Yankees.) Willie. =G-Fafif post_id=24738 time=1571431062 user_id=55] Willie never managed the MFYs. Only seems like he did.

This baseball card comes with its own video insert. Buy it at a store near you. [YOUTUBE]lpLgE3At5_s[/YOUTUBE] https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48918540173_43881fff96_c.jpg>

Holy moley! I knew Matz was a stud when he first came up. But check out that WHIP. Is that a typo?

=Centerfield post_id=24612 time=1571326367 user_id=65] How do you compile that data?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24441 time=1571152747 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24438 time=1571150891 user_id=65] But this method fails to weight the fact that there are more 80 win teams than 100 win teams. That's why I maintain that this is not the proper analysis. There have been 14 80 win teams, and 7 100 win teams. Twice as many. The 80 win teams are spread out over 5 post seasons, where the 100 win teams are represented in four. So if you operate at chance, the 80 win teams should have more titles, since there have been twice as many teams and one additional year. But it's just the opposite. The 100 win teams hold the advantage 3-1. That's the reason I think there is something more than chance working here.

=Centerfield post_id=24438 time=1571150891 user_id=65] But this method fails to weight the fact that there are more 80 win teams than 100 win teams. That's why I maintain that this is not the proper analysis. There have been 14 80 win teams, and 7 100 win teams. Twice as many. The 80 win teams are spread out over 5 post seasons, where the 100 win teams are represented in four. So if you operate at chance, the 80 win teams should have more titles, since there have been twice as many teams and one additional year. But it's just the opposite. The 100 win teams hold the advantage 3-1. That's the reason I think there is something more than chance working here.

Maybe we should stick to dissing the Wilpons because the more I read this exchange, the more I realize that we have even less common ground than I once thought we did. So now what's Vic gonna think? I think we're talking about different things here. And while there's some overlap in subject matter between our opinions, there's a lot that doesn't overlap. What I'm saying is that I think that all playoff teams, more or less, have about the same chance, or close to it, to win the World Series. I'm not necessarily interested in the results of head-to-head matchups between individual or specific teams. So, I'm not looking for how well overall, a 100-something win playoff team does against an 80-something win playoff team. Let me illustrate: Suppose that next season, there are four 100-something win teams and four 80-something win teams in the 2020 playoffs. If one of the 80-something win teams should win it all -- win the 2020 WS -- I would claim that that result supports my belief -- that a playoff team that's on the lower end win-wise has about as good a chance to the win the WS as its higher win-total counterparts. And I believe this to be so because of the nature of short baseball series between two good teams and that baseball is overloaded with luck, and so a short series in baseball is a terrible and inefficient way to determine which of two baseball teams that are both good to begin with, is the better team. That's all that I'm looking for -- the WS winner. If it should turn out that during those 2020 playoffs, all four 100-something win teams went head to head against all four 80-something win teams, and that the 100 win teams took three out of the four series against the 80 win teams, well that's fine by me, but that's not what I'm looking at. As far as I'm concerned, that's besides the point. I'm just looking at the WS winner. So when those 14 80-something win teams that made the playoffs beginning with the 2012 playoff format were all crammed into just five postseasons, I used "] In fact, during the two WC era (until this year), the only team team to eliminate a 100 win team was another 100 win team. 2016: 103 Win Cubs won it all. Went 3-0 . 2017: 101 Win Astros won it all (3-0). 104 Win Dodgers (2-1). Lost to the 101 win Astros. 2018: 108 Win Red Sox won it all (3-0). 101 Win Astros (1-1). Lost to the 108 Win RS. 100 Win Yankees (1-1) Won the WC game, then lost in ALDS to the 108 win RS. The 100 win teams are 13-0 in series when they are matched against non 100 win teams.