batmagadanleadoff

'Vertigo' bumps 'Citizen Kane' from top spot in poll of best movies of all time "Citizen Kane" has long sat atop many critics' best movies of all time lists. Just like The Beatles for music or "The Great Gatsby" for books, it's become such a top-10-list fixture that it's hard to remember a time when its rank was questioned. Until now. Orson Welles' 1941 classic has topped the Sight & Sound magazine poll for 50 years, but in the latest poll, Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 psychological thriller "Vertigo" took the No. 1 spot. Whle Americans may not know the magazine, a monthly published by the British Film Institute, Roger Ebert has called its best-film poll "the only one most serious movie people take seriously." Movies are voted for by an international group of film experts. The magazine notes that "Vertigo" only entered the list's top 10 in 1982, but has "risen steadily in esteem over the course of 30 years." It goes on to wonder whether "the first poll to be conducted since the Internet became almost certainly the main channel of communication about films � mark a revolution in taste, such as happened in 1962 (when "Kane" topped the list for the first time)?" The top 10 films on the list are: 1. "Vertigo" 2. "Citizen Kane" 3. "Tokyo Story" 4. "La Regle du jeu" 5. "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans" 6. "2001: A Space Odyssey" 7. "The Searchers" 8. "Man with a Movie Camera" 9. "The Passion of Joan of Arc" 10. "8 1/2" http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13073373-vertigo-bumps-citizen-kane-from-top-spot-in-poll-of-best-movies-of-all-time viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14841&start=0 viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14819

Raise Cain's ERA! (For Dickey)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As I said before I think maybe we see an all-new OF in 2013. We could use a new bullpen, too. Catching's not so hot either. Center field is looking grim. All I know about this Den Dekker is that LWFS once called him the Ordonez of center field. I've never forgotten that. Like I said, CF is looking grim. Grimmer. BTW, I ran some back of the envelope numbers for Lucas Duda, and came to the quick and dirty conclusion that his defense is so bad, Duda's gotta have a batting season like last year's Joey Votto or Jose Reyes for the Mets to get meaningful positive value from him. In other words, Duda's gotta hit like an MVP all season long to provide value that is way clear of neutral or break-even.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As I said before I think maybe we see an all-new OF in 2013. We could use a new bullpen, too. Catching's not so hot either. Center field is looking grim. All I know about this Den Dekker is that LWFS once called him the Ordonez of center field. I've never forgotten that. Like I said, CF is looking grim. Grimmer.

Edgy DC wrote: Well, somebody can turn two in this park. Ha! Ha!

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: Murphy makes the play, and Tejada doesn't. Feck. yeah. Tejada always seems to make mistakes when he's rushing it. A lot of this team does. Maybe it's a "they're young" thing? Except that there was no reason to rush that one. I'm on the verge of being convinced that they plan to fuck up DPs at the exact moment when they'll do the most damage. Ha! Ha!

I'm OK with the Mets standing pat, too. I was just saying that it's probably unreasonable to expect the Mets to acquire an impact player now given their financial constraints and self-imposed conditions for making a trade.

OE -- There's some truth to what you wrote. I'm not dismissing it outright. But there's also, I think, a lot of urban legend to your post, and it doesn't account for the level of vacancy you see in those choice sections at CF, game after game after game. Even when Dickey pitches. By contrast, ticket prices for seats in the section behind home plate underneath the netting at Shea Stadium reached prohibitively expensive levels by the late 1990's. And those sections were never as empty as the choice sections at CF. Not even during the Art Howe years.

Ceetar wrote: Does anybody here really think that the choice seats at Citi Field, field level at and around home plate are mostly sold out, as the Mets claim? Those sections are way too empty, too often, for the Mets' claims to hold any water. And if the Mets really did sell out (or mostly sell out) all of their choice seats, why the hell are they running ads for the Champions Club with the all you can eat buffet, like every two or three innings on every SNY broadcast? Champions Clubs are different seats. and yes. I do. despite what the media tells you, the club (and other clubs) don't actually care if those seats look empty on TV. These are the rich people seats. They leave early, they come late. They eat tickets when the team sucks and they're busy. They hang out in the Sterling Club in the air conditioning. They give away the tickets as perks, to people that rarely ever get to sit down there, that want to check out the Sterling Club while they have the option to. What's different about Champions Club seats? They're choice seats, close behind home plate more or less, and among the most expensive at CF. From first hand experience, (but not as a rich master of the universe, I regret) I disagree with your characterization of what those "rich" owners do with their seats, and how it explains swaths of virtually empty choice seating. You're just repeating a stereotype. Are you saying that if you were gifted a pair of field level seats 75 feet from home plate, you wouldn't sit in them? Ceetar wrote: And those people probably deserve at least part of the blame for not being able to go behind the dugouts to watch batting practice. Nah. That's on the Mets.

Does anybody here really think that the choice seats at Citi Field, field level at and around home plate are mostly sold out, as the Mets claim? Those sections are way too empty, too often, for the Mets' claims to hold any water. And if the Mets really did sell out (or mostly sell out) all of their choice seats, why the hell are they running ads for the Champions Club with the all you can eat buffet, like every two or three innings on every SNY broadcast?

Ceetar wrote: Well the Mets haven't showed Alderson that there is any real impact to be had from a trade yet. He's struck me as a guy that would really like to tinker and adjust. We've seen it some with some of the roster shuffling via the minors, but I wonder how 'restrained' he would've been had the Mets hovered around that competitive point they'd been into July. Sandy's still working with no money. The Brewers would probably salary dump K-Rod ... maybe ask for just a fringe prospect, too. Even if the Mets are buyers, what are they gonna buy with no money and an unwillingness to deal their real prospects? Scrubs like Geovany Soto. I'm fine with the Mets holding on to their Zack Wheelers, but it seems to me that the team's still effectively broke.

Edgy DC wrote: The potential was always there, but I don't think he was ever an ideal three hitter. His first half of last year might well have added productivity from the three hole, but he didn't hit his second homer until June 10. His triples certainly made up for that to a large extent, but I don't think he ever really made it to the fully rounded performer "ideal" suggests. Good point. But if not three, then two. Especially with teammates like Wright and Ike. The main idea is that it's more productive to bat Reyes behind of, rather than ahead of a guy like Tejada.

Vic Sage wrote: as a met, Reyes showed legit power after his first few years, and though he was of course an elite base stealer, his OB skills remained modest. I thought he was developing into an ideal #3 hitter, but i recall articles where he was unhappy about the prospect of such a change and ... Randolph [didn't have] the balls to force the issue. I know all about Wee Willie's Small Balls, but are you sure it was Willie's balls (or lack therof) that kept Reyes out of the three hole under his watch? I mean, we're talking about the moronic manager whose idea of inspired offense was to put the fastest guy on the team in the leadoff spot and follow him with a crappy-batter-but-not-as-crappy-as-the-eighth-hitter, preferably a crappy second baseman, so that Reyes could be moved up a base on an intentional out. The jackass set offense back by 100 years.

It makes a whole lotta sense to bat Reyes third, especially if there's a teammate who gets on base at least as much as Reyes does, but with significantly less power. If Reyes were still a Met, I'd want Reyes to bat third, and the emerging Tejada (2B) to bat leadoff. Manuel tried to bat Reyes third in 2010. It was a brilliant move, I thought -- but poorly executed. Manuel didn't stick with it for more than the handful of games that saw Reyes slump as the three-hole hitter. Too bad.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Some potential big Schaefer implications for this game. I'm guessing that Chris Young could seal his first Schaefer pitcher of the month award with a strong outing today. Or if not strong, adequate, given the overall sorry state of Mets starting pitching this past month. http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/6073/chris-young

This may not be as prestigious as landing the cover of a national news magazine, or even a Mets program, but it's a start.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: David's on pace to pass Eddie on September 5, 2012 at St. Louis. Wright's current hitting slump has pushed back D-Day by seven days. David's currently on pace to pass Eddie on September 12, 2012 at home against the Nationals.

R.I.P. Marylou Belles of Bethel, Connecticut, whose obituary reads, in part: "She was also a lifelong NY Mets fan though surprisingly, that wasn't what killed her." http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201207/mets-fan-dies-doesnt-blame-team

Steroid withdrawal.

Edgy DC wrote: Duda started out in right, but he's expected to see more time in left and first, which is good. I wonder to what end? Are the Mets finally taking concrete steps to phase out Jason Bay? Or do the Mets intend to trade one of either Duda or Davis? And has any of this been decided already, or do these potential moves depend on Duda's future performance at Buffalo? I suppose this is all in flux. Jason Bay could suddenly catch fire. In theory. Questions. Questions. Questions. Personally, I don't think that Duda's defense in LF will be meaningfully better than in RF. The only saving grace that I foresee is that in LF, the harm Duda does will be minimized because most often, the lead runner will have a harder time taking third base, given the shorter throw Duda would need to make from left after he's done chasing down his flub.

Ceetar wrote: Olerud? Due to the "wears the helmet in the field" thing? and..Piazza? Pens down. Game over. Hats off to Ceetar. We have a winner! Baseball rules require that the team in the field (i.e., the defense) be attired uniformly. This includes headgear. Because catchers wear helmets in the field for protection, a Mercury Mets helmet was produced for Mike Piazza, so that his headgear would match the soft Merc caps worn by the other Mets fielders. Another Merc helmet was made for John Olerud, who always wore a helmet, even in the field, because of his prior brain aneurysm. Ironically, Olerud did not play in the Mercury game, the only game he'd miss all season. Still, Oly could be spotted wearing the Mercury hardhat in the Mets dugout.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Just guesses: Matt Franco and Agbayani Because I love being a hardass on these trivia questions, I'm gonna say that you're wrong, without saying whether both or just one of your guesses are wrong.

Turn Ahead the Clock was one of those league wide promotions through Century 21 which was one of the MLB-wide sponsors. There were only a few teams that didn;t participate: The MFYs, Dodgers and Cubs, I think. I thought it was a fun idea but it was executed badly, and the Mets' real sin in it all was doing it more enthusiastically than anyone else. I'm sure there was a rea$on for that because it's not often the Mets are out front on anything, and I'm sure they are loaded with self-pity about how they're considered a joke for their part in it. See, I love all this stuff. go over the top. be entertaining and quirky and different. it's a freakin' one off game. Go all out, don't give us half-assed star wars trivia and call it Star Wars Night. Change everyone's image to a wookie or a jedi or photoshop lightsabres instead of bats. There were bloggers BEGGING to help you out with this. Read The Apple made cards and sent them to you, all you had to do was load them into the scoreboard app. If not for your age, I'd be convinced that you were on the Mercury Mets planning committee.

Here's a Mercury Mets uniform trivia question: The Mets wore these caps for their Mercury themed game with Pittsburgh. At bat, though, they wore their standard issue 1999 batting helmets over their Mercury caps. But two Mercury Mets batting helmets were produced for the game. Which two Mets wore the Mercury helmets? Hey Paul Lukas: If you ever lurk here, I'll betcha that this one'll stump you.

Here's a Mercury Mets uniform trivia question: The Mets wore these caps for their Mercury themed game with Pittsburgh. At bat, though, they wore their standard issue 1999 batting helmets over their Mercury caps. But two Mercury Mets batting helmets were produced for the game. Which two Mets wore the Mercury helmets?