Frayed Knot

Several folks here claim to either be working or re-working on something here. At some point we're going to want to wrap this up.

Well, sure, because ugly IS a handicap in Hollywood. Got 5 of the big 6 correct - although there weren't exactly a lot of surprises last night. The only real question was whether 'Avatar' and 'Hurt Locker' would split the big two or one movie would take both. I bet on split and missed. - Baldwin & Martin: good but not great, opening was good but then they were pretty sporadic after that. - pretty lengthy tribute to John Hughes, no? I mean the dude made a lot of movies and certainly carved out his niche in the biz, but if everyone with his resume or better gets that kind of treatment we're talking about a 6 hour show. Meanwhile they missed the first couple of dead guys in the yearly montage because the camera wasn't zoomed in and Farrah was among the missing; not the greatest actress on the planet but worth a mention. - I like the horror movie 'tribute' (basically an excuse to strive for a younger demographic by getting Kristen Stewart and whats-his-face up there) where they complain that no "horror" flick has won an Oscar since 'The Exorcist" way back in the '70s like before computers and shit -- and then the montage shows several cuts from 'Silence of the Lambs', a winner in the '90s. And, if I'm not mistaken, there was a cut of '[u:zthdwda5]Young[/u:zthdwda5] Frankenstein' in there; yeah, that one had me on the edge of my seat.

Edgy DC wrote: Two easy rules: Go for sweeties in the supporting actress roles: funny old ladies or irrespressible cutiepies. Go for creepy performances in supporting actor roles. Creepazoids who've been bringing it for decades and are probably more or less likeable in general get extra juice. Like, Gary Busey will never win for playing a creep because it's hard for anybody to think it's a stretch for him. And handicaps roles. Those get loads of votes and wins.

Ceetar wrote: Arguably, I don't care about any of the awards because they never reflect the decisions most people make when they go to see a movie. I don't particularly care either and most years don't even watch. I'm just throwing this out there as a forecasting exercise while testing my theory about actually seeing the films being a detriment to accurate predictions as it tends to cloud your judgement as to who you think deserves the award, something that usually has little to do with the outcome. Supporting Actor - Tucci Y'know, now that I think about it, Tucci could definitely win. I forgot to consider the dead spouse factor - his wife died about a year ago leaving him with three kids.

Oscar locks really because I'm never wrong at these ... except when I am Picture: Avatar Director: Hurt Locker Actor: Bridges Actress: Bullock Supporting Actor: Waltz Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique Other Awards: no one cares

soupcan wrote: Like 'Blackhawk Down' you really get a sense of the chaos and fear that must exist in Iraq. Unlike 'Blackhawk', however, this one doesn't seem to want to turn war into a music video. Very different IMO and MUCH better.

And while it's good to have Straw back in the family and as a face in ST, it's also good that he's only going to be around for a week or so.

I think a handful of movies got worse advance reviews than this one -- but you may have to go back to 'Ishtar' to find one.

Will we ever be entirely certain who is and isn't Spawn of Garvey?

Vic Sage wrote: wild horses could not drag me into a theater showing this movie. I'll volunteer to be tied to those horses with you so as to make it even tougher to drag either one of us there.

Willets Point wrote: I read the book which was pretty good. The 2-minute trailer for the movie indicates that they totally Hallmarked the story. That's the main knock I'm hearing too; not that the movie is bad but that the story, rather than focusing on the kid and his horrid pre-"adoption" circumstances, revolves almost totally on Bullock's character and the kind-hearted white folks who rescue him - even to the point where he's portrayed as a big non-athletic klutz who wouldn't have learned the basics of football without their help. Ya gotta wonder about Hollywood sometimes. 'Hey, we just got the rights to this best-seller with a great story in it ... now how should we go about totally changing it?'

#41 on Keith Law's top 100 prospects list: Flores, as predicted, broke with a full-season club in 2009 and held his own despite playing most of the year at 17. He has very quick wrists and is short to the ball with good finish. The ball flies off his bat, especially in BP, in which he shows the promise of future plus power, and in games he has already shown that he can square balls up against pitchers two or three years his senior. In fact, of players with at least 400 at-bats in the Sally League in 2009, only one hitter had fewer strikeouts than Flores did. His main deficiency as a player is very slow feet, even though he's not thickly built, and he has no shot to stay at shortstop and little shot of handling third base, which means he'll end up at first base or in an outfield corner, although there's an excellent chance his bat plays in any of those positions.

#23 on Keith Law's top 100 prospects list: Mejia entered 2009 with no experience above short-season leagues, but finished it in Double-A despite missing time in the middle of the year with a strained finger on his pitching hand. He has top-of-the-rotation stuff, but is just 20 with the command you'd expect to see in a live-armed teenager with barely 200 innings in pro ball. His fastball sits at 93-96 and will tick higher, and the ball sometimes shows natural cutting action toward left-handed hitters. His changeup is his best off-speed pitch and, at 85-87 mph with good tail, looks like a soft two-seamer. His curveball is very inconsistent, but at its best, it's plus with good two-plane break and depth in the upper 70s. He's thick but not tall, and his slot is just below 3/4 -- so he has to work on staying on top of the ball, and the finger injury reduced his already below-average command. That said, he's 20 and has shown he can get advanced hitters in Double-A out. If the Mets slow him down a little and let him spend all of 2010 (and maybe some of 2011) in the minors to improve his command and the consistency of his changeup and curve, they have a chance for a No. 1 or No. 2 starter.

#61 on Keith Law's Top 100 Prospects list: Davis' mediocre debut in 2008 turned out to be a red herring, as he finished his first full season in 2009 in Double-A and isn't far from reaching the majors. He has raw power, especially dead pull power, and showed that he can murder a fastball and lay off a lot of pitches out of the zone against right-handed pitchers. On the downside, Davis doesn't hit left-handed pitching at all, and even against right-handers struggles to recognize off-speed stuff. He's a reasonably good athlete who can handle first base and actually has a plus arm -- he was 92-94 mph as a reliever in college -- although that's less relevant at the position. A full year in Double-A/Triple-A to work on pitch recognition and on improving his approach against left-handers is probably critical for his future as an everyday player, but he has a chance to be an above-average one if he can shed the "platoon player" tag with more reps

This has to be a first in our years of doing this as a consensus year-end ranking, that 11 different players were simultaneously ranked in the top half by some folks and off the chart completely by others: - Stokes as high as 23 points (8th overall) by Transmonk not ranked at all by LWFS - Livan H. 20 points (11th) by LWFS & PotY unranked by Edgy - Parnell 17 points from Irish & 86-Dreamer unranked by Nymr83 - Cora 21 points from 86-Dreamer unranked by Nymr83 - Nieve 18 from Transmonk unranked by Vic Sage - Church 17 from Edgy & Grimm unranked by Irish - Sean Green 16 from Grimm unranked by LWFS - Redding 15 from Frayed Knot and Nymr83 (also 17 from PotY) unranked by Irish & Edgy - Misch as high as 16 from Nymr & Transmonk no score from 86-Dreamer - Niese 15 from LWFS numerous zeros elsewhere - Dessens 15 from Grimm numerous zeros

It's just the old 'I just hadn't realized she feet' joke. Back in my sophmore year my roommate had a poster of a jungle scene where the sweat-tinged girl was all but busting out of the khaki shorts and unbuttoned shirt she was wearing while straddling atop a full-sized tiger. One of the girls from the dorm walks in and notices - as only a female would - that the girl and the tiger had the same color eyes. "Eyes?" I said, thinking my joke was pretty funny until Stevie dead-panned, "Tiger?"

Edgy DC wrote: Her feet look like tootsie rolls. Feet?

Only caught part of the GG awards show so my opinion here is incomplete - but based on what I saw it's a tie between Anna Paquin and Olivia Wilde for best display of the golden globes.

Yeah, I was gonna mention that for a guy who usually preaches the idea that those who put in the time have to be at least somewhat rewarded, you've got the 1, 3 & 4 guys in innings pitched (Pelfrey, Livan, Redding) buried behind a bunch of short-timers - Wagner was the most obvious, but also the likes of Dessens, Takahashi, Castro, etc.

Well either I was mis-reading the chart last night (always possible ... late at night, alcohol) or that first column has been fixed because the numbers looked out of order and I couldn't figure out what was what.

Does that come with a code translator or do we need security clearance first?

Dessens and Takahashi get big love from Grimm and Transmonk but a symbolic back of the hand from just about everyone else.

On Pelfrey , it seems I was lower on the guy that the Schaefer voting results show....I dunno but he disappointed to me. Led the team in innings as FK noted, is that a big thing on that team with the way the season went? The idea isn’t to worry about how far you’re away from the Schaefer results. That result is just one factor thrown into this project and, as far as I’m concerned, it’s the least accurate because it’s not really measuring the same thing. The reason I parsed the votes from those who have put in lists so far is to show where there are significant differences as compared to the opinions of all the others. That isn’t to say a stray vote means you’re wrong and the others right, only that you’ve got a very different view of that player(s) which could serve as a starting point for a discussion, one where you either re-evaluate your own choices or to stick to your guns and tell the rest of us why we’re missing the boat. For instance: - What logic did 86-Dreamer use to put Tatis a full 13 slots behind the statistically similar Sheffield? Or why Maine is, in his mind, so far (11 spots) ahead of Pelfrey when the rest of us have those two pretty close? Or why he has Cora much higher than everyone? Or why does F. Martinez make his list but not Misch, Sullivan, or Castro? - Transmonk puts Sean Green in the middle of the pack while LWFS leaves him off completely! Either of them want to argue where the other one is nuts? - Maybe LWFS wants to tell us how Frankie Rod had a worse season than Church, Castro, Maine, and others, including Niese and his whopping 25 IPs. - Fartinez had all of 91 ABs and batted a whopping .176 yet he scores better than Church, Green, Misch, and Redding on Met Irish’s list. Remember, we're evaluating a player's 2009 performance here not his anticipated future or contract status. - Seawolf, meanwhile, not only finds room for Ollie but puts him on instead of Thole, Sullivan, or Niese, and ahead of the likes of Church, Figueroa, Nieve and others. - Cora was, for the most part, the starting SS and Parnell was 5th in the team in IP yet Nymr leaves both off but finds room for AndyHandy & Dessens ... plus the other large discrepancies I pointed earlier. And again, if those are your choices then feel free to tell the rest of us where we’re off. Or you can opt to concede some points and argue others. The idea of this project is to have a post-mortem discussion of the year and not merely submit top-of-the-head lists and be done with it. Hell, we argue about everything else here it would be a shame to skip this topic.

All right folks, we all got some ‘splainin’ to do. Eight votes are in to date - plus our PotG final tally - so some sort of consensus is starting to emerge. But this season more than most has some wild variances both high and low with a number of players. Below is a list of where the submitted votes varied most from the rest of the pack. These spots are usually a good kicking off point for discussion as they can be used to lead you to either re-evaluate your votes or stick to it and instruct the rest of us where and why we’re out to lunch. And, of course, those who want to throw in their own 2 cents but haven't yet are welcome to speak up. Biggest discrepancies: 86-Dreamer: - Low on Tatis, Santos, Livan, Misch - High on Cora Transmonk: - Low on Livan, Delgado, Parnell, - High on Nieve, Green, Misch, Dessens, Takahashi LWFS: - Low on Murphy, Rogriguez, Sheffield, Stokes (left off completely), Parnell, Cora, Green (left off completely), - High on Livan, Delgado, Reyes, Church, Thole, Niese, Castro Vic Sage: - Low on Pelfrey, Livan (left off completely) - High on Delgado, Green, Misch, Takahashi Seawolf: - Low on Beltran, Pagan, Figueroa, Delgado, Nieve - High on Perez Irish: - Low on Pelfrey, Tatis, Redding High on Parnell, Cora, Nieve, Fartinez F. Knot: - High on Redding Nymr83: - Low on Stokes; Parnell; Cora - High on Misch, Redding