Frayed Knot

Regularly Gronauer creates two hits per portion and ejects opposing runners with the attempt of the base stealing at the second plate. Its impact average up-snapped on far over 40 per cent, which catapults it at all up in its team not only to the most successful Catcher but also into the Gefilde of the best impact people. Exactly what I was saying!

BA's 'Hot Sheet' has been all over Holt for two weeks running now: Why He's Here: 1-0, 11 1/3 IP, 6 H, 0 R, 4 BB, 21 SO (for the week) The Scoop: Holt makes his second straight appearance on the Hot Sheet after a two-start week where he fanned 21 batters in 11 1/3 innings. Holt struck out 14 in six innings on Thursday, running his season strikeout total up to 51, tops in the NYP. The only worse news for league hitters is that Holt told a reporter that he has been throwing his curveball more, meaning he may have been successful in developing that second pitch.

From BA's weekly "Hot Sheet' feature: Just try to pin a position on Dan Murphy. The Mets have given him a long look at second base, but at least one scout contacted by BA says the move won't take. Murphy, 23, made four errors in the 14 games he's played at second, and scouts doubt he has the agility needed for the position. He can hit, though, batting .320/.485/.640 on the week with two homers, two doubles, seven RBIs, eight walks and only one strikeout. And Murphy should have enough bat for first base, third base or even left field, the three positions he played in addition to second in the last week. "He's a grinder who can really hit," one pro scout said. He's moved up to fifth in the Eastern League in RBIs and continues to hit lefties (.297, .831 OPS) as well as righties (.310, .867 OPS) .

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I grew up loving the Batman series first for its color and adventure; and again later when I understood its humor. Brilliant in every way. Saw the first Burton movie, which bored me to death, and never bothered to see another. That's pretty much where I'm at too. I was never all ga-ga over the idea of a feature-length Batman to begin with. First of all because (a bit ironically) I was never a comic book guy, but also because this whole idea of suckering baby-boomers into the theater by churning out films of their childhood TV faves just seemed like an easy path to big bucks whether the flicks were any good or not. The original Burton film had a good look to it and Jack as the Joker was fun to watch, but other than that ... eh. After that I never bothered with any of the sequels which sounds like it was a good decision. Maybe I'll give 'Begins' a shot on video and, if intrigued, the new movie as well.

I get all these 'Batman' deals mixed up too, something that is either due to the unimaginative titles they give these things or the fact that I never read a comic book in my life and saw only the original movie (the Keaton/Jack one, not the campy TV job). So maybe one of you caped crusader gurus could give the rest of us a quickie guide to this whole mess. - Like do all these follow some sort of timeline/plotline or are the Keaton ones totally seperate deals from the Bale ones which are seperate from whoever else might have played him? - should one see 'Begins' prior to this current one or does each one pretty much stand alone? - and if one were going to try and catch up with earlier flicks, which ones ... like suck and shouldn't be bothered with?

Between the great reviews, over-the-top hype, and the death at a young age (even if caused by stupidity) the race for the Supporting Actor Oscar is already over. If you can bet on these things somewhere it's probably worth a c-note at least, even if the payout won't be too much.

Niese gets a little love from a Baseball America online chat: ... you wouldn't know Niese was one of the Eastern League's youngest pitchers based on his performance. He committed to conditioning this season and got out of the gate strong. His ERA took a step back in May, but his peripherals remained solid, and now in June he's given up three runs in three starts while striking out 20. Niese sits in the low 90s and touches 94 with a solid curveball and change, meaning he's got midrotation starter potential.

They're really making a franchise - and not a few TV specials - out of this stuff. This time they do a top 10 in 10 different categories. ANIMATION 1. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," 1937. 2. "Pinocchio," 1940. 3. "Bambi," 1942. 4. "The Lion King," 1994. 5. "Fantasia," 1940. 6. "Toy Story," 1995. 7. "Beauty and the Beast," 1991. 8. "Shrek," 2001. 9. "Cinderella," 1950. 10. "Finding Nemo," 2003. FANTASY 1. "The Wizard of Oz," 1939. 2. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," 2001. 3. "It's a Wonderful Life," 1946. 4. "King Kong," 1933. 5. "Miracle on 34th Street, 1947. 6. "Field of Dreams," 1989. 7. "Harvey," 1950. 8. "Groundhog Day," 1993. 9. "The Thief of Bagdad," 1924. 10. "Big," 1988. GANGSTER 1. "The Godfather," 1972. 2. "Goodfellas," 1990. 3. "The Godfather Part II," 1974. 4. "White Heat," 1949. 5. "Bonnie and Clyde," 1967. 6. "Scarface: The Shame of a Nation," 1932. 7. "Pulp Fiction," 1994. 8. "The Public Enemy," 1931. 9. "Little Caesar," 1930. 10. "Scarface," 1983. SCIENCE FICTION 1. "2001: A Space Odyssey," 1968. 2. "Star Wars: Episode IV � A New Hope," 1977. 3. "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial," 1982. 4. "A Clockwork Orange," 1971. 5. "The Day The Earth Stood Still," 1951. 6. "Blade Runner," 1982. 7. "Alien," 1979. 8. "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," 1991. 9. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," 1956. 10. "Back to the Future," 1985. WESTERN 1. "The Searchers," 1956. 2. "High Noon," 1952. 3. "Shane," 1953. 4. "Unforgiven," 1992. 5. "Red River," 1948. 6. "The Wild Bunch," 1969. 7. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," 1969. 8. "McCabe & Mrs. Miller," 1971. 9. "Stagecoach," 1939. 10. "Cat Ballou," 1965. SPORTS 1. "Raging Bull," 1980. 2. "Rocky," 1976. 3. "The Pride of the Yankees," 1942. 4. "Hoosiers," 1986. 5. "Bull Durham," 1988. 6. "The Hustler," 1961. 7. "Caddyshack," 1980. 8. "Breaking Away," 1979. 9. "National Velvet," 1944. 10. "Jerry Maguire," 1996. MYSTERY 1. "Vertigo," 1958. 2. "Chinatown," 1974. 3. "Rear Window," 1954. 4. "Laura," 1944. 5. "The Third Man," 1949. 6. "The Maltese Falcon," 1941. 7. "North By Northwest," 1959. 8. "Blue Velvet," 1986. 9. "Dial M for Murder," 1954. 10. "The Usual Suspects," 1995. ROMANTIC COMEDY 1. "City Lights," 1931. 2. "Annie Hall," 1977. 3. "It Happened One Night," 1934. 4. "Roman Holiday," 1953. 5. "The Philadelphia Story," 1940. 6. "When Harry Met Sally ...," 1989. 7. "Adam's Rib," 1949. 8. "Moonstruck," 1987. 9. "Harold and Maude," 1971. 10. "Sleepless in Seattle," 1993. COURTROOM DRAMA 1. "To Kill a Mockingbird," 1962. 2. "12 Angry Men," 1957. 3. "Kramer Vs. Kramer," 1979. 4. "The Verdict," 1982. 5. "A Few Good Men," 1992. 6. "Witness for the Prosecution," 1957. 7. "Anatomy of a Murder," 1959. 8. "In Cold Blood," 1967. 9. "A Cry in the Dark," 1988. 10. "Judgment at Nuremberg," 1961. EPIC 1. "Lawrence of Arabia," 1962. 2. "Ben-Hur," 1959. 3. "Schindler's List," 1993. 4. "Gone With the Wind," 1939. 4. "Spartacus," 1960. 6. "Titanic," 1997. 7. "All Quiet on the Western Front," 1930. 8. "Saving Private Ryan," 1998. 9. "Reds," 1981. 10. "The Ten Commandments," 1956.

Never liked it either. I remember the theme song so I probably watched it a handful of times or maybe I just shut it off after the intro. I think the "new" style of Japanese illustration made it seem like it wasn't a "real" cartoon to me.

"I had comic strips on my bedsheets when I was little" Admit it, you still use them don't you?

Finally got around to this one ... and it's decent enough. The flick gives a reasonably accurate, even if condensed and simplified, version of the chain of events that led to an otherwise non-descript Congressman being able to both virtually invent as well as fund (to the tune of a billion dollars) a covert war, one which not only was never voted on but was barely even discussed outside of a handful of insiders. They play it for laughs more than you'd expect for a movie about funding a secret war would normally generate, giving P.S. Hoffman a bunch of good lines that even the coarse, wise-ass CIA character he plays probably never came up with. Hanks is OK, but hardly great, as the larger than life Texas rogue who takes little seriously until he hits upon the idea that arming the ferocious but out-gunned Afghans as a way to kill and embarass Russians was a worthwhile project.

Long title for a long movie. It's one of those 'historical dramas' where it's not easy to determine how much is history and how much is drama. In this case it deals with ... well, you can probably figure it out. Brad Pitt plays Jesse James with just the right hint of menace behind an otherwise calm, rational exterior. Casey Affleck is the other half of the title pair. Ford is first a worshipper of, and later a sort of cohort to, James and over time a resentment at not being taken seriously by James creeps in on his admiration that makes one think of what Mark Chapman would have been like had he gotten to know Lennon.

I liked it. The part about the ending 'suddenly' featuring the sherriff as main character didn't bother me as it was his narritive that started the movie and between that and his musings at the end formed a kind of set of brackets to the story and action sequences that filled the middle.

I'm much closer to Sharpie's review of this one than that Edgy guy did (glad that schmuck's no longer around). If fact, while thinking about what to write (and not having read either of the reviews prior to seeing it), I found myself seeing many of the issues almost totally opposite from the way EDC did; from the view that I DID see the plot as telling a reasonably coherant story and even extending to my planned use of citing 'Forrest Gump' (only more favorably) as a device for a trip through the age(s). Agree with both that the pyschedelic scenes were the weakest part. I had to check the credits before I was sure that 'Sadie' wasn't being played by Joan Osbourne.

Weren't there like several 'Fletch' movies, as well as a few dozen 'Vacation' ones? I never warmed to Chevy Chase - not when he was on SNL and not afterward - and so I never saw any of them.

This one was specifically centered in Dorchester.

Various Afflecks combine to create a well-acted (Casey) and well-directed (Ben) drama involving abducted kids, low-rent relatives, sleazy criminals, and crooked cops. Also with Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris, it's from the same author who was the source of 'Mystic River' and involves similar seedy South Boston neighborhoods and characters while managing to not once mention the Red Sox.

I liked this one a lot better than Clint's English language film on the same topic (Flags of our Fathers)

Wright is coming off a season which netted him 7,920 points in our system as the top ranked player in an 88 win season: 30 pts squared x 88 wins, then divide the whole thing by 10 (just to make the numbers more managable) ((30^2*88)/10). A 98 win season would have made it worth 8,820 while a playoff bound team where the multiplier would often go above 100 (reg season wins + various post-season bonus points) a top-ranked player's score could top 10,000 points for that season. But Wright is still more than 52,000 points behind Seaver, meaning that even 5 in a row of those best-case scenario seasons would still almost certainly leave him short which is what led me to guesstimate that 6 would be the minimum needed before GTS could be caught. The fact that we're even discussing the possibility that Wright, after 9 or 10 seasons as a Met, could even be near what it took Seaver 12 seasons to reach is optimistic enough. At approx 8K pts/yr (Wright's avg over the last 3 seasons) it would take another 7 for him to grab the top slot. Reyes is only slightly behind Wright (5 slots and about 1,200 pts) so is essentially in the same boat although is averaging closer to 7K/yr recently.

soupcan wrote: Do. Not. Waste. Your. Time. Was. Not. Planning. On. It. Cool looking computer graphics aside, I had this one pegged as a turkey just from the ads.

Jumping ahead a few years due to the relative stability at the top of the list; Koosman passes Cleon to claim the #2 spot that he'd hold for another 18 years. Matlack & Rusty have replaced Swoboda and Gentry in the top 10. This top 7 would remain unchanged until 1987. 19761stTom Seaver2ndJerry Koosman3rdCleon Jones4thTug McGraw5thEd Kranepool6thJerry Grote7thJon Matlack8thBud Harrelson9thTommie Agee10thRusty Staub The list is now 236 names long. Rusty gets dealt away and as a result is dropped from his brief perch in the top 10 by Milner - only to rejoin the team in '81 and gain enough points to jump back in and drop the hammer on Hammer. Kranepool's longevity pays off as he outlasts Tug to take over spot #4. 19801stTom Seaver2ndJerry Koosman3rdCleon Jones4thEd Kranepool5thTug McGraw6thJerry Grote7thJon Matlack8thBud Harrelson9thTommie Agee10thJon Milner The list goes past 300 names for the first time.. Hernandez breaks into the top 10 in 1986, Straw in '87, while Gooden & Mookie jump in with '88's list, dumping Agee, Matlack, Rusty and Harrelson. Orosco peaked at #11 ('86 list). 19881stTom Seaver2ndJerry Koosman3rdCleon Jones4thDarryl Strawberry5thEd Kranepool6thKeith Hernandez7thMookie Wilson8thDwight Gooden9thTug McGraw10thJerry Grote In his last full season w/the Mets Gooden leaps past Straw & Koos and cements the top 4 into its present state. Longevity and steady progress get Sid & HoJo into the ring of honor at the expense of Tug & Grote 19931stTom Seaver2ndDwight Gooden3rdJerry Koosman4thDarryl Strawberry5thCleon Jones6thSid Fernandez7thHoward Johnson8thEd Kranepool9thKeith Hernandez10thMookie Wilson Franco jumps in after the '99 season dropping Mookie. Fonzie reaches in '02 at Keith's expense. And the final top 10 change was when Piazza got there in 2004 kicking Kranepool out. 20051stTom Seaver2ndDwight Gooden3rdJerry Koosman4thDarryl Strawberry5thMike Piazza6thJohn Franco7thEdgardo Alfonzo8thCleon Jones9thSid Fernandez10thHoward Johnson Next players with the best shot to crack the elite range are obviously Wright and/or Reyes, either one of which who could reach the top-10 with three more good years or possibly with two great ones.

Continuing merrily along ... The championship year pushes its heroes to the top and starts to shove the early guys permanently out of the top 10 1969 1stCleon Jones2ndRon Swoboda3rdTom Seaver4thEd Kranepool5thJerry Grote6thJerry Koosman7thRon Hunt8thJack Fisher9thJim Hickman10thAl Jackson In case you were wondering (and I know you were) how quickly Seaver took over the lead, now you know. He grabbed it after his 4th season, still has it 37 years later, and is almost certain to hold it for at least another 6 seasons and quite possibly on beyond that. 19701stTom Seaver2ndCleon Jones3rdRon Swoboda4thJerry Koosman5thEd Kranepool6thJerry Grote7thTommie Agee8thBud Harrelson9thTug McGraw10thRon Hunt Gary Gentry joins the party meaning that the entire top 10 save Swoboda (dealt prior to the season) are all active Mets 19711stTom Seaver2ndCleon Jones3rdJerry Koosman4thEd Kranepool5thRon Swoboda6thTommie Agee7thJerry Grote8thTug McGraw9thBud Harrelson10thGary Gentry The realization that this project is about to become really boring (assuming it wasn't already) has just hit. The rapid changes from the early years are no more as most of 1972's top-10 will remain there in some order or another for the next 15 years. 19721stTom Seaver2ndCleon Jones3rdTug McGraw4thJerry Koosman5thTommie Agee6thEd Kranepool7thRon Swoboda8thJerry Grote9thBud Harrelson10thGary Gentry

AG/DC wrote: Now I'm remembering. You gave me shit when I did this. ???

With only 75 total names after 4 seasons it's much easier for new names to move up the list 1965 1stJim Hickman2ndAl Jackson3rdRon Hunt4thJoe Christopher5thEd Kranepool6thCharley Smith7thRoger Craig8thFrank Thomas9thGalen Cisco10thTracy Stallard 19661stRon Hunt 2ndJim Hickman3rdEd Kranepool4thAl Jackson5thJack Fisher6thJoe Christopher7thRon Swoboda8thCharley Smith9thRoger Craig10thFrank Thomas The post-1967 list creeps up over 100 names (111) for the first time. Some guy named Seaver debuts at #16 1967 1stEd Kranepool2ndRon Hunt3rdJack Fisher4thJim Hickman]5thRon Swoboda6thAl Jackson7thCleon Jones8thJoe Christopher9thCharley Smith10thRoger Craig Our namesake completes a 2-year stint on top. Koosman debuts in 16th place. 1968 1stEd Kranepool2ndRon Swoboda3rdRon Hunt4thCleon Jones5thJack Fisher6thJim Hickman7thAl Jackson8thTom Seaver9thJerry Grote10thJoe Christopher

I was fiddling around with the spreadsheet that houses all our Ranking info and started wondering who were the top players at various points in NYM history. Since we didn't start this project until 2002 there was no real list prior to that, but just based on our backward-looking rankings of early years there is at least a theoretical one for any point in time. The list at the end of 1962 would have simply mirrored the results from that one year. So the top 10 would have been comprised of these guys: 19621stFrank Thomas2ndRichie Ashburn3rdAl Jackson4thRoger Craig5thCharlie Neal6thFelix Mantilla7thJay Hook8thJim Hickman9thElio Chacon10thCraig Anderson Of those guys, only Hickman (70) and Al Jackson (77) remain in the top 100 of the up-to-date list. By the end of 1963 it becomes the cumulative sum of those two years meaning that your reward for 10,000 posts would have been attainment of the exhalted Roger Craig level: 19631stRoger Craig2ndAl Jackson3rdFrank Thomas4thJim Hickman5thRon Hunt6thCharlie Neal7thCarl Willey8thRichie Ashburn9thDuke Snider10thLarry Bearnarth And after 1964 a few new faces start to crack the top 10 - including our namesake: 19641stJim Hickman2ndAl Jackson3rdRon Hunt4thRoger Craig5thFrank Thomas6thJoe Christopher7thTracy Stallard8thEd Kranepool9thGalen Cisco10thCharlie Neal