RealityChuck

Benjamin Grimm wrote: before it develops into something like the Mackey Sasser situation I would think that good writing would require a bit of an explanation about the "Mackey Sasser" situation. I'm sure a lot of today's fans don't have any clue about the problems of an obscure player from two decades ago.He did -- via hyperlink. "Mackey Sasser situation" was linked to a relevant article.

http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/blog/roto_arcade/post/Saltalamacchia-in-minors-to-work-on-throwing-?urn=fantasy,240938 Jarrod Saltalamacchia(notes) has absolutely destroyed the pitching he's seen so far at Triple-A. He's batting .343 in 18 games for Oklahoma City with five doubles, three homers, and an on-base percentage of .400. You might recall that Saltalamacchia began the year as the Texas Rangers starting catcher, then hit the disabled list with a back injury just two games into the season. Considering the current state of the catching position in Arlington (Matt Treanor(notes) is hitting .209), you'd think that Saltalamacchia would be welcomed back. His bat is ready, but the rest of him isn't. Saltalamacchia is struggling with his throws � not his across-the-diamond throws to second base, but his 60-foot tosses to the pitcher's mound. In Salty's last game, Tuesday night at AT&T Bricktown Ballpark, 12 of his throws back to the pitcher landed either short of the mound or in center field. He had five errant throws in the first inning alone. "He's just got to keep playing until he gets it right," RedHawks manager Bobby Jones said. "I don't know what else to do. It's a shame. It's definitely what's keeping him here. He's blocking the ball well and swinging the bat well. He's just got to figure it out. It's a shame." Saltalamacchia said, "Everything feels good. My throws have been good down to second. We've been working on different arm angles, getting on top of the ball more rather than getting on the side. So everything's going smoothly and we'll see where it goes." Yikes. He's talking about "getting on top of the ball more" on his throws to the pitcher. That's messy. It sounds like this isn't a physical problem since he's apparently making in-game throws that have a much higher degree of difficulty. Here's hoping he can beat the issue quickly, before it develops into something like the Mackey Sasser situation. Saltalamacchia is a serious talent, but this is clearly an affliction that a catcher can't live with.

TransMonk wrote: My problem with Downey is that he has made a career out of playing snarky, witty, arrogant douchebags with a fair amount of charm. I have a harder and harder time liking his characters, so I also have a harder time rooting for them. I'd like to see him play somebody other than an older version of Ian from Weird Science.Rent Hearts and Souls, where he moves past that.

The good movies don't advertise on TV.

Valadius wrote: Wait, what? What the hell does pitching on the previous Sunday have to do with pitching in the All-Star Game?This merely codifies standard practice. The Sunday starter is pitching on one day's rest. He's likely to be ineffective, and is at greater risk to hurt himself. They always sit out the game (or decline to participate).

Started watching baseball in 1961 (one year too early, alas -- though I did get to be at the ballpark to see Roger hit #61). I wish there were more complete games, but I know it's not going to happen. Pitchers used to be able to coast just a bit -- to throw easier stuff to the weaker batters. Now, you have to hit 90+ on your fastball with every pitch. Much more work, more stress, and ultimately tired arms. Also, having a fresh pitcher makes sense -- pitch count or not. The only thing that I'll miss is the end of the 300-game winner.

It's just a case where player deal with it so rarely, that they don't understand the possibilities. At the Major League level, nearly all infield flies are caught. So players see the same thing 98% of the time: batter called out, runners don't advance (in theory, they can tag up, but that's not going to work). If the player drops it, it's unusual to be able to advance; the player who drops can pick up the ball and still get a runner trying to advance. So players learn that, in effect, the rule means that the batter is out and the runners don't advance. The play the other day was unusual in that the ball got away from Jones, which made advancing a better bet. Pagan, at second, could see the play and also that as Jones was going for the ball, there might be no one at third base. All he had to do was get past the shortstop and he'd get an extra base. Pagan was also the only player who knew the rule (Castillo said he ran because he saw Pagan run. Chip Hale did, too, obviously).

Saw the video this weekend. Excellent film. Clooney was good but the dialog was the real star. Funny, great characters, good story.

I'm a big Holmes fan. This movie really had nothing to do with Holmes other than the character names. Holmes was not a man of action -- he was pure intellect. But the film was very good. It's is a well-made and very entertaining action-adventure film. (Some very strange geography, though. They manage to get from Parliament to the Tower Bridge in about 30 seconds -- but they're two miles apart.) But it's not Sherlock Holmes.

Looks very good.

Ultimately, other than Lackey, there was no starting pitcher out there that was appreciably better than those the Mets have, especially since they wanted considerably more money (well, maybe not more than Perez, but we'd still be paying Ollie's salary in any case. So you can waste money on a so-so pitcher via free agency, or you can stick with what you have -- whose problems weren't lack of talent, but rather were injuries. Too much analysis this season is based upon the Mets getting a "magic pitcher" who just didn't exist. And believing that one or more of one of the weakest sets of free agents in a long time was that magic pitcher.

sounds like joel oppenheimer's preseason analysis of the 1973 season in one of the greatest of all ny mets books -- "the wrong season." funny, when i try to imitate oppenheimer's style -- which was still unusual in 1974 -- it looks like like anything else on the internet. toujours gai, toujours gai

But Lewis wasn't as much of a joke.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: In order to properly evaluate the Mets success at acquiring amateur talent, you have to recognize that the team has developed the strongest pipeline to Latin American talent in all of baseball. The Mets, more than any other team in baseball, are willing to forfeit a first round pick in order to sign a Type A free agent and also, to adopt unreasonably rigid positions favoring baseball's recommended slotting system. The team does this because it's confident that it'll more than make it up by signing prime Central and South American teenaged amateurs who essentially enter USA pro baseball as free agents. It's a deliberate MO. Among the team's many Latin American signings are Jose Reyes, Fernando Martinez, Jesus Flores and Carlos Gomez. And while Gomez hasn't yet panned out, there's hardly a team in baseball that wouldn't have wanted Gomez in their system six or seven years ago. On the other hand, I have nothing against the team maintaining its South of the Border advantage and simultaneously going over slot in the June draft. I mean, are the two approaches mutually exclusive?Very true, and certainly nice, but that doesn't preclude them from drafting top talent, too. Of course, I don't know why anyone puts any faith in mock drafts. They are worse than meaningless.

I see nearly all my films on DVD, so I'm behind on the list. However, I think Inglorious Basterds is the best film of those I've seen, and a fine file overall. And if Christoph Waltz doesn't win Best Supporting Actor, the Oscars are fixed.

TheOldMole wrote: It's Mets-Jets-Isles if you're an Islander -- for those upstaters among us, that doesn't hold. I'm with Swannie, Mets/Giants/Rangers. but football is not like baseball, and I have no problem also rooting for the Jets.I'm originally a Long Islanders and I was Mets/Jets/Rangers long before I moved upstate. Of course, there were no Islanders when I was getting into hockey. For basketball, I was a New York Nets fan, but stopped following them after they traded Erving. I don't care about basketball, finding it much too dull.

Charming little film.

Hollywood Video, or Redbox. Redbox is a kiosk in the local grocery that rents films for $1 a night. If you don't return the film after 25 nights, you own it. Not a great selection, but nice for recent releases. There's also Amazon.com for when I buy DVDs.

I dislike the category "chick flick." A man should be able to enjoy a good love story. This was a very good movie, and I can easily see any man falling for Zoe Deschanel. I liked the way it also subverted romantic comedy expectations.

True, but irrelevant. Francouer played with injuries when he could have sat down. You reward him for that. Otherwise, the next player who has minor injuries will go on the DL even when he can help the team. Why should a player make an extra effort to help the team if he's not going to get any benefit out of it? This is basic human resource management: you reward people for taking on more than the minimum. Otherwise, you get a bunch of players who don't give a damn.

The Mets may be pissed, but there's no way in hell their going to void his contract. They'll make noises, but will probably just let it slide. If they do anything at all, they may dock his salary (assuming they can).

Essentially, by asking the question, you're falling into a common blind spot in analyzing events in the past: you're assuming that baseball fans looked at statistics and value the same way you do in 2010. By even talking about OPS+, you're introducing a factor that has absolutely no relevance to the MVP voting in 1996. They are not even a consideration by any fan or sportswriter at that time. People were voting at the time on many things: RBIs, Batting Average, home runs, how well the team did, how important that player was to the team, and character factors. The fact that Caminiti played hurt was also a factor into the voting. But using currently popular statistical measures to analyze MVP seasons in the past is measuring with broken yardsticks. It gives you no useful answers. In order to answer the question "why?" you must put yourself in the mindset of the voters in 1996, not assume (as you do) that they were wrong because they didn't use the same basis for analysis you do.