RealityChuck

(It's not obvious, but that the home of the Seattle Pilots, Sicks Stadium.)

(Great book, BTW -- Frost was cocreater of Twin Peaks)

Certainly the most straightforward movie title since Eat Drink Man Woman

Sounds pretty trivial. A few days off and he'll be fine.

I remember Ed as one of a group of Mets who came all the way out the Riverhead in the off-season as part of a promo tour. For many years he was the heart of the Mets (as was Rube Walker). He was their regular first baseman when I started following the team, and only one of three original Mets who played on pennant winning Mets teams (though he was the only one of the three to actually appear in the postseaon with the team). I also recall when he was part of a syndicate that was trying to buy the team, only to be outbid by Doubleday and Wilpon. He also ran for some political office, with a TV ad that showed him in his Mets uniform and holding a bat. The Mets immediately had it taken off the air for trademark infringement.

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="RealityChuck"] Is it impossible that he changed his mind about the competition for second base? . Nice standard of credibility, Chuck: That which is not impossible.But that's your argument: you assume it's impossible that he changed his mind. Here's the question you will undoubtedly avoid, but I'll ask anyway: Could he have changed his mind on the issue? Yes or no ]Okay, what WAS he doing?I have no idea. I can only speculate that he was trying to either pump up Matsui's value, or changed his mind. There are other possibilities, too. But you are automatically assuming that not only is he lying, but that's the only possibility. Clearly, there are many others. So why do you insist the only possiblity is that he's lying? ]No. I think they're so unimportant to you that you feel free to restate them before asking if your speculations match my opinions in any way. If you haven't noticed, I happen to be reading this thread, where seeing your opinions was unavoidable. I have not, however, bothered to go elsewhere to see what other venom you're spouting. ]I don't think it matters much who manages this team. Interesting. So if it doesn't matter, why does it matter what the manager says or if his comments are consistent? You're frothing at the mouth over something you don't think matters much. Odd.

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="RealityChuck"]it doesn't seem like anyone else on the team other than Keppinger is particularly bothered. So it's unreasonable to interpret what Willie says to reporters because his job is to tell lies and deceive everyone including his own players, but it's okay to speculate on what it "seems" players are thinking when they haven't said anything in public? Sounds good to me.First of all, when did he lie? Is it impossible that he changed his mind about the competition for second base? Why or why not? Second, how do you know he didn't tell the players what he was doing? How do you know my speculation is accurate or not? ]Have I said to fire Willie?I really don't know. Do you really think your opinions are so important to me that I search the board to seek them out? However, when one calls the manager "a lowdown, lying, two-faced, dumbass shitweasel" with a "dishonest character" who is "completely without credibility," it's hardly a glowing recommendation, is it? It's not unreasonable to assume you'd be much happier if he were gone. Or do you want "a lowdown, lying, two-faced, dumbass shitweasel" with a "dishonest character" who is "completely without credibility" continue as manager? I know I wouldn't. ] Are you saying this is his first mistake?No. I'm saying he made a mistake. He's probably made others. That's part of managing a team: you're going to make mistakes. And, of course, Willie's only been managing one year, so he'll make a few more than someone whose been doing it for decades. But so what? The fact of the matter that the team improved 12 games over the previous year under his watch. Maybe he cost them a game or two; maybe he won a couple of games that another manager would have blown. There's no way to quantify that. But as long as the team continues to improve under his watch, I see no need to excoriate him for a few perceived missteps.

="Bret Sabermetric"]Try my time-honored test: if a Yankees' GM and manager pulled off such a schmucky operation, would you give them a pass? How about some neutral team?Ignoring your use of post hoc ergo propter hoc in the loaded word, "schumucky," sure I wouldn't be upset by it. As a matter of fact, one reason the Yankees became such a powerhouse in the 90s was that Steinbrenner stopped trying to micromanage and jump all over his manager for small issues. You seem willing to fire the manager if he makes a single mistake. Even Steinbrenner at his worst wasn't that bad. Further, opinions change. Occam's Razor says that Randolph was probably originally thinking of an open competition, but changed his mind. Would you rather he stick with a bad idea just for consistency's sake? Would that make him more competent, in your mind? And, though you're outraged about this, it doesn't seem like anyone else on the team other than Keppinger is particularly bothered. They know how the game is played.

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Yes, I often get worked up over displays of total incompetence and dishonesty that most CPFers find trivial or even examples of Metly virtue. How is that total incompetence? How, in fact, is it incompetence at all? At worse, he made a minor mistake. Randolph is still learning and makes mistakes. But jumping on him because of it is like saying David Wright should have been traded away last year because he made a few errors in the field.

Perhaps the interest was expressed after Willie first made the comment. Or Omar told Willie he had given up on trading Matsui, then changed his mind. Or Omar did not keep Willie informed about the progress. It doesn't really matter. This is a pretty trivial point to be so worked up about.

Here's an addendum that might explain what Randolph is doing: Let's just assume -- for the heck of it, since it most certainly isn't the case -- the Mets want to get rid of Kaz Matsui. Maybe Minyana might even have some nibbles. Willie comes out and says that it's wide open at 2B. Minyana takes him aside. "Willie," he says, "I'm trying to move this guy. He's got a big contract and there isn't much interest. And when the teams hear that we don't think he's better than a couple of unproven rookies, whatever interest there is will evaporate." Willie gets the idea. "The job was always Matsui's, really." He plays Kaz as much as possible to back this up. Now Minyana calls other teams. "We really think he's good enough to start for us. No doubt at all. Of course, if you make the right offer . . . " Would it fool another team? Maybe not. But no one's going to consider Kaz unless it looks like the Mets have confidence in him. It's part of the gamesmanship and if this helps move Matsui elsewhere, it's well worth it.

Bret Sabermetric wrote: The Mets don't know a secondbaseman from a hole in the base, and only by the good grace of Boone dropping out of the equation were the Mets prevented from him coming north, however badly he did. Interesting. Who on the Mets said that Boone was definitely going north? When?

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="RealityChuck"]but what's the harm in doing it? That they would go north with Boone and Matsui, neither of whom is an MLB 2b-man, while shitcanning Hernandez and Keppinger, who maybe are, and are cheaper to boot?Who said they were going north with him? They invited him to spring training as a non-roster invitee. If he still has the chops, he goes north; if not, they say goodbye. Why is that hard to understand?

Bret Sabermetric wrote: [My thesis maintains that they go every time with the guy who has the impressive MLB resume. That's why I make so many cracks about finding Mookie back in the outfield someday. That's what they were trying to do with Boone. The guy just spent two years proving to the world that he was washed-up and the Mets think, Yeah but he hit 37 HRs back in 2002...Who the fuck cares what he did back then? .It's a concept known as "giving it a shot." He was cheap and worth a gamble. The Mets knew it was unlikely to pay off, but what's the harm in doing it?

="MFS62"]It would seem that if Barry Bonds has been defamed by the book Game of Shadows--if he had reason to be outraged by the falsity of its reportage--he would be lining up a battery of lawyers as we speak. Perhaps he will yet, but usually, the threat of a defamation lawsuit is the first thing that bursts from the mouth of the accused in this, our litigious republic. False assumption. Bonds is a public figure; thus not only does he have to prove the charges are false, he has to prove the authors knew they were false and published them anyway. That's a very hard standard to meet. If he brings up evidence not in the book, for instance, the authors merely say, "We did not have access to that and knew nothing about it" and Bonds loses. He has to prove that they did know about this evidence and ignored it. Very difficult. Not that this means Bonds is innocent, but the lack of a libel suit is meaningless.

I don't know. The numbers said to put him there and numbers are always right. Always. And, of course it's all bogus. The fallacies are obvious: The numbers plugged in to the formula assume the batters will have exactly the same OBA and SLG this year as last year -- highly unlikely. Also, it doesn't take into account that a person's OBA and SLG are affected by where he bats, and who bats before and after him. It's a textbook case of pulling numbers out of your butt and claiming it proves something. By being able to give an exact number of runs -- to three decimal places -- it fools the unwary into believing this is scientific. 43.865437% of all statistics are useless. In Sabermetrics, the number is 16.986896% higher.

Obviously, the best lineup is: 1) David Wright 2) Carlos Delgado 3) Carlos Beltran 4) Victor Diaz 5) Cliff Floyd 6) Jose Reyes 7) Kaz Matsui 8) Pitcher 9) Paul lo Duca The numbers prove it: http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py And we all know the numbers are never wrong. Never.

A quick count indicates I've seen about 400 of them.

For me, Grote was the Mets catcher. All the rest were just building on his legacy. He's given a lot of credit for his game calling and defense, plus his hard-nosed attitude. He was considered the grouchiest player on the 60s Mets; you didn't mess with him. Little know trivia: Grote was the last NL all-star catcher before Johnny Bench came along and became the automatic pick for a decade or so (in '68, Grote started and Bench backed him up).

silverdsl wrote: I just find it amusing that after MLB went after all sorts of fan websites a few years ago for copywright and trademark infringements that someone else is going after them. Why is that amusing? They are required by law to enforce their trademarks, and to send notification if anyone uses them without permission.

Ranking Brooks: Young Frankenstein -- his one classic. Then it drops off (all are OK, but all are flawed, except for "Silent Movie," which is just a gimmick, though a successful one): Silent Movie Blazing Saddles -- ending very weak The Producers -- Zero Mostel is great, but not wild enough The 12 Chairs -- Mildly amusing at best. High Anxiety -- Just an excuse to show what Hitchcock movies Brooks has seen. Then the stinkers: Robin Hood, Men in Tights Spaceballs

That sounds like it.

I don't recall the day, but there was that great clip where Mike Cameron made this almost impossible catch -- stretching out and having the ball drop right into his glove. What made it great was Pedro Martinez's reaction: he raised his hands over his head and did a salaam to Mike. While Wright's catch was great, Cameron's was more amazing.

I mostly remember McReynolds for him showing very little personality. He'd go out, do it job (and generally do it well), and then go home. My favorite McReynolds moment was in some game (nationally televised) when they showed McReynolds in the dugout. One of the annoucers said something like, "Great player, but you're never going to see him smile." The cameraman must have relayed the comment to McReynolds, because he broke out in this big, goofy grin.