metsmarathon

games like yesterday's are the reason why i don't scale up to the 10 points. if i did, then edgy would'nt be feeling quite as absurd as he does/should. i'd be giving takahashi a solid 5 points! happily, i don't do that, and all he'll get out of me is 1.8 points. my reasoning is that it is theoretically possible where one player may be the only player who merits schaeffer voting. and in that scenario, the player will receive 6 points, as the 6 point max rule cannot be violated. and unless other players should be given beers without earning them, then it is entirely permissible to award fewer than the maximum of 10 total points. otherwise those schaeffer points awarded to players who have not earned them become meaningless. the way i've set up my system, it favors giving a full 10 points to most games, but the extraordinary condition exists whereby those 10 points cannot be awarded. right now, only about 1 in 10 games falls below that criteria, and last night was the first of those to fall below 5 awardable points.

i just saw iron man over the weekend. i think all of my problems with the movie are related to technical / technological issues that are mostly related to my experience as a weapons engineer. i think the biggest thing is how he was able to fly from malibu to afghanistan and back on presumably one tank of gas. that's pretty fucking impressive. i'll gloss over the bulletproofiness of his suit, which is too thin to protect against a direct hit, but should suffice for glancing blows against smaller cal weapons. but really, what self-respecting terrorist organization doesn't own a single RPG, against which iron man should have no defense whatsoever? that shit'll pop a hole through his shell like a hot skewer through butter! also, all that ordnance bouncing around in that cave, and no stray bullets make it to his very exposed eye sockets? ok, sure. whatever. somebody already mentioned why a weapons manufacturer would be selling clearly marked weapons to terrorists, but my question is, how stupid does a weapons manufacturer have to be to DIRECTLY sell illegal arms to terrorists? i mean, damn, at least prop up a clandestine arms dealer! and finally, stark's gotta do a little better job developing insensitive munitions. i mean, a little blast from a flame thrower glances on the outer casing of a missile and it goes friggin' high order, taking with it an entire stockpile of ammo? c'mon! he's gotta do better than that... but on the whole, i rather liked it. definitely one of the better superhero movies i've seen, by a whole lot. of course, i stopped my dvd before the end of the credits, and its already on its way back to netflix. what'd i miss?

i think he was using hydrogen.

i... don't think i enjoyed the outcome of this game.

="Nymr83"]]As my high school principal used to say, you can't polish a turd. i believe they tested that theory on Mythbusters! indeed. you can polish a turd. iirc, giraffe gave excellent results.

Takahashi 2.4 Parnell 1.8 Tatis 0.8 Sheffield 0.8 Cora 0.6

Redding 3.6 Castillo 2.9 Beltran 2.2 Wright 0.6 Feliciano 0.4 Green 0.3

well, ok. aside from that. happy coincidences happen all the time. and the planet was literally just destroyed. i'll give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he's a little broken up about the whole thing and hasn't yet gotten the chance to start walking over. but yeah, right. i forgot about that part.

reading this helped me understand the backstory on the motivation of nero. i didn't really grasp enough of hte details on spocks failed mission as they were rushing through it in the film. not that i still fully get nero's conviction that spock should be held singularly responsible, but it definitely helps. saw the movie yesterday. really liked it. wasn't terribly deep, but still very entertaining. most importantly, there was nothing that necessarily troubled me. and jj abrams did the whole time travel thing reasonably well without creating too much of a cornucopia of disturbing concepts. the wifey liked it too, which is a pretty good compliment considering how she typically doesnt care for either sci fi or actiony things, and she's got virtually no star trek knowledge, proving that you didnt need to know the back story to enjoy the film.

hmm... that was actually easier to implement than i had feared! Green 3.3 Parnell 2.0 Murphy 1.2 Sheffield 1.1 Schneider 0.1 the same upgrade can be readily made to little m.e.t.b.o.t. as well (if only his input file were ready for today)! beltran would've gotten some negative points if only his missed catch counted as an error, or if i hadn't taken out the hooks for misplays/mistakes htat aren't considered/scored as errors. but i took that out. and its a bitch to add things in midseason. i've already decided to put it back in there for next year.

Pelfrey 4.6 Cora 1.6 Rodriguez 1.6 Wright 1.2 Feliciano 0.6 Castillo 0.4

not that i'm doing so good at the schaeffer voting, but i could definitely set up my spreadsheets to also spit out meister brau points as well. might be a fun parallel project...

Wright 2.8 Rodriguez 1.9 Beltran 1.6 Cora 1.5 Church 1.1 Feliciano 1.1

here's the breakdown of santana's evening from me, with a truncated list of all my schaeffer voting criteria: Statistic count multiplier total AB 3 -0.2 -0.6 R 1 0 H 1 0.75 0.75 RBI 1 1.25 1.25 BB 0.5 0 SO 1 -0.25 -0.25 LOB 2 -0.5 -1 3B 1 0 HR 1 0 TB 2 0.5 1 LISPw2O 1 -0.25 -0.25 SF/SH 0.5 0 GIDP -1 0 GARBI 2 0 GARS 2 0 batting total - 0.9 ... E -1 0 DPstarted 1 0.25 0.25 DPturned 1 0.5 0.5 Web Gem 1 2 2 fielding total 2.75 ... IP 7 2 14 H 8 -0.25 -2 R 5 -0.75 -3.75 ER 5 -0.5 -2.5 BB 1 -0.5 -0.5 SO 2 0.75 1.5 HR 4 -1 -4 W 1 1 1 L -5 0 HBP -1.25 0 WP -1 0 Balk -2 0 CG 2 0 SHO 2 0 GS 1 -3 -3 QS 5 0 pitching total 0.75 ... game total 4.4 the theoretical maximum schaeffer vote that he could have gotten out of his pitching performance is a 0.4, which means that the sum of the 'marathon points' for the top six players in the game was less than 19. that would not have been a good game for the mets, typically requiring both poor pitching and absent hitting. to convert marathon points into schaeffer votes, i first take the top six positive scores, and then, if they total less than 19, i halve them and that becomes the vote. if they exceed 19, i scale them to 9.5, and award a bonus half point to the top producer. as wonky as it seems, i end up with voting results that are, more often than not, consistent with the populace, and which were consistent with my initial non-scientific scribblings of how much i thought certain performances are worth, so i think it stands up. ... in the afore-mentioned pelfrey game, he ended up with a -15.4 for his pitching, and also garnered -1.7 for his hitting, or lack thereof, on the basis of not getting a hit in 2 at bats, with 4 left on base, one in scoring position with 2 outs. that's too much weight for a lone run scored to offset.

johan just misses my top 6 for the game, mostly on the strength of me giving him credit for a "web gem" on the nice snag. he got a 0.9 with the bat, 0.8 with his arm, and 2.8 with his glove, for a total of 4.40 marathon points, and not enough to best church's 4.90 marathon points. so ryan church gets the 1.1 schaeffer votes, and johan gets nothing. poor fellow.

yeah, i'm still trying to figure out how the guy could've built the dog translators and tracking scope given the technology of his day... i mean, if carl is 78, then muntz had to've taken off for south america back 70 years ago, right? so that means 1939ish... pretty darned impressive! though, if i can accept that hanging a pair of blankets out of windows on opposite sides of a house can steer said house south across the prevailing winds at both temperate and tropical latitudes, then i guess i can also accept that charles muntz was a steampunk genius before steampunk was even cool. i think once muntz established hisself as batshit crazy, there was really no point in trying to explain themselves...

i'll give it a 4.5 as i said in the 6/6 igt, i'd hardly classify this particular pixar project as a "kiddie flick" there was some pretty mature subject matter in there. i'd say it was the most grown up movie disney has put out in a long, long time, if ever. i mean, there was enough for young kids to enjoy, but there was some heavy heavy shit in there which, if it doesn't fly over the tykes' heads, is going to make for a long and inquisitive car ride home. i mean, you've got dreams shattered by infertility, death of a loved, longtime spouse and the subsequent feelings of loneliness, the creeping dissociation of the elderly from modern society, and a frightening moment of sudden uncontrolled rage from an otherwise peaceful and kind old man. and that's all before house takes off for skies, in what i've gotta believe has to become a future episode of mythbusters! overall i really liked the movie. it was very well done, and (spoiler alert) also had a classic disney-esque villain' death by plummeting. dug was friggin hilarious, and, i think, accurately captured the canine thought process. the pixar short leading into the movie was also, characteristically, very good. i loved the shark. i should definitely try to see this movie in 3d, though i'm curious how much it would necessarily add.

Wright 3.0 Redding 2.1 Tatis 1.1 Rodriguez 1.8 Green 0.8 Castillo 0.6 Stokes 0.6

Hernandez 5.0 Wright 1.4 Fmartinez 1.3 Cora 1.1 Parnell 0.6 Schneider 0.6

Nieve 2.6 Takahashi 1.4 Wright 1.2 Beltran 0.7 Santos 0.3 Castillo 0.3

humbug!

i'm not sure that i would call up a kiddie movie - it is by far the most mature film disney has made in a long time, if ever.

well... i'm glad i went to see up with the wifey instead....

Valdez 3.9 Reed 1.7 Parnell 1.3 Feliciano 1.1 Hernandez 1.1 Fmartinez 0.9

that's the CONtinental US Theater Network Operations and Security Center... i don't know what's on that website, really, but now i'm very curious. also wary.