metsmarathon

that's fucking awesome.

fWAR, bWAR, OPS+, wOBA. our alphabet soup will taste better than theirs. at second and third and maybe (for the sake of our season) first as well.

Whether it's tejada Drew or maybe even Flores, one thing is certain in my mind. The mets will get more production at short than the postal clerks across town

sign me up, even though apparently i suck moose balls at writing song parodies.

http://www.artofthetitle.com/title/the-lego-movie/ a little article about the closing credits for hte lego movie, which were 2 1/2 minutes of physical lego stop motion. took 60,000 pieces, a year of planning, and a month of shooting. i think that all serves to underscore the difficulty in doing a full-feature physical stop-motion lego movie. but it would still be cool to see attempted.

I'm ok with this rule. It basically works like plays at any other base. With the possible exception of second base, which is still a bit of the wild Wild West.

according to producers, there are 3,863,484 unique lego bricks used in the movie. however, to recreate the entire movie using physical bricks, you would need over 15,080,330 bricks total, as some of hte unique bricks get "re-used". i'm not sure what this means... possibly cloned buildings and the like. that kinda makes sense. if you have ten lego skyscrapers in the background, you clone the whole thing and slap in the copy where you need it. fifteen million bricks sure seems like a lot. the full-scale lego x-wing used 5 million bricks. but it's not getting set and re-set 24 times a second.

it took me a while to figure out who it was referring to. i assume its syndergaard, because he has a nordic name thing going on. i'd warm up to it if we could assemble the rest of hte roster out of avengers. i mean, weve got cap'n america, and i guess thor. who is iron man? give me scarlett johansen and i'll limb on board.

while i agree that adding in an extra 5-10 minutes of take a goddamn breath willya!? would've helped the movie a lot, i think that the frenetic pacing and immersiveness of a universe rendered entirely in lego are what made the movie so enjoyable. i'd love to see a feature film made entirely with lego, in the way you describe, but i don't hold that against he lego movie, any moreso than i would hold the CGI woody, buzz, and the whole rest of the gang against toy story. what you describe is an entirely different movie. a good one to make that i would love to see, but it's an entirely different animal. i still maintain that it would be missing somehting that the actual movie had. legos to infinity. a wholly brick-built universe would need to employ forced persepctive, or would need to occupy dirigible hangars for every outdoor scene, and while the forced perspective or turning smal bricks into large distant objects is challenging and cool and would be awesome to see done on a large scale, bricks to infinity. its a whole goddamn immersive universe built of lego. this is what you imagine when you build your lego firehouse and set it in your lego town, and have lego batman swoop in with your totally cool classic space guy and his swooshable classic space space ship. that they are in their own universe, where anything is possible with enough bricks.

Frayed Knot wrote: metsmarathon wrote: he's a victim of the current draft pick compensation. the latest CBA really fucked that shit up good. Well, two ways to look at that I suppose. 1) there are far fewer players now who cost a signing team a compensation pick, fewer signing teams that have their picks protected, and the picks that the losing team gets aren't as high as they used to be. So by that measure the latest CBA improved things from the days when situational relievers who sometimes never even made a contribution to their new team (like say Pedro Feliciano ... heh, heh, heh) involved draft picks. 2) Now that there are so few FAs that warrant compensation, the signing teams are more cautious than ever about signing one of them yes, the old system was rather wacky in how it determined the value of those eplayers. particularly for relievers, but really for all players. in the past, there were really so many compensation picks flying around that it didn't matter all that much for teams, especially in larger markets, to lose a pick for a player they wanted. and with the type-B players, the signing team didn't really lose anything anyway. the current problem is that there are players now who are, effectively, type B players who are costing their signing team type-A compensation. there's also the caution over losing a high draft pick that you mentioned, plus a new-found emphasis on the future value of those draft picks that teams are really finally coming around to realizing. this seems to have not been well-anticipated in the development of the current CBA. i felt the prior system was fairly robust, with tweaks really only needing to be made for the ranking system of type-A vs. type-B. i'm not sure if i like that in-season trades strip away the compensation pick. i always tended to like that feature as it boosted the trade market.

its been a while since i jumped right into the thick of a senseless slapfight, but here goes. just, no scratching. its a slap fight, not a cat fight. i need to keep my face pretty. anyways, it sounds like the discussion started out as follows: assumption 1: the mets will have a number of pitchers, both in the majors and in the minors, who will have imposed upon them an innings cap, with the presumed intention of reducing eventual likilihood of injury for those players. assumption 2: major and minor league innings count equally. 100 AAA innings and 100 MLB innings are equal. promotions to and relegations from the MLB do not affect the innings count, aside from usage effects, (ie putting a starter in the pen). assumption 3: in either scenario, the mets fall tantalizingly short of hte playoffs, so we don't have to jump hte gun and worry overly much about the impact of either of htese scenarios on the readiness of the players for the postseason, and whether or not innings caps should apply when teams are in teh playoffs. that seems very much like a different, though related, discussion. baseline scenario: the mets break training camp with all of those many starting pitching prospects in their respective slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages (majors, AAA, AA, etc). the players all pitch regularly, on normal rest, with no specific tactical or strategic efforts made to reduce their workloads during hte season. when the player reaches a given pre-set innings limit, the player is put on hte shelf. when they are put on the shelf, their innings are assumed by other members of the roster, be they arms out of the bullpen, journeyman veterans, or call-ups, likely for hte final 4-6 weeks of the season. edgy scenario: with the exception of 2-3 selected players, the mets break training camp with all of their many starting pitching prospects in their respective slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages. these players breaking camp all pitch regularly, on normal rest, with no specific tactical or strategic efforts made to reduce their workloads during hte season. when the player reaches a given pre-set innings limit, the player is put on hte shelf. those 2-3 excepted players, however, stay in extended spring training for 4-6 weeks. while these players are in extended spring training, their workload is assumed by bullpen arms, journeyman veterans, or call-ups, for hte first 4-6 weeks of the season. once their extended spring training is over, they assume their rightful slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages. the extended spring training allows these players to pitch through the end of the season. alternate (joba rules) scenario: the mets break training camp with all of those many starting pitching prospects in their respective slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages (majors, AAA, AA, etc). the players all pitch regularly, on normal rest, but with per-game innings or pitch limits which would allow hte pitchers to play the full season without hitting their innings cap. old school scenario: the developing pitchers spend some time in the bullpen, either on a pre-set rotation or some ad hoc scheme. these developing pitchers are frequently allowed to pitch multiple innings once inserted into games. some might even experience save opportunities if pitching well. .... i think the biggest risk with the [u:491bhmol]edgy scenario [/u:491bhmol]is that the pitchers selected for extended spring training might feel that they are being held back unfairly, and that it somehow might be a negative reflection upon them as players. this would be countered by stressing that those players are being held back so as to ensure their availability for potentially the most important games the team might play. i don't believe that holding a player back would necessarily retard his development. if for instance a player needed 50 innings to improve himself in some facet, and was going to pitch 150 innings overall in a given season, then as long as that player gets those 50 innings, it shouldn't matter if those innings are in april, may or june. (provided he still gets the about the same 150 innings). i suppose another potential risk is that if one of the players you've held back gets injured, he has those 4-6 weeks less of a season in which to return. and we're all going to pretend to be smart enough to assume that the extended spring training was not a cause in itself of the injury. what are the pros and cons of each of these scenarios? which would be the preferred course of action for the mets? why is somebody hitting me with a handbag?

he's a victim of the current draft pick compensation. the latest CBA really fucked that shit up good.

Edgy MD wrote: Nymr83 wrote: if he accepted the qualifying offer he'd have been back in the same spot next year, no? With $14 million more in his bank account, and possibly with a more appealing CV and a different market. and with a team that would not be quite so quick to make a qualifying offer knowing that the player just might go ahead and take it again.

stop motion would've been very limiting. using real actual physical bricks would've been limiting, and damned near impossible within a reasonable budget. there were freaking waves in a lego brick-built ocean. rebuilding and resetting that 24 times a second (or more depending on your framerate) would've been a monster task. also, using real minifigs would've greatly limited the movement of the minifigs. it would be done, and many have done stop motion thingies with lego, but to get it big enough to merit a feature film would have been far far more effort to produce a lesser product. its good enough for me that the world they built could be built with real actual bricks. i don't need them to assemble and reassemble a billion bricks for ever frame of the movie.

Minimm is 4.1 years old, is scared of the bears in Brave, and the trolls in Frozen, and only got a little scared in the lego movie. I forget when, prolly when the bad guys were winning, but once he sat on my lap he was fine. No hiding or worry.

i was strongly considering '06. despite my greater age, i was much more into that team than i was the 88 squad. but there's no way to turn down '00.

about the only way to not like wreck it raplph is to go in thinking, "bah, video game nonsense. i'm so above it." which may also be true of the lego movie.

how did the army not realize that having a cannon facing right at the outfield wall was anything but a terrible idea?

seriously, go see it. if you have a kid, are a kid, or ever were a kid, you should enjoy it. no, you should love it. unless you are broken inside. its not just a movie about lego. it is so very much more, in a way that i couldn't describe without undoing some of the magic of the movie. its a movie about lego as much as toy story is a movie about toys.

if you don't show up for the draft, there is no autodraft. you fill your team from the waiver wire.

i wouldn't mind trying to get aj burnett to fit into our rotation. have we collectively chosen not to talk about that guy?

damn, i just cut out a whole shit-ton of talent from my team. the draft is gonna be interesting....

anything in the latter half of march would be fine for me, provided its at 8:30 or later, preferably 9.

Yeah the problem is the mets don't necessarily need a closer and the rays do.

smg58 wrote: I think any thread titled "Alex Rodriguez 2014" should be put in the non-baseball forum. Bam! I still think its utter bullshit for him to get a day over 50. Did any player who was on that 2003 list ever subsequently test positive a second time? If so, would not that player only face 50 games? Why so much more for alex. If obstructing investigation was a factor, why did memo only get 50? Just about any way youslice it, the punishent is arbitrary, and should be in full violation of the CBA