metsmarathon

using bbref: cy young's war/9ip in the year in question: 0.213 dickey's: 0.216 for fun: pud galvin in his wacky 19.9 war, 636 inning campaign way back in 1884: 0.282 gooden's in 84: 0.388 pedro in 2000 (11.4 war in a scant 217 innings): 0.472 - crazy good!

probably, but accounting for postseason numbers isn't stupid-easy, and i'm all about stupid.

what was the present value of the santana deal, 'yknow, after hte deferred money is accounted for? what utter nonsense. OE: per cot's contracts, the present day value of santana's deal is $123.1M due to the deferrals. but, y'know, why avail oneself of hte information that freely obtainable on the internets when you can just blast and blast and blast away at a talking point.

schilling is sneaky good. you don't necessarily think of him as a hall of famer right off hte bat, but that's because, though he was around for a while to start his career, he took a bit to get off hte ground, even serving as a closer for a bit there. the dude got hisself included in some suspect trades there too. in fact, i don't think there's a single schilling trade where the team giving him up made out even close to okay in it. my ballot goes as follows, with some added support from a thing i'll call JAWS+, or hte ratio between a given player's jaws score (average of his career war and his war7, or top 7 war years) and the average jaws score for the hall of famers at that player's primary position 226 bonds 171 clemens (boo) 120 bagwell 118 piazza 106 raines 106 trammell 106 schlling 102 walker 100 palmiero 99 edgar martinez kenn lofton sits at a tantalizing 98 (he was a lot better than most people ever realized, wasn't he?), and since i've run out of slots in my imaginary ballot, i don't have to wrestle with that problem. over on the veteran's ballot, i have: 105 dahlen 94 ferrell had a very impressive peak (27th best among pitchers; only four other pitchers have a higher war7 and are not in the hall) and 94 mullane, about whom the following is written on baseballlibrary.com: "Mullane was a multi-talented marvel, baseball's first ambidextrous pitcher. He played without a glove, facing the batter with both hands on the ball before throwing it with either one." oh, he also played 7 other positions, all but catcher, and was a very early proponent of player rights. both are deserving, but i give the edge to mullane. how could you keep a guy out who would throw the ball with either hand, and wouldl ikely have racked up 300 wins had he not been banned for a year for bucking the reserve clause?

Nymr83 wrote: metsmarathon wrote: pretty sure piazza admitted to trying andro or something in either college or the minors and said he didn't like it or it didn't help and he stopped. Wasn't Andro, at that time, a legal product available over-the-counter in the U.S. And not banned by baseball? yes. and it was legal in america and in baseball in 1998, too. now, that legality was through a loophole/oversight built into the law, but it was still legal and allowed and pervasive. in 1997 it was banned by hte olympics, and in 2004 its sale in the us was banned, and it was officially made a controlled substance, making it "illegal". now, it's certainly fair to argue that it's use prior to 1997 and certainly 2004 was at best gray in a world of black and white, but to claim that anyone who so much as touched the stuff prior to that time (and even after) is a dirty rotten awful cheater who should never ever never be allowed enshrinement into the hall. in baseball today, many first base coaches carry stopwatches to assist baserunners in timing hte pitchers' delivery. carlos beltran for one avails himself of this knowledge to great success. it could well be argued that this is a gray area beyond the pure pastoral beginnings of the sport, and it's certainly envisionable that a future rule change may make such an activity illegal. since carlos beltran were using this crack in the rule of the game for his statistical benefit, would that make him a retroactive cheater who should be prohibited from enshrinement or due recognition of his accomplishments? what of those players who gain an advantage by smearing the back line of hte batters box? are they not violating a rule and exisitng in the gray inbetween? should this be held against tehm as well?

write signed and it will all be ok.

if hte mets did this the way tampa did things, they would have offered him the 7 year - $100M extension after the 2009 season. though, that might not have looked like such a smart move at the time. or for the two years immediately thereafter.

he's a 3-4 WAR player, per fangraphs (more than i would have expected). that's slightly more than $15M performance value, so if he maintains that level and plays healthy throughout, its not an outrageous deal. that said, he's surely no lock to maintain that level as he seems to consistently underproduce. and it also leaves no margin against injury or the ravages of age. he's coming on his peak years, though. it's still a bad deal, but not awful. i;d rather have bourn, though he's older and will likely command more money.

pretty sure piazza admitted to trying andro or something in either college or the minors and said he didn't like it or it didn't help and he stopped.

i don't dance dirty either. i'm not much of a dancer. also not seen: footloose and fame.

i wouldn't mind seeing pelfrey back, but at a lesser salary than he would otherwise have been due. maybe stuff it with some bonuses. the dude's got potential, he just struggles to harness it fully. and his start to the season was certainly promising.

he should ask for a sweet tent. can't hurt, right...?

Ceetar wrote: The pursuit of wins. That's it, but that's not what we're after. jeez, c'mon edgy. you know better. we want actual wins, not just to go after them. if you chase the wins down they'll just run away. Ceetar wrote: We're after actual wins see. now the wins are all getting away and we're left behind. way to go.

trading dickey (not something i want to do at all) is something you do to not help you in the coming year, but to maximize the potential productivity in teh coming years. dickey, one would liekly assume is at his peak production. i suppose there's a possibility that he could be better still, but i wouldn't stake any money on it. in all likelihood, he will be worse next year than he was this year. with dickey, the mets are in the position where they will be spending more and more money on lesser and lesser production. (ditto for wright, but you could expect a more gradual dropoff given his age) he may well give them a better chance at success in 2013 than wil myers and some other $10M spent on pitching. but wil myers will give you six years of cost controlled high-value production, with a possibility of inking him to a favorable extension. wil myers gives a better chance at future success than dickey. i don't want to trade ra. i want to see where he winds up. but if we do trade him, a wil myers type player is exactly what i would hope to receive in return.

it may well be the best cgi movie i've seen that didn't have the word pixar on it. granted, it did have the word lasseter, so there's that. it felt smart like a pixar flick, but not as deep as you would generally expect from them. not that it's a bad thing. it's no toy story (1 2 or 3) but then, what is? i gave it a 4.5/5, because its just so much fun. and while jack mcbrayer may only have one setting, that one setting is pure gold when all you need is a jack mcbrayer.

movies i [u:3bclie2b]have[/u:3bclie2b] seen from before i was born (1977) The Ten Commandments (1956) Jaws (1975) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) 101 Dalmatians (1961) Ben-Hur (1959) Fantasia (1940) The Godfather (1972) Thunderball (1965) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Pinocchio (1940) Goldfinger (1964) Bambi (1942) The Towering Inferno (1974) Smokey and the Bandit (1977) Lady and the Tramp (1955) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977/1980) Rocky (1976) i'm pitiful.

I feel like you hear people talking about, quoting, and referencing movies like The Big Lebowski and what not and rarely Titanic or Avatar. But yeah, yeah, nobody ever does that king of the world bit. with 1977 as a cutoff... E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) - i know i've seen it, because i know parts of it scared the shit out of me. i just don't know for certain that i've seen all of it. Titanic (1997) Avatar (2009) Grease (1978) Marvel's The Avengers (2012) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) The Passion of the Christ (2004) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) The Sixth Sense (1999) The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Tootsie (1982) The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) The Hunger Games (2012) Spider-Man 3 (2007)

titanic, bladerunner, and the big lebowski come to mind. also, nearly anything in hte past three years. i hear there was this movie with blue aliens, but everybody who watched it had to wear funny glasses. wtf is that all about?

wow. i'm confused about the whole home-road split - they have a specific name, mascot, uniformset, and colors for home games, and then go somewhere else entirely for road games? i mean, individually, i like each set - the home unis are really nice, and the roadies really come alive with the mustard-script (and show that black doesn't necessarily have to suck), but they're just so completely unrelated that i don't quite get it.

What one-shovel-less-less-than-a-full-toolshed gave a vote to Raul fucking ibanez?

Edgy DC wrote: In-tryst-ting: Everybody there except Saunders has a horse in the race, psychogeogrphaically. I'd imagine they'd all deny it, and anyhow, I just made up the word "psychogeogrphaically," but there it is. well, you misspelled it, is what you did.

well, yes. my point is though that the hill was far steeper this year what with the quality of the starters' performances. kimbrel is impressive, but there are many better candidates. and, if i were to vote for a brave, i'd give it to that medlen kid first.

who's out there giving first place votes to kimbrel and rodney when there are clearly dominant starting pitchers to choose from?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: What I'd like to see them try is a Mr. Met logo cap... [swoon]

but the orange trim helps accentuate the orange dot.