Fman99

="Benjamin Grimm":11gqb8vb]I think it was used much more than once. It was probably even used more than "punch him in the neck and tell him his sister is a ****"[/quote:11gqb8vb] BG, you've used that phrase many more times than I have. Just sayin' metirish Oct 23 2008 09:49 AM " It's a dump but it's our dump" sharpie Oct 23 2008 09:51 AM "Rick Peterson could fix him in ten minutes." Centerfield Oct 23 2008 09:54 AM I wanted to mention that I don't think "Street Spanish" is really overused...not anymore anyway. If done well, I think that can still be funny. AG/DC Oct 23 2008 09:58 AM I think I make it clear that things can be well-used. But Bernazard is still inexplicably demonized and that's all folks have on him. On the other hand, if there's anything to it, how many more games might the Mets have won with Delgado at first in 2005? Benjamin Grimm Oct 30 2008 07:57 AM He's measuring the drapes! metirish Oct 30 2008 08:01 AM Rollins is sticking it to the Mets Gwreck Oct 30 2008 08:03 AM ="AG/DC":2yn5xsty]On the other hand, if there's anything to it, how many more games might the Mets have won with Delgado at first in 2005?[/quote:2yn5xsty] I know it's not a truly valid comparison, but Delgado had 31 win shares in 2005, while Mientkiewicz + Jacobs had 8. G-Fafif Oct 30 2008 08:28 AM New York's gonna love Bill Pecota. Still. Edgy DC Oct 30 2008 08:28 AM It's as valid as any. I'll guess there's maybe four more combined among Woodward, Anderson, Offerman, Cairo, and Daubach. That's about six more wins. It gets them up to 89. If one of those wins comes at the expense of the division-champ 90-win Braves, we're tied! Crikey! Gwreck Oct 30 2008 09:18 AM ="Edgy DC":29dbtj1c]It's as valid as any. I'll guess there's maybe four more combined among Woodward, Anderson, Offerman, Cairo, and Daubach. That's about six more wins. It gets them up to 89. If one of those wins comes at the expense of the division-champ 90-win Braves, we're tied! Crikey![/quote:29dbtj1c] Cairo 5, Woodward 4, Anderson 4, Offerman 1, Daubach 0. Of course most of those win shares were done at other positions. I think 4 is a valid estimation for the first-base contributions of those players. Frayed Knot Nov 05 2008 08:34 AM "Omar is obsessed with getting .... " Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 08:32 AM "We really liked the schools.' Let it go. HahnSolo Dec 02 2008 09:18 AM I'm fond of : "Sources familiar with the Mets' thinking..." G-Fafif Dec 02 2008 10:17 AM The Willie Randolph Edition: --Music and facial hair --The funk --"When we sip champagne..." --My guys --Three in the morning John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 02 2008 10:23 AM How dare you roll out the Willie edition without: "I've been around winners all my life..." Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 10:26 AM Just so we're clear: by consigning these Met references to hell, you don't get to use them as a writer any more without looking hopelessly outr�. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 02 2008 10:34 AM Yeah, I kinda like "Willie the Winner." I'm not ready to cashier it yet. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 11:24 AM 'Zactly. KC has a way of making ol' nuggets retain a certain freshness. He also has a good sense of what's "so 2003" and needs to stay there. G-Fafif Dec 02 2008 12:51 PM ="Edgy DC":hthd8qtk]'Zactly. KC has a way of making ol' nuggets retain a certain freshness. He also has a good sense of what's "so 2003" and needs to stay there.[/quote:hthd8qtk] The funk hasn't really come up in conversation lately, but the champagne line stays in circulation until the Mets complete a September intact. And three in the morning I'm keeping around in case of boneheaded management emergency. But yes, I can't believe I forgot "been a winner all my life."

"Can of corn" "Got him!" (Fran Healy is his own subset of overused references)

The guy who peeled his face off in the bathroom scared the bejeezus out of me. I was 9 years old. Another no-brainer. Most of these first rounders are just that.

I had the most absurd nightmare. I was poor and no one liked me. I lost my job, I lost my house, Penelope hated me and it was all because of this terrible, awful Negro.

Ally Sheedy, with long hair, jogging.

Ruthless People? Nope, don't think so.

Rays sweep. Four shutouts. Phillies score no runs and then the comet hits them on their way home.

="metirish":nlz3jefm]="HahnSolo":nlz3jefm]You know soccer better than I: does the NY metro area really need two MLS teams?[/quote:nlz3jefm] Absolutely it does not , I thought from day one the area team could have done better in Queens but getting a stadium built there was going to be hard.As it is the area in Jersey where they are going is a hotbed for soccer so it should do better there than at Giants stadium.[/quote:nlz3jefm] I would dispute anything on this continent north of the Rio Grande being a "hotbed for soccer." Centerfield Oct 22 2008 10:49 AM The interior of that stadium looks very nice. The outside, with the gold lettering, and attempt to re-create the original stadium, not so much. I really liked the look of MFY Stadium II. And I know that they wanted luxury boxes, and shops and stuff, but really saw no need to replace it. Willets Point Oct 22 2008 12:01 PM Sad that they've lost the distinctive toilet-bowl-lid shape. seawolf17 Oct 22 2008 12:04 PM ="Willets Point":3eidc3vj]Sad that they've lost the distinctive toilet-bowl-lid shape.[/quote:3eidc3vj] Thankfully, it'll still have that distinctive toilet-bowl smell. soupcan Oct 22 2008 12:04 PM Meanwhile in East Rutherford, it appears that they are building an exact replica... seawolf17 Oct 22 2008 12:07 PM It has to be harder to make a football stadium distinctive, I'd think. You kinda have to have seats all the way around, and the field shape is what it is -- there's no margin for creativity. Benjamin Grimm Oct 22 2008 12:16 PM When is the new football place scheduled to open? (Somebody wrote to the Daily News a while back and suggested that they sell the naming rights to JetBlue. An excellent idea!) soupcan Oct 22 2008 12:24 PM This company would fit pretty good too! Farmer Ted Oct 22 2008 02:48 PM They've done some nice updates to Cellular. Like I said previously, the Teds enjoyed the atmosphere there as much if not more than Wrigley (except when I'm hanging with my CPF peeps). From those views, it does look like a Cellular replica. HOK prolly recycling old models. soupcan Oct 30 2008 06:56 PM Benjamin Grimm Oct 30 2008 06:58 PM Is the new one the one on the right? soupcan Oct 30 2008 08:19 PM Yup. metsguyinmichigan Oct 30 2008 08:28 PM ="soupcan"] What a hideously ugly piece of shit. And the new one sucks, too. Willets Point Oct 30 2008 08:31 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":hwujrb5p]What a hideously ugly piece of shit. And the new one sucks, too.[/quote:hwujrb5p] I love you, man! G-Fafif Oct 30 2008 08:39 PM Best MFY blog out there is Bronx Banter, run by a very good guy and writer, Alex Belth, author of a biography of Curt Flood (and my fellow New York Baseball Giants fetishist). He's solicited MFY fans and writers and anyone with a vague connection to offer their MFYS (I or II) memories. It appears he ran out of logical candidates because he asked me for one, which ran today here[/url:kljubj7x]. The plethora of comments to date would indicate I have my work cut out for me with this particular demographic. John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 30 2008 09:04 PM Terrific as always. I have enjoyed that series... tho I'm kind of disappointed that blog moved to sny. I'd begun to enjoy it as part of the "baseball toaster" lineup but I'm pretty sure I won't make the trip to sny just to read it. Frayed Knot Oct 30 2008 09:09 PM ]Is the new stadium on the right or on the left? Yes Valadius Oct 30 2008 09:11 PM Here's what that piece of shit reminds me of: Edgy DC Oct 30 2008 09:25 PM Not in any way distinct from every other stadium, of course. soupcan Nov 06 2008 07:27 AM Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 07:29 AM When are the ghosts gonna move in? Farmer Ted Nov 06 2008 12:38 PM Taxpayers paid an extra $500 million more than Citi for that? Willets Point Nov 06 2008 01:11 PM I kind of like it. themetfairy Nov 06 2008 01:55 PM It's kind of nondescript. Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 01:58 PM It is, isn't it? They need to get the aura installed and they have to paint the mystique. dgwphotography Nov 06 2008 02:02 PM ="Willets Point"]I kind of like it. Me too. I do like the fact that they put the facade around the top of the stadium like the old Stadium. Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 02:21 PM It's not bad - interior is better than the exterior IMO which is basically what I thought of the old one. It's just that it's not anything new or different as compared to the old joint and, as mentioned, what exactly about it costs double (or more) what every other stadium seems to cost? Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 02:42 PM Hookers and blow. Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 02:43 PM Have they started taking down the old stadium yet? Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 02:51 PM They're not even planning on wrecking it for a while and I think it'll still be up as the season starts next year (hey, it's only parkland they're taking up). As it is they've got some carry-the-dirt to the new joint ceremony planned in the near future. SteveJRogers Nov 06 2008 05:58 PM It also is a worst case scenario stadium in case neither NYS or Citi Field are ready in time. seawolf17 Nov 06 2008 06:03 PM ="SteveJRogers":1k32hx17]It also is a worst case scenario stadium in case neither NYS or Citi Field are ready in time.[/quote:1k32hx17] Really? I didn't know that, but I guess you have to have a backup plan. soupcan Nov 06 2008 08:26 PM ="SteveJRogers":2kxjm4mu]It also is a worst case scenario stadium in case neither NYS or Citi Field are ready in time.[/quote:2kxjm4mu] I'm giving you a big 'T' (as in 'tall tale') on that one. Where did you hear that? SteveJRogers Nov 06 2008 09:02 PM From the Mets themselves, on the Citi Field side anyway, this was announced during the final weekend at Shea. Since Shea is in the process of becoming a parking lot, they are going to need a place if something unforeseen happens. OYS isn't going down because there is still battles over what is to become of that site. metsguyinmichigan Nov 06 2008 09:44 PM ="soupcan"] Goodness, it looks like a tawdry carnival that sets up in a mall parking lot for a weekend leaves two days later leaving a trail of cigarette butts, chewed corn dog sticks and stains in the parking lots where the carnies emptied their sewage tanks. Yuck. Is there any room for scores on that scoreboard -- err, ad-board, as it should be renamed. soupcan Nov 07 2008 07:09 AM ="SteveJRogers":30sm5t04]From the Mets themselves, on the Citi Field side anyway, this was announced during the final weekend at Shea. Since Shea is in the process of becoming a parking lot, they are going to need a place if something unforeseen happens. OYS isn't going down because there is still battles over what is to become of that site.[/quote:30sm5t04] I'm sorry Steve but I still don't believe that. You are telling us that it was announced during the final weekend at Shea that if 'something unforseen' happens to CitiField to make it unsuitable to play in, that the Mets would use Yankee Stadium...? Come on. There's no way anybody said that. Anybody connected to the Mets in any official capacity anyway. Old Yankee Stadium isn't not going down because they are arguing over the site either. It isn't going down because its not becoming a parking lot so there's no advantage to the Yankees or the City in terms of revenue to expediate the process. And in the meantime the Yankees are still squeezing pennies out of it by continuing to give (and charge for) guided tours. It'll come down when they get around to it. The community around the stadium that stands to benefit from the parkland it will become has no juice to force anybody to do anything any time soon. That's why its not being demolished just yet. Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 07:14 AM Yeah, there's no need to keep YS2 around. Even if one of the two stadiums had an unexpected delay, the other new stadium would remain an option. The Yankees could play at Citi or the Mets could play at YS3. And believe me, they'll get it done. Even if some of the restaurants aren't completed, or if there are fewer working restrooms than they wanted, or anything like that, they'll open anyway. As long as there are seats and electricity and fire alarms and whatever else is needed for an occupancy permit, the ballparks will open. And those are the things they'll make sure they have done in time. metirish Nov 07 2008 07:42 AM I don't know if the Mets are involved in such Shenanigans but Juan Gonzalez at the Daily News has been on top of this story for a long while. ] Yankees took $11 million in improper rent deductions Thursday, November 6th 2008, 9:39 PM The Yankees improperly deducted more than $11million from their annual rent bill for Yankee Stadium over a four-year period, city Controller William Thompson has found. Thompson, who will make a formal announcement about the Yankee bill today, said the team has agreed to pay it all back - with interest. The richest franchise in baseball overstated expenses by more than $24 million from 2003 to 2006, which allowed it to underpay its rent bill on the city-owned stadium, Thompson's year-long audit found. The team also wrongly deducted from that rent nearly $10 million in planning costs for the new Yankee Stadium, the audit says. Ever since 2001, the city has let the team deduct up to $5 million a year from its annual rent to pay for planning costs for the new stadium, which is scheduled to open in April. Thompson said team executives took more than $9 million in planning cost deductions in 2006, even though they had already claimed those same deductions in previous years. They also deducted nearly $1 million from rent in 2005 for new stadium planning costs that Thompson found "inappropriate." Those costs included: # $50,000 the team paid Bronx lawyer Stanley Schlein, who then used much of that money to make contributions to an unidentified political action committee. Because Schlein spearheaded the pressure on City Council to approve the new stadium, the Yankees appear to have used city money to finance their lobbying. "The Yankees accept this finding," team spokesman Howard Rubenstein said yesterday. "They will be paying it in full." The team "has always cooperated with the controller" and has "no problems with the audit," Rubenstein said. Last May, as Thompson's people were in the middle of the audit, the Yankees agreed to pay back $9 million to the city in an installment plan. They paid the first $5 million in May, while an additional $4 million, plus interest, is due March 10. Then the auditors discovered an additional $2.3 million in rent underpayments connected to the team's revenue-sharing arrangement with Major League Baseball. Under that arrangement, the Yankees pay tens of millions of dollars each year to the "have-not" teams in baseball. The stadium lease allows the team to deduct most of those revenue-sharing payments from gross revenues. Annual rent is calculated based on that adjusted gross revenue. The audit found the Yankees inflated their revenue-sharing expenses by more than $24 million, improperly reducing the amount they owed to the city in rent. Every year, the controller's office catches the Yankees inflating these revenue-sharing expenses, and every year team officials agree not to do it again, a source in the controller's office told me. After they were caught this time, team executives sent a $2.3 million refund to the city a few weeks ago. You'd think the Yankees, who never tire of asking for more government subsidies, would have learned by now to keep honest books. You'd think they would stop nickel-and-diming our city. "Thanks to Controller Thompson, the taxpayers finally got some justice from the Yankees," said Bettina Damiani, executive director of Good Jobs New York, a longtime opponent of the new stadium deal. "It's disappointing that the city has to work so hard to make them pay their fair share." Yankee Capers Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 07:44 AM The entire Yankees front office, and all of the players, should go to jail. And their fans too! G-Fafif Nov 07 2008 07:45 AM Push comes to shove, I know of a couple of minor league ballparks in city limits that would do in a crunch. The A's played six games in Las Vegas in 1996 when the Your Name Here Coliseum's renovations weren't quite complete. The Rays have rented out the Braves' Disney facility to gin up interest in Central Florida a couple of times. I'd rather the Mets play nine innings of asses-up handball against a wall at the Polo Grounds Houses than call MFYS II or III home even for a day. Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 07:46 AM There's also Keyspan. Less capacity, of course, but wouldn't Fred love to play a major league game in Brooklyn? metirish Nov 07 2008 07:52 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qas3pub]There's also Keyspan. Less capacity, of course, but wouldn't Fred love to play a major league game in Brooklyn?[/quote:1qas3pub] That's what they should do I think, there would be huge publicity for it , Fred would bring back all the living Dodgers from the Brooklyn days. I t would be wonderful. They would roll back the prices on tickets and concessions.....oh wait, no they wouldn't. Frayed Knot Nov 07 2008 08:34 AM Seems to me that I've heard 'Yanx skimping on their rent' stories crop up every couple of years for about 1/4 century now and nothing ever comes of any of them. HahnSolo Nov 07 2008 09:02 AM ="metirish":2floxw4q]="Benjamin Grimm":2floxw4q]There's also Keyspan. Less capacity, of course, but wouldn't Fred love to play a major league game in Brooklyn?[/quote:2floxw4q] That's what they should do I think, there would be huge publicity for it , Fred would bring back all the living Dodgers from the Brooklyn days. I t would be wonderful. They would roll back the prices on tickets and concessions.....oh wait, no they wouldn't.[/quote:2floxw4q] I must have missed something here. Is there a Citi delay that I don't know about? metirish Nov 07 2008 09:03 AM Not that I know of either but Steveo planted a scenario where MFYII is still standing in case Citi or MFYIII are not finished in time. G-Fafif Nov 07 2008 09:13 AM To be fair to Steve, I spoke with somebody with some MFY ties last week and asked about MFYS II's deconstruction and he said it would hang around a little while in case there was a problem with MFYS III. I didn't pursue beyond that. But I hadn't heard anything from a Mets perspective that MFYS III was any kind of a fallback position. I'd rather the Mets welcome the Padres on April 13 to play stoopball on 108th St. than play a home game at either MFYS. Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 09:21 AM Or they could play a wacky game at Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands. How short would the home run distance be in the left and right field corners? OlerudOwned Nov 07 2008 02:56 PM Give or take. G-Fafif Nov 07 2008 03:45 PM What's that John Madden (or is John Madden describing Bill Parcells?) says about getting your guys and their guys and playing in the parking lot? They're gonna have the bases marked anyway. What's a lack of grass among friends? soupcan Dec 17 2008 07:25 AM Baseball-Fever.com It looks huge. Remember when the Yankees and the City promised they'd put in new parkland to replace the park that the new stadium displaced? Well check out all those green spaces! They're everywhere! HahnSolo Dec 17 2008 08:06 AM I too wonder why they haven't even begun to dismantle the old stadium yet. From the second photo it appears that they are losing a bit of the "crowd right on top of the field" advantage they had before. Those second and third decks are way removed from the field. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 17 2008 08:13 AM I think the era of those guys having the supposed better ballpark is about to come to an end. Us = Danny Meyer Them = Hard Rock Cafe metirish Dec 17 2008 08:14 AM The seats are a darker shade of blue , wow. Gwreck Dec 17 2008 09:16 AM ="HahnSolo":eyhnn3x9]I too wonder why they haven't even begun to dismantle the old stadium yet.[/quote:eyhnn3x9] I'd heard that they're waiting as it's the "backup plan" in the event something went wrong with construction at Citi Field or the new house of evil. Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 09:23 AM ="HahnSolo":1ohewife]I too wonder why they haven't even begun to dismantle the old stadium yet.[/quote:1ohewife] They haven't finished milking it yet. Last I heard it's likely to remain standing throughout next season. metirish Dec 17 2008 09:24 AM They just had the last official tour recently. Valadius Dec 17 2008 09:50 AM Again, the new MFYS looks like the Sarlacc pit monster. Farmer Ted Dec 17 2008 12:23 PM Where's George gonna get his calzones now? soupcan Feb 13 2009 12:36 PM Yankee Summer Home... Yankees Building New Vacation Stadium In The Hamptons TheOldMole Feb 14 2009 12:37 PM That is great. metirish Feb 14 2009 08:02 PM Can't stop laughing..... metirish Mar 25 2009 07:43 AM Hard Rock Cafe vendors behind the bleachers A view of the great hall in the new Yankee Stadium. Jeter's locker metsguyinmichigan Mar 25 2009 07:54 AM Could that place be any more tacky? Typical Yankees. Everything in your face. soupcan Mar 25 2009 08:35 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":3f8733ov]Could that place be any more tacky? Typical Yankees. Everything in your face.[/quote:3f8733ov] Now, now... It's a nice-looking place. A bit more grandiose than our little ballpark but still very nice. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 25 2009 08:46 AM I'm trying not to be biased but I would suspect when all is said and done that MFYs will realize a ton of cash for this whole new stadium thing but will have sacrificed an advantage over the competition that they will never get back. Yes, they surrendered much in the 1970s too but they could at least pretend the bones were authentic. But from now on, there's no pretending there's any real history in their building -- which was an enormous tenet of the Yankee Brand (TM) message -- and also, no assurances they'll have even the best park in their city which is a claim they could have made forever and might now might never be able say again. metsguyinmichigan Mar 25 2009 09:28 AM I bet they don't even have a Wiffle Ball field! Plus, at Citi I can get a new (at least to me) muffler or tire rims across the street while watching the game. SteveJRogers Mar 25 2009 09:50 AM ="metirish"]A view of the great hall in the new Yankee Stadium. I think I'll take this Great Hall Benjamin Grimm Mar 25 2009 09:54 AM Or this one: Edgy DC Mar 25 2009 09:56 AM Which brings to mind the Yankees original domed design. They even had a cap redesign to go with it. If I joined the Legion of Doom, I'd always end up sitting between the mantis and the gorilla at the board meetings. metsguyinmichigan Mar 25 2009 10:51 AM Sweet SuperFriends references. And, not the hijack the thread, but what the hell was the deal with the Wonder Twins? I get Wendy and Marvin and WonderDog. The were to provide comic relief. But the whole, "Wonder Twins powers activate! Shape of a tree! Form of a Pinto with a leaky gas tank!" stuff, I never got into that. Edgy DC Mar 25 2009 11:04 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 02 2009 09:22 AM Well, I don't think there was anything to get. She could become any animal, and he could become any form of water. Placing teen characters into adult adventures has always been important, allowing the junior viewer an oppotunity to project themselves into the story. But, the strangely parentless (and deluded) Wendy, Marvin, and Wonderdog served that purpose, yet they got fired for teens with real superpowers. I honestly think that the Superfriends producers had data showing that their target audience were big Donnie and Marie fans. Zan and Jana seem highly modeled on them, in look and personality. Here's my issue. In the secondary stories, they worked in peripheral heroes --- some already established in the DC universe, some not --- to get some needed diversity into the Justice League. But (1) why couldn't they work them into the major storylines? and (2) why did they have to underscore their ethnicity so damn much? Couldn't they have a guy who shoots streams of acid who just happens to be Thai, without calling him Bangkok BadAss or some shit? I always wanted to hear an exchange like: "Black Vulcan, do you copy?" "Yes, White Batman, I hear you." Oh and um, Yankees. Boo. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 25 2009 11:07 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":3mhc4q58]I bet they don't even have a Wiffle Ball field! Plus, at Citi I can get a new (at least to me) muffler or tire rims across the street while watching the game.[/quote:3mhc4q58] Or, you know, you can buy your old ones back. (Never have I rooted for "eminent domain" to prevail... before last year. The one advantage the MFYs do have over us-- and the New Yorker article pointed this out sharply-- is location... if nothing else, they're where a ballpark should be, smack in the middle of a city.) Benjamin Grimm Apr 02 2009 05:55 AM Get a load of the view from these seats in the new Yankee Stadium: The seats, according to the New York Times, only cost five bucks, but geez, you're unable to see about a third of the field. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/sports/baseball/01seats.html?_r=1&ref=baseball metirish Apr 02 2009 07:01 AM I'm not an architect , hell I'm not even a doctor but I don't know why these new stadiums have any such seating like above. Edgy DC Apr 02 2009 07:20 AM Quirky has a price. G-Fafif Apr 02 2009 09:14 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1rdpk7hv][/quote:1rdpk7hv] The less one has to see of the MFYs, the better. Benjamin Grimm Apr 02 2009 09:19 AM I guess some Yankee fans may prefer those seats because they won't be able to see Alex Rodriguez when he's playing third base. metsguyinmichigan Apr 02 2009 09:26 AM Yup. It's a "True Yankee Filter." You pay more for that. seawolf17 Apr 02 2009 12:08 PM ="metirish":uoy3pvzx]I'm not an architect , hell I'm not even a doctor but I don't know why these new stadiums have any such seating like above.[/quote:uoy3pvzx] I have to say I agree. They made a big fucking deal about having less seats, and angling them toward home plate, and so on... and you have this obstructed-view bullshit? Eff that. seawolf17 Apr 02 2009 08:02 PM A 76.3% increase?!?! Eff you, Yankees. You too, Johnny Damon. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4036916 metirish Apr 02 2009 08:08 PM Wankers - $41.40 to $72.97 - suckers Rockin' Doc Apr 02 2009 08:08 PM Damon should stick to doing Gieco commercials. seawolf17 Apr 02 2009 08:48 PM ="Rockin' Doc":lhs13t5x]Damon should stick to doing Gieco commercials.[/quote:lhs13t5x] Seriously. That pissed me off. "I mean, really, fuck the little guy. I make $13 million a year, guaranteed. So I don't care if they can't afford tickets; I wipe my ass with $1,000 bills." Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2009 04:52 AM A 76.3% increase in the cost of the average ticket for a seat at Yankee Stadium is once again, proof positive that it sucks to be a Yankees fan. Johnny Damon, it seems safe to conclude, is not exactly a thinking man. His comments are insensitive and out of touch with the day to day struggles of the common working man or woman. Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 05:51 AM ="Johnny Damon":1g3apd5t]"It's tough. New York can withstand it," he said. "Coming to this plush building, I think it's definitely something that people want to see. I mean, those are great seats. It's going to be tough for a family to afford but, you know, but we'll let the people upstairs worry about that."[/quote:1g3apd5t] Clearly, the people upstairs don't give a damn either. Nymr83 Apr 03 2009 06:18 AM In the post this morning Sherman says bad things about the New Yankee stadium while Kevin Kernan has some faint praise for Citi Field (though more dumping on Shea) soupcan Apr 03 2009 07:00 AM Times has its architectural reviews of both stadia today... ] April 3, 2009 Architecture Review Two New Baseball Palaces, One Stoic, One Scrappy By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF American stadium design has been stuck in a nostalgic funk, with sports franchises recycling the same old images year after year. Still, if you have to go with a retro look, New York City could have done worse than the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. Both were designed by Populous (formerly known as HOK Sport Venue Event) and are major upgrades over the stadiums they replaced, which had been looking more and more dilapidated over the years. Both should be fine places to spend a few hours watching a game. What�s more, each stadium subtly reflects the character of the franchises that built them. Yankee Stadium is the kind of stoic, self-conscious monument to history that befits the most successful franchise in American sports. The new home of the Mets, meanwhile, is scrappier and more lighthearted. It plays with history fast and loose, as if it were just another form of entertainment. Yankee management started talking about replacing the old stadium more than a decade ago, and this seemed to be the tougher challenge: the stadium sparkled with the memories of 26 World Series championships. Architecturally, however, the stadium was charmless. Renovation in the 1970s may have made it more comfortable (fans loathed the painful wooden seats of the original version), but it also destroyed many architectural features. The original copper frieze that lined the stadium�s upper deck was ripped out. (A partial concrete replica was added later.) The monuments that had once stood in the deepest recesses of center field were moved to an insipid space behind the left-center field fence and named Monument Park. The little personality the stadium had came from its site: a tight urban lot framed by elevated subway tracks on one side and a city park on the other. The new stadium, which stands across the street from the old one, spruces up that image while reviving some of the lost history. The towering arched windows that dominated the original exterior, an echo of the Roman Colosseum, have been recast in a mix of limestone, granite and cast stone, and they are as imposing as ever. A small urban plaza, raised just above the level of the sidewalk, faces the bars and souvenir shops along River Avenue and the entry to the elevated train, strengthening the structure�s relationship to its urban setting. The city has also promised to build a park and several ball fields just to the south of the stadium in an effort to put a more community-friendly face on the project. A broad pedestrian walkway will eventually link the stadium to the fields and a Metro-North station farther to the south. The biggest improvements, however, are the interiors, which have been organized with an eye to the fans. The concourses are broad open spaces, with concession stands set along the perimeter so that they don�t obstruct views down to the field. More seats are concentrated below the mezzanine level, closer to the action. Even the luxury suites, which suddenly look like a holdover from the era of corporate excess, are discreetly set back so that they don�t detract from the shared intimacy of watching the game. There�s history here, too, or at least a facsimile of it. The Yankees have brought back the old manually operated scoreboards in left and right field, a feature that was last used in the 1960s. A replica of the old frieze sits along the top of the upper deck. Best of all, the slot that separated the scoreboard from the right-field stands in the old stadium has been recreated, so you can still catch glimpses of the subway rumbling by � a reminder that the stadium has been carved out of the heart of a living, thriving city. All in all, the new Yankee Stadium may be an austere, even intimidating place, but there�s nothing tacky about it. It�s straightforward, paint-by-numbers architecture. Getting to Citi Field is a more drawn-out aesthetic experience. Descending from the elevated 7 train in Queens, you have to cross a wide landscaped plaza before arriving at the main entry gate. A sea of parking stretches out in both directions. A pile of rubble (once the old Shea Stadium) currently lies just beyond the parking to the left. The building fits comfortably in this setting. Yankee Stadium�s facade is dominated by vertical lines, which emphasize its monumentality. Citi Field�s facade, which is loosely modeled on Ebbets Field, the former home of the Brooklyn Dodgers, is more low-key. Its brick cladding gives it a warmth that Yankee Stadium doesn�t have. A pre-cast concrete band cuts across the arched exterior, breaking down the structure�s scale and emphasizing its horizontality. History also feels less heavy here. Like the Yankees, the Mets built broad concourses that open up to the field so that you feel close to the game even while you�re standing in line for a beer. But the design is far more eclectic. A porch that cantilevers out over right field is modeled on the old Tiger Stadium. Big steel trusses conjure the structure that supports the nearby elevated train. A soot-colored pedestrian bridge that spans the bullpen behind center field is a miniature version of the Hell Gate Bridge. Even the color of the seats � dark green � was copied from somewhere else: the Polo Grounds, where the New York Giants baseball team played and the Mets played their first two seasons. The casual mood is reinforced by a number of spaces that have little to do with watching a baseball game: an auditorium, a Wiffle ball field � even an event room for weddings or parties. What saves the design from becoming completely hokey, however, is its openness to the real world outside. Most of Queens, from the faded remnants of the 1964 World�s Fair to the Whitestone Expressway and the muddy waters of Flushing Bay, is visible from the main concourse level. Farther up, you can see the Manhattan skyline several miles away. The visitors� bullpen has a view of dilapidated garages and auto body shops across 126th Street to the northeast. The reality of this working-class landscape tempers the artificiality of the interior. Even so, most serious architects today strive to create buildings that reflect the values of their own era, not a nostalgic vision of the past, no matter how open they may be toward their surroundings. And in that regard both stadiums will be a disappointment to students of architecture. For us, the buildings are just another reminder of the enormous gap that remains between high design and popular taste. dinosaur jesus Apr 03 2009 07:12 AM ]Even so, most serious architects today strive to create buildings that reflect the values of their own era, not a nostalgic vision of the past, no matter how open they may be toward their surroundings. The whole game of baseball is a nostalgic vision of the past. What values of our own era do we really want to bring to it? Frayed Knot Apr 03 2009 07:20 AM I like the part where Hankenbrenner (or was it Hal-enbrenner?) says; 'yeah, we overpriced some of the seats and as a result they're not selling as well as we hoped ... but we didn't misread the market!' Umm, yeah ya did. In fact, that's kind of the definition of misreading the market. Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 07:20 AM ="dinosaur jesus"]]Even so, most serious architects today strive to create buildings that reflect the values of their own era, not a nostalgic vision of the past, no matter how open they may be toward their surroundings. The whole game of baseball is a nostalgic vision of the past. What values of our own era do we really want to bring to it? I don't know enough about architecture to explain why I agree with that statement, but I do. I would rather the Mets had built a stadium the reflects early 21st Century architecture, whatever it is. Citi Field looks like a nice place to watch a game, and it's visually appealing, but it also has a Disney feel to it, like you're in "Baseball Land." soupcan Apr 03 2009 07:35 AM These two come to mind when I think about new stadiums with a modern bent. Target Field, which is the new stadium now being built for the twins in Minnesota. Nationals - Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 08:00 AM Glass façades and baseball go together like bleach and baby baths. Even if there's no real threat of the two actually coming together --- and even if the vulnerable element is reinforced against the dangerous element --- it creates an atmophere of anxiety. Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 08:19 AM I kinda like the Minnesota park. The Nationals less so, but it's not bad either. soupcan Apr 03 2009 08:19 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 03 2009 08:21 AM ="Edgy DC":292rjkrd]Glass fa�ades and baseball go together like bleach and baby baths. Even if there's no real threat of the two actually coming together --- and even if the vulnerable element is reinforced against the dangerous element --- it creates an atmophere of anxiety.[/quote:292rjkrd] That's an interesting point, but perhaps the juxtaposition of those types of elements is what appeals to an architect trying to make a statement? I'm certain Art Van DeLay would find a way to make it work, soupcan Apr 03 2009 08:20 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3rv0nqrw]I kinda like the Minnesota park. The Nationals less so, but it's not bad either.[/quote:3rv0nqrw] Yeah - the Minnesota park has a sort of retro Jetsons feel to it. Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 08:29 AM The Nats park has like five different tiers, each one more heavily raked than the one below it. Sometimes the price of everybody being closer to the field horizontally is that you get some crazy options vertically. I'm sure you'll hear Keith complain this season about the vertigo-inducing situation of their press box. That is, if Mr. Fancy Pants makes a road trip to Washington. HahnSolo Apr 03 2009 01:35 PM Hmm. I guess my perception of Nationals Park was different. I took the Metro to the game and walked in through the CF promenade. And we sat field level, so I didn't notice the slopes in the upper reaches. I never saw the glass encasings in the photo above, and liked the interior of the ballpark. metirish Apr 03 2009 06:33 PM ="Nymr83"]In the post this morning Sherman says bad things about the New Yankee stadium while Kevin Kernan has some faint praise for Citi Field (though more dumping on Shea) Sherman just about takes a dump on the doorstep of the new MYF stadium I'm biased of course but I have tuned into YES a few times and if I didn't know better I would think they were playing the the MFYII.... IN TOUGH TIMES, A MONUMENT TO GREED ] IT IS beautiful, of course. But in the way that a woman who went to the world's best plastic surgeon might be beautiful. It is supposed to remind you of the previous incarnation, and ends up feeling artificial and overdone. The new Yankee Stadium has just about everything you would want in a modern sports facility, except charm and a sense of proportion. If you can afford the prices, you should have a good time there. The sightlines are wonderful. The large screen in center field is so clear you really do feel as if you could reach out and touch the people on it. The concourses are wide, and the food choices abundant. Yet the place brought nausea, not nostalgia. It just feels like the wrong time in the history of this country and this city to be opening up the George Mahal. When the project was initiated 2 � years ago, the Yankees could not have known what the state of the economy was going to be now. But this is about more than wrong place, wrong time. The Yankees' sense of entitlement and unrestrained excess is timeless. They will tell you they built this stadium for the everyman, stressing what they consider still affordable pricing and amenities. But this stadium, in actuality, was built for a moneyed class that in many respects does not even exist in this city any longer. Those $2,625-per-game Legends tickets behind home plate are selling slowly, and that certainly is because there is a whole class of banking/Wall Street/real estate mogul who would have scooped them up but has gone the way of flannel uniforms. But also because those seats not long ago would have screamed status, and now speak only to greed. The working world will not look onto those sitting there with envy. They will wish that those seats came with a dunk tank, not waiter service. The Yanks also want to make you believe that the history and romance could be easily shipped from the old place to the new one simply by recreating dimensions, reconstructing the facade or replanting Monument Park. However, the new Stadium didn't make me think of the place just across the street. It made me think about Vegas or Disney World, since it made me think of a fake place designed to manipulate my emotions and get into my wallet. "We don't see it as ostentatious or flashy," Hal Steinbrenner said. "We see it as classy." For me, class is out. In truth, sadly, the Yanks have conjured up a building that defines them: cold, corporate, over-privileged. At a financially distressed time in which Bud Selig has appealed to teams and players to be more fan friendly than ever, the Yanks have constructed even more of a moat between their players and those paying for all the goodies. For example, Yankee executives see it as a positive that the players now have underground parking rather than in the old place, where they had to walk 50 feet outdoors from the parking lot to the Stadium. In those 50 feet, fans held back by barricades could scream to their favorite players and -- if one of those players indulged -- get an autograph or two. Now the interaction between fans and players, and media and players, will be less than ever. I know no one sheds a tear for the media, but I think the new clubhouse, overstocked with off-limits areas and clandestine exits, only leads to a group that will feel less accountability. And an over-privileged nature and lack of accountability have hurt recent editions of the Yankees. "We are not a regular team," Brian Bruney said. "We are the New York Yankees, and it has to be nicer." Nice is in the eye of the beholder, and if you work for one of those few places left where the corporate card is still set on unlimited, then the new Yankee Stadium is for you. For many others, this place will have all the charm of Bernie Madoff. seawolf17 Apr 03 2009 06:44 PM And Brian Bruney, you're an overpaid tub of goo who can't find the strike zone with a guide dog who's lucky the Yankees wouldn't know pitching talent if it punched them in the neck, or you'd find yourself pitching for the Sioux City Sand Gnats. So shut the hell up and join Caveman on the Ass Line. Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 08:16 PM Wolfie, save something for the regular season. MFS62 Apr 03 2009 08:56 PM I just went on mlb.com to check the box scores. I noticed that the Mets' game tonight was played at "CitiField". The Yankees' game tonight was played at "New Yankee Stadium". Is that going to be the official name of that place? Later seawolf17 Apr 03 2009 08:57 PM Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too? themetfairy Apr 03 2009 08:58 PM ="seawolf17":3ge41hzz]Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too?[/quote:3ge41hzz] Yes - that's what it was called when I visited the park in 1991. seawolf17 Apr 03 2009 09:08 PM ="Edgy DC"]Wolfie, save something for the regular season. I know, but again, this stuff pisses me off. Who the hell is Brian Bruney? Good thing crappy middle relievers don't bat in the American League, or if I'm Lou Piniella tomorrow, I buzz an exhibition fastball right past his manboobs. You are "a regular team," Bruney. You're one of 30 teams that all need each other, or professional baseball doesn't exist. MFS62 Apr 04 2009 06:27 AM ="seawolf17":11yncmqm]Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too?[/quote:11yncmqm] Who is they? The White Sox? White Sox fans? The fans in Chicago? The papers in Chicago? But this is the official website of major league baseball itself. And that's why I asked if anyone knew if this is the official name of that place. Not just what some may call it. Later Frayed Knot Apr 04 2009 06:44 AM No, I don't believe 'New' is part of the official name. 'Fucking Gargantuan Edifice to Conspicuous Consumption' may be, although I'd have to check on that to be sure. SteveJRogers Apr 04 2009 06:45 AM ="MFS62":2qks5l00]="seawolf17":2qks5l00]Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too?[/quote:2qks5l00] Who is they? The White Sox? White Sox fans? The fans in Chicago? The papers in Chicago? But this is the official website of major league baseball itself. And that's why I asked if anyone knew if this is the official name of that place. Not just what some may call it. Later[/quote:2qks5l00] Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Reinsdorf didn't sell the naming rights until 2003. So it was Comiskey II from 1991 through 2003. G-Fafif Apr 04 2009 06:55 AM I believe that someday Seawolf will punch that arrogant Brian Brueny at New Yankee Stadium on his fat nose. MFS62 Apr 09 2009 06:56 PM Here's one you might not have heard about. (Thank you, Onion) http://www.theonion.com/content/video/yankees_buil ding_new_vacation Later Kong76 Apr 09 2009 08:39 PM Dude, your link actually pointed to this: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/study_children_exposed_to Figure out how to work stuff, child porn humor ain't for here. Later metsguyinmichigan Apr 09 2009 10:01 PM I clicked the link and thought, "Damn, the bleeping Yankees really ARE trying to appeal to everyone. Now I know why they have that massive video board in center." MFS62 Apr 10 2009 07:36 AM Let's try that again. And let the ad finish. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/yankees_building_new_vacation EDIT: I tried it after I re-posted and it worked. Later

AG/DC wrote: metirish wrote: I can watch Mandy Patinkin in just about anything. Loved him in Chicago Hope and was rooting for that show big time over ER back in the day. I sentence you to Yentl. Wow, that's harsh. Right. I believe Barbara Streisand is actually a male member of my species. Sure. Let's go with that.

I love Rodney but it's X-Mas Story. Too many memorable scenes and characters, specifically the fantastic Darren McGavin as the dad. Rodney's best lines are in Caddyshack anyway.

I voted for Arthur here. I liked Dudley Moore and Sir John. Now, if you had put Thunderdome up here instead of Road Warrior, well, then, that'd be another thing entirely. Altogether.

I loved both of these movies, both at the time of their release and still now. But it's clear which one has stood the test of time. Tap.

48 HRS. did nothing for me. The Princess Bride did. Robin Wright, pre-Penn. Andre the Giant. Mandy Patinkin. Chris Guest. Wallace Shawn Etc. etc. etc. So many enjoyable performances.

I have XM so I do get the nice clear feed of Mets games in the vehicle. Though I can get WFAN pretty well on a clear night, after sunset, even up here in Syracuse (328 KM as the crow flies as per the links that BG listed above).

="Gwreck":f4a68j0e]I have a friend who does this with his Mariners season ticket group. I think they have something like 8 or 10 seats now but the concept stays the same: You have to buy in pairs; People commit to a set number of games at the start of the season; Snake-order draft to see who gets what games (ie. A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A); Draft position is determined by random chance; When it's your turn in the draft, you can take any game you want that's available (knowing that some games -- ie. Yankees, July weekends, etc -- cost more than others -- ie. April weeknights) Playoff games are determined by lottery, weighted by how many games in the plan you purchased.[/quote:f4a68j0e] Yep. My cousin and her husband are in a group in the DC area that does this with four Nats season tickets. Benjamin Grimm Oct 21 2008 06:57 AM Are you guys talking about splitting up a 40 or a 15? And how many seats for each game? And how much would the "big check" be for? John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 21 2008 07:09 AM 2 tixx for 40 games at Citifield would be 3 grand or something at least? soupcan Oct 21 2008 07:52 AM I got two tix for all 81 games in whatever they are calling the upper deck. Don't yet know whether they are in left or right. I gave them a $250.00 deposit per ticket and they will contact me at some future date to let me know where I'll be. The total cost will be about $1,500.00 each. I'm sure I won't even be close to using all of them so if anybody's interested in taking a few off my hands, that's cool. Kong76 Oct 23 2008 02:45 PM I read thread quickly and see 81 and 40 games plans mentioned. I got a letter today that say there will also be five 15 game plans available to people with Mets accounts in the coming weeks ahead. If I can get a 15 game plan I'd be super happy and also willing to share or just meet for some games. Kong76 Oct 23 2008 03:04 PM Re-reading, I didn't go far enough back ... I can't keep up lately. I'll be happy to be offered something is where I was going with this, I really thought most plan holders were going to be left out completely. (and that may have been the original plan before we all became poorer the last couple of months) sharpie Oct 23 2008 03:59 PM I'd be in for buying into a larger plan. Or buying some Soup tix. Vic Sage Oct 24 2008 01:51 PM me, too. soupcan Oct 24 2008 02:02 PM Great, I'll keep you all posted. Farmer Ted Nov 12 2008 11:39 AM Doesn't look like Boston is going after any high-priced free agents. That, or they have a ton of cash stuffed away. BOSTON (AP) -- For the first time in 14 years, the Boston Red Sox aren't increasing any ticket prices at Fenway Park for the 2009 season. Prices range from $12 to $125 for tickets bought after Dec. 17. There is a discount for earlier purchases once tickets go on sale Dec. 13. Red Sox President Larry Lucchino says the team knows that fans are facing challenging economic times and wanted to give them a break. Fans with contracts for premium seats can keep their ticket prices the same if they agree to extend those contracts for one year. The team plans to add about 350 seats at Fenway Park before next season. themetfairy Nov 26 2008 01:20 PM Here are the Partial Season Ticket Plans[/url:205v8hxo]. Partial season ticket holders can make their purchases based on a seniority system. I'm not a long term season ticket holder, so I have to wait until December 10th to purchase my tickets. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 01:28 PM I don't think seniority has anything to do with it -- I think it's based on what you had in 2008. Order is: 1. Full Season Holders from 2008 who did not renew for a Full Season 2009 2. Weekday Plan Holders from 2008 3. Mini and Tuesday/Friday plan holders from 2008 4. Saturday and Sunday plan holders from 2008 Kong76 Nov 26 2008 02:34 PM Got the email earlier and the regular letter just now. Seems to me that if I log at 10am on 12/5 I should be able to get my single seat Sunday ticket and if I got lucky I could get two extra seats? I mean really, if they can't give me one seat after 5-6 years of full season and another 5 or so of plan seasons they can gobble my turkey neck and lick my giblets. themetfairy Nov 26 2008 03:10 PM If Kase can log in on 12/5, then seniority does matter. Kong76 Nov 26 2008 03:24 PM I'll post an image of the letter I got a little later. Kong76 Nov 26 2008 04:25 PM Gwreck Nov 26 2008 10:49 PM ="themetfairy":2gwrrk6t]If Kase can log in on 12/5, then seniority does matter.[/quote:2gwrrk6t] Indeed. Can't believe the Mets managed to get that one right (!). SI Metman Nov 26 2008 11:26 PM yep, I've only been a Sunday plan holder for 2 1/2 years and got the 10th on my letter. Fortunately they are sparing us from going to the last Sunday game in '09. Kong76 Dec 05 2008 08:15 AM Scored two seats, Sun+ plan, front row of the highest level, in the outfield. mezzman is now promresman Vic Sage Dec 05 2008 09:53 AM my friend can't buy tix till the 12th. shoot. themetfairy Dec 05 2008 09:56 AM ="Vic Sage":f2arzhqv]my friend can't buy tix till the 12th. shoot.[/quote:f2arzhqv] It's nice to know that I have priority over somebody.

="seawolf17"]="Fman99"]I have no NL-based loyalty. I hate all the NL teams that are not the Mets. After all they all spend 162 games trying to beat my team. Go Rays. This. And this: You betcha. Add Brad Chadford (the bearded Chad Bradford) to the mix, as another Ray who acquitted himself well in the orange and blue. I can pull for these guys real easy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is not one former Met suiting up for the Phillies in this tournament.

Wow, a tie. Someone needs to get in here and break this thing one way or another.

="Elster88":gark3wxm]="TransMonk":gark3wxm]18 Endy Chavez 17 Billy Wagner[/quote:gark3wxm] ="Fman99":gark3wxm]18 Endy Chavez 17 Billy Wagner [/quote:gark3wxm] What's going on here? One person putting Endy in front of Wagner is shocking enough.[/quote:gark3wxm] I changed my answer. I will admit to looking at TM's paper when I filled this out. TransMonk Oct 21 2008 09:24 AM Yeah, you're right. Chavez has been moved on mine. AG/DC Oct 21 2008 09:32 PM The Studly 30 Santana 29 Wright 28 Beltran 27 JReyes 26 Delgado The Useful and the Partial 25 Wagner 24 Pelfrey 23 Perez 22 Tatis 21 Schneider 20 Maine 19 Church 18 Castillo 17 Smith 16 Easley 15 Schoeneweis 14 Castro 13 Chavez 12 Murphy 11 Feliciano 10 Sanchez 9 Heilman 8 Stokes The Helpful 7 Evans 6 Pagan 5 Figueroa 4 Casanova 3 Alou 2 PMartinez 1 Ayala They Showed 0 Muniz -1 Vargas -2 RMartinez -3 Nixon -4 Clark -5 Rincon -6 Parnell -7 Cancel -8 Wise -9 Knight Sub-Replacement Mets -10 AReyes -11 Sosa -12 Phillips -13 Molina -14 Kunz -15 Nuñez -16 Aguila -17 Niese -18 Armas -19 Anderson Nymr83 Oct 21 2008 11:26 PM I started by dividing the hitters and I get 5 or so groups. Group 1- Wright, Beltran, Reyes, & Delgado- played very well and played all year. Group 2- Tatis & Church - played well and played a little over half the year. Group 3- Murphy, Schneider, & Easley - played decently and half the year or played very well for a lesser but still significant portion of the year. Group 4- Castro, Castillo, Chavez, Pagan & Evans- they werent useless. Group 5- Casanova, Cancel, A.Reyes, Nixon, Anderson & Alou- I may need some of you guys if i don't get enough pitchers. trying to do the same with pitchers Group 1- Santana - is in a "group" all his own Group 2- Pelfrey - it wouldnt be fair to Santana to group them together, and it wouldn't be fair to Pelfrey to lump him in with what follows. Group 3- Maine & Perez - a big notch above any of the relievers, Wagner's numbers projected over 90 innings would have joined Pelfrey, would have joined these guys over 70 but with just 47 innings he needs to go lower and nobody else was good enough. Group 4- Wagner, Smith, Schoeneweis - the decent relievers, yeah Schoenweis wasn't really bad, and he'd be better if used properly. Group 5- Stokes, Feliciano, Sanchez- they were ok but they didnt pitch much or they were average or slightly below Group 6-Martinez, Heilman, Figueroa -what a pile of crap, they pitched alot so maybe they'll be on thebottom of the list if i need filler. Nymr83 Oct 21 2008 11:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 22 2008 12:05 PM ok lets start the complaining. Edgy- you have Heilman who SUCKED to the tune of a 5.21 ERA and 1.59 WHIP over Smith who had a 3.51/1.29 in about 2/5ths of the innings Heilman pitched. I know we have the quality vs. quantity argument every year and nobody ever agrees, but come on, Heilman actually hurt the team by being here, his removal would have been addition by subtraction. on edit- I'm talking about Stokes not Smith. whoops. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 05:55 AM I have Smith above Heilman, Willis. Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 12:04 PM Sorry, it was late at night, I typed Smith and meant to say Stokes. Frayed Knot Oct 22 2008 12:18 PM Well in that case your argument is with everyone who has cast a vote so far (except Firecracker) and not just Edgy. I've got Stokes lower than anyone (28th place - 3 points) so maybe I need to re-evaluate but I guess I go back to the whole year on the roster vs not getting there until mid-August thing. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 12:23 PM Almost everyone has Pelf higher than I do. My numbers had him beneath Tatis, and that didn't seem right, so I bumped him up. But Win Shares agree with my numbers. smg58 Oct 22 2008 12:46 PM 30 Santana 29 Wright 28 Reyes 27 Delgado 26 Beltran 25 Pelfrey 24 Wagner 23 Tatis 22 Church 21 Murphy 20 Perez 19 Maine 18 Schneider 17 Smith 16 Heilman 15 Easley 14 Schoeneweis 13 Castillo 12 Chavez 11 Castro 10 Martinez 9 Ayala 8 Stokes 7 Sanchez 6 Feliciano 5 Figueroa 4 Vargas 3 Evans 2 Pagan 1 Alou Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 01:13 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 06 2008 01:50 PM I guess i may as well turn my rankings into some sort of list, though as usual i hate merging hitters and pitchers. edit - don't count this list, my new list is below (page 4) 30. Santana 29. Wright 28. Beltran 27. Reyes 26. Delgado 25. Pelfrey 24. Tatis 23. Maine 22. Church 21. Perez 20. Wagner 19. Murphy 18. Smith 17. Schoenweis 16. Schneider 15. Easley 14. Castro 13. Stokes 12. Feliciano 11. Sanchez 10. Castillo 9. Chavez 8. Pagan 7. Evans 6. Martinez 5. Heilman 4. Casanova 3. Cancel 2. Figueroa 1. A.Reyes ]I've got Stokes lower than anyone (28th place - 3 points) so maybe I need to re-evaluate but I guess I go back to the whole year on the roster vs not getting there until mid-August thing who cares if you were on the roster all year (Heilman) when you were BAD the whole time? is this a list of who helped the Mets the most or who played for the Mets the most? Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 01:18 PM I think Pedro is getting too much credit, a 5.60 ERA over 100 innings doesn't have value, it hurts the team. SMG- Ayala higher than Stokes? Stokes pitched twice as many innings for the Mets with an ERA 2 runs lower. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 01:24 PM It depends on where you set zero.. I set it as an ERA+ or an OPS+ of 60. Pedro and Heilman didn't go as low as that. Benjamin Grimm Oct 22 2008 02:03 PM 30 Johan Santana 29 David Wright 28 Carlos Beltran 27 Carlos Delgado 26 Jos� Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 John Maine 22 Fernando Tatis 21 Ryan Church 20 Damion Easley 19 Billy Wagner 18 Joe Smith 17 Brian Schneider 16 Luis Castillo 15 Daniel Murphy 14 Pedro Feliciano 13 Brian Stokes 12 Scott Schoeneweis 11 Duaner Sanchez 10 Endy Chavez 9 Ramon Castro 8 Pedro Martinez 7 Luis Ayala 6 Nick Evans 5 Aaron Heilman 4 Angel Pagan 3 Nelson Figueroa 2 Claudio Vargas 1 Moises Alou Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 03:27 PM ="AG/DC":3rls0zag]It depends on where you set zero.. I set it as an ERA+ or an OPS+ of 60. Pedro and Heilman didn't go as low as that.[/quote:3rls0zag] i think thats just too low a barrier. being better than the ex-player sitting home on his couch or the guy pitching in the independent leagues can be doesnt make you any good, and it certainly doesnt make you more valuable than a part-timer who played well. but even if you believe in your 60 ERA+ thing (and i dont), Heilman gave them a 81+ in 76 innings. Stokes had a 120+ in 33.3. so the difference between Stokes and Heilman was 42.6 innings... if you add that many innings of your 60+ guy to what stokes actually did you get 76 innings of 86.3 ERA+, so Stokes plus replacement level clown is still better than Heilman. Frayed Knot Oct 22 2008 06:00 PM ]who cares if you were on the roster all year (Heilman) when you were BAD the whole time? is this a list of who helped the Mets the most or who played for the Mets the most? It's not a case of one over the other but a balance between the two. There's only so much one can do for a team when he's not on the roster for 3/4 of the season short of a Murphy or Jefferies type stretch. It's the same reason you have A.Reyes, Cancel & Casanova on your list above Alou, or Chavez over Pagan even though those lower guys had better stats over a shorter period. I'll re-look at Stokes and maybe move him up some, but considering that Heilman was one of the most used pitchers on the staff this year and is being rated at somewhere around the 23rd or so best player is hardly unduly rewarding him. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 08:55 PM I kind of grow tired of the Guys having bad years hurt the team and don't deserve anything argument every year. Guys having bad years is a reality and if anybody better was so damn available, they'd have tried them. They tried everybody. I'm happy with the way I have it. Stokes helped the team with his bat somewhat. Heilman, like most pitchers is a negative there. He also helped more defensively. The big difference is Heilman's strikeout rate. He relied less on his fielders for his modest achievements. Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 09:22 PM ="AG/DC"]I kind of grow tired of the Guys having bad years hurt the team and don't deserve anything argument every year. Guys having bad years is a reality and if anybody better was so damn available, they'd have tried them. They tried everybody. I'm happy with the way I have it. Stokes helped the team with his bat somewhat. Heilman, like most pitchers is a negative there. He also helped more defensively. The big difference is Heilman's strikeout rate. He relied less on his fielders for his modest achievements. And I grow equally tired of the "lets give guys lots of credit just for showing up" argument every year. Why don't you address my argument that Stokes + replacement innings is still better than Heilman? AG/DC Oct 22 2008 09:32 PM I didn't make that first argument. Did you not see me state exactly how much better than a replacement pitcher I measured him to be? I did address your argument. I was very clear. Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 09:42 PM you want to talk about "relying on the defense"? Stokes only allowed 8 walks in 33 innings while Heilman allowed 46 AND beaned 9 batters for a total of 55 in 76 innings. So while Heilman may have struck people out at a higher rate he was also busy creating his own problems while Smith was doing what pitcher needs to do, not walk people and give the defense the opportunity to do their jobs. ]Did you not see me state exactly how much better than a replacement pitcher I measured him to be? no i didn't. because if you're citing solely to ERA+ then Stokes is better, and if you're saying "well heilman pitched more" you havent explained how you measured those innings against the variation in ERA+, i've given you one way (adding the necessary number of replacement innings to the other guy with less innings) and you havent responded to that AG/DC Oct 22 2008 10:18 PM No, I'm not merely "citing solely to ERA+." No, I'm not saying "well heilman pitched more." Stop it. Your first paragraph indicates you've read my arguments. Your third indicates you haven't. if you want the actual formula I'm working with for pitching, it's =(ERA+ - 60)*(IP * (2 + ((SO/9) / (LgSO/9) -1))). And Stokes (not Smith!) wasn't doing anything of the sort. He was in the minors. I don't want to explain it any more, because it's complex and it made more sense to me yesterday. I'm tired and you're being weird. Nymr83 Oct 23 2008 01:01 AM ]=(ERA+ - 60)*(IP * (2 + ((SO/9) / (LgSO/9) -1))). i don't know whats going to make this formula better or worse than any other, but heres a suggestion: if you are including strikeouts (because the pitcher has more control over them) then you should try to include walks and homers, the other outcomes over which the pitcher has control without input from the fielders. AG/DC Oct 23 2008 05:57 AM Sure. Stokes over Heilman. The Studly 30 Santana 29 Wright 28 Beltran 27 JReyes 26 Delgado The Useful and the Partial 25 Wagner 24 Pelfrey 23 Perez 22 Tatis 21 Schneider 20 Maine 19 Church 18 Castillo 17 Smith 16 Easley 15 Schoeneweis 14 Castro 13 Chavez 12 Murphy 11 Feliciano 10 Sanchez 9 Stokes 8 Heilman The Helpful 7 Evans 6 Pagan 5 Figueroa 4 Casanova 3 Alou 2 PMartinez 1 Ayala The Benchwarmers 0 Muniz -1 Vargas -2 RMartinez -3 Nixon -4 Clark -5 Rincon -6 Parnell -7 Cancel -8 Wise -9 Knight The Hurtful -10 AReyes -11 Sosa -12 Phillips -13 Molina -14 Kunz -15 Nu�ez -16 Aguila -17 Niese -18 Armas -19 Anderson Frayed Knot Oct 26 2008 07:34 PM revamping the bottom of my list ... 13 - Sanchez 12 - P. Martinez 11 - Chavez 10 - Schoeneweis 9 - Heilman 8 - Stokes 7 - Feliciano 6 - Pagan 5 - Evans 4 - Figueroa 3 - Ayala 2 - Vargas 1 - Alou Nymr83 Oct 26 2008 08:12 PM 12 points for pedro's terrible showing? i don't even know which guy to pick out because there a bunch i'd pick above him,but lets start with Schoenweis, why is he below Pedro? Frayed Knot Oct 26 2008 08:38 PM Because bad relievers rank lower in my eyes than bad starters. Nymr83 Oct 26 2008 09:42 PM But was Schoenweis really "bad"? I know he had a (well deserved) bad reputation going into the year, but the results were probably 3rd best on the team. And Pedro wasn't just bad, he was awful. AG/DC Oct 27 2008 05:55 AM I think Pedro's awfulness is over-rated. That is, I suspect it was an illusion in part. A typical Pedro start was giving up two runs in the first, shutting the team down through the fifth, exitiing with two runners on base in the sixth, and taking a hit when those runners regularly scored. Nymr83 Oct 27 2008 11:52 AM do you have numbers showing that? i'm not sure where to look to see how many he stranded and what % of them scored AG/DC Oct 27 2008 12:05 PM I don't. Nymr83 Oct 27 2008 01:26 PM I'd be willing to go through his starts and figure it out, but whats the baseline? (the league-wide strand percentage) AG/DC Oct 27 2008 01:34 PM It's my thesis. I'll figure it out when I have time. Gwreck Oct 30 2008 12:03 AM 30 Beltran 29 Santana 28 Wright 27 Reyes 26 Delgado 25 Pelfrey 24 Perez 23 Tatis 22 Maine 21 Wagner 20 Church 19 Schneider 18 Easley 17 Murphy 16 Smith 15 Schoeneweis 14 Castillo 13 Feliciano 12 Castro 11 Sanchez 10 Heilman 9 Stokes 8 Chavez 7 Pagan 6 Alou 5 Figueroa 4 Evans 3 Cancel 2 Martinez 1 Vargas metsmarathon Oct 30 2008 07:32 AM my goal in the very near term is to wind up m.e.t.b.o.t. so he can finish his retroactive schaeffer voting, and then work with him to figure out an equitable way to apply win percentages towards seasonal rankings. he's tried it in the past, and collectively, we've never been happy with the results. he needs to figure out what to set as 'zero' to wit, brian schneider contributed -0.65 WPA (meaning he basically took away a win and a third) in his 377 or so plate appearances. ramon castro contributed -0.57 WPA (meaning he took away a win and a sixth), but did it in only 156 or so plate appearances. not to speak for the little guy, but i think m.e.t.b.o.t. would end up considering brian schneider to be more highly ranked than castro. but by how much? and how do they compare to brady clark's negligible 0.04 WPA in 9 plate appearances, or ramon martinez' 0.44 WPA in 18 plate appearances? m.e.t.bo.t.'s job isn't easy, i'll tell ya. especially when i don't give him enough of an opportunity to whir his gears. Edgy DC Oct 30 2008 08:23 AM m.e.t.b.o.t. needs to deal with defense. metsmarathon Oct 30 2008 10:36 AM m.e.t.b.o.t. would require defensive data to use as an input, preferably data that could be compatible with WPA. Edgy DC Nov 03 2008 02:44 PM Anybody else? G-Fafif Nov 03 2008 02:52 PM En route... Kong76 Nov 03 2008 03:04 PM EDC: Anybody else? <<< I got a list sometime this month ... it's the 3rd of November, Hoss. Edgy DC Nov 03 2008 05:27 PM A day I'll always remember. 'Cuz that was the day That Armando was born. Anyhow, I want to talk to TransMonk about putting Pelfrey above Reyes. I don't like it. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 04 2008 06:52 AM ="KC"]EDC: Anybody else? <<< I got a list sometime this month ... it's the 3rd of November, Hoss. Yeah I wanna participate too. But my home computer's all broken and shit and I wasn't going to postmortem the Mets until after the WS anywhoo TransMonk Nov 04 2008 08:10 AM ="Edgy DC":2tycfqw3]Anyhow, I want to talk to TransMonk about putting Pelfrey above Reyes. I don't like it.[/quote:2tycfqw3] You wouldn't. 200 IP vs. 200 hits for guys under 25 is a good problem to have. I have no problem flipping them, although in my mind it's still pretty close. Nymr83 Nov 05 2008 05:07 PM Anyone want to do some arguing? name a guy i shouldnt have above another guy (that we havent already talked about much) and maybe you'll bring me around or vice versa. this thing would be alot more fun if more people would challenge others' rankings instead of posting their own and waiting for an average. Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 07:31 AM OK. You accuse a lot of fellas of being counterproductive who I think were pretty unproductive, but not a net negative. Argenis Reyes, though, really did subvert the system with his bat. His glove was pretty OK, but not enough to get him on or near my chart. I realize it's only one point, but I'd give it to any number of CameoMets before him. And you need to Schoeneweis another e. Nymr83 Nov 06 2008 11:16 AM Who should I add to take the place of A.Reyes? Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 11:35 AM Alou and Ayala seem notably absent. Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 12:04 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 06 2008 01:23 PM If you want some argument starter-offers then these could serve as a jumping off point. As compared to the emerging (but as yet incomplete) consensus: - Transmonk is noticably high on Pedro & Marlon Anderson low on Castro - Vic Sage is high on (possibly various things) but also Ayala low on Feliciano - Vince Firecracker is high on Murphy, Stokes, Figueroa & Vargas low on Santana, Heilman, Feliciano & Easley - FMan is high on Evans low on Sanchez - AG/DC is high on Wagner & Casanova low on Murphy & Pedro - Smg58 is high on Wagner, Murphy, Heilman & Ayala low on Perez, Sanchez, Feliciano, - NYmr is high on Stokes & Casanova low on Castillo & Heilman - Grimm is high on (pop tarts) plus Feliciano, Stokes & Ayala low on Castro & Heilman - GWreck is high on Alou low on Pedro _ Frayed Knot is high on Pedro low on Schoeneweis ... so you can take those variances to either review your vote to see if it needs adjusting or to make a case as to why others should be seeing things your way. Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 12:17 PM Well, let me just say that Pop-Tarts are yummy. Gwreck Nov 06 2008 12:28 PM smg is also low on Beltran. Not everybody will agree with me and put him at 30 but I can't see how he could fall to 26. Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 12:43 PM Yeah, that was the only one where Beltran was at least top 3 as VCFC's was the lone one where Santana wasn't either 1st or 2nd. Other than those, the ones I listed were those which varied from the current consensus by at least 4 slots one way or the other. Perhaps not surprisingly, the relievers are more over the map than most others. Wagner: as high as 25, as low as 13 Murphy: 21 - 11 (PotG) Feliciano: 14 - 4 Heilman: 19 (PotG) - 1 Pedro: 18 (PotG) - 2 Stokes: 13 - 4 Figueroa: 11 - off list Ayala: 10 - off John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:21 PM edit -- forgot 3rd offensive tier, massive restructuring tk John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 06 2008 01:51 PM brb Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 01:41 PM Too very much love for Argenis. His was misbegotten into this season. Four walks and one extra-base hit in 121 plate appearances. I mean, yeah, he hit .218, but it was a particularly empty .218. Bring back Jeff Duncan. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:46 PM Hey, nobody hated A reyes any more than me. I suppose I could tuck him beneath Casanova, but then again 3 pts for marlon Anderson also seems kinda high. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:49 PM fixed: 30 Santana 29 Wright * 28 Beltran 27 Delgado 26 Reyes 25 Pelfrey 24 Perez 23 Maine * 22 Tatis 21 Murphy 20 Wagner 19 Smith 18 Feliciano 17 Church 16 Schneider 15 Easley 14 Schoeneweis 13 Heilman 12 Castillo 11 P. Martinez 10 Castro 9 Sanchez 8 Chavez * 7 Stokes 6 Evans 5 Figueroa 4 Vargas 3 Pagan 2 Anderson 1 Ayala ______________ -1 Alou -2 Casanova -3 Cancel -4 A Reyes -5 Muniz -6 R. Martinez -7 Knight -8 Parnell -9 Armas -10 Niese -11 Rincon -12 Nixon -13 Kunz -14 Clark -15 Molina -16 Aguila -17 Phillips -18 Nunez Nymr83 Nov 06 2008 01:57 PM My new list. I've dropped Argenis for Ayala. Thank you FK for that list of who was away from the consensus on certain players. "too low" - My opinion on Heilman and his horrific ERA hasn't changed. I suppose I could bounce Castillo higher than the 3 relievers I have directly above him if someone wanted to try and convince me, I'm not too set on that. "too high"- Maybe Casanova deserves to be lower but who do i raise above him? As for Stokes I'm not going to budge on saying that he is the 4th best reliever we had this year. the 3rd best reliever i have at (17) i have him at (13) and then two relievers immediately following him. if i was going to move him down i'd move those two relievers down with him, and the only candidates to move up would be Castillo and Chavez, anyone want to argue for that? 30. Santana 29. Wright 28. Beltran 27. Reyes 26. Delgado 25. Pelfrey 24. Tatis 23. Maine 22. Church 21. Perez 20. Wagner 19. Murphy 18. Smith 17. Schoenweis 16. Schneider 15. Easley 14. Castro 13. Stokes 12. Feliciano 11. Sanchez 10. Castillo 9. Chavez 8. Pagan 7. Evans 6. Martinez 5. Heilman 4. Casanova 3. Cancel 2. Figueroa 1. Ayala Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 06 2008 02:57 PM ="Frayed Knot":3vu69kog]Yeah, that was the only one where Beltran was at least top 3 as VCFC's was the lone one where Santana wasn't either 1st or 2nd.[/quote:3vu69kog] I understand why people would put Santana higher than Wright, Beltran or Reyes, and I know if you count batter vs pitcher match-ups Santana would be right with (if not a little past) the other three; but I think that contributions made over the course of multiple games help the team more than contributions made in a single game. I'm not adamant about it though- I can see why Santana would be put that high, I just feel differently. Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 09:31 PM Lunchbucket goes high (higher than anyone) on Feliciano after trashing him all year as Mr. Put-the-Leadoff-Batter-On. High also on Heilman; low (lowest actually) on Church G-Fafif Nov 07 2008 05:30 AM 30 Johan Santana 29 Carlos Delgado 28 David Wright 27 Carlos Beltran 26 Jose Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 Fernando Tatis 22 Ryan Church 21 John Maine 20 Billy Wagner 19 Daniel Murphy 18 Brian Schneider 17 Joe Smith 16 Damion Easley 15 Scott Schoeneweis 14 Pedro Feliciano 13 Nick Evans 12 Luis Ayala 11 Brian Stokes 10 Aaron Heilman 9 Ramon Castro 8 Duaner Sanchez 7 Endy Chavez 6 Pedro Martinez 5 Luis Castillo 4 Robinson Cancel 3 Argenis Reyes 2 Angel Pagan 1 Nelson Figueroa John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 07 2008 07:18 AM ="Frayed Knot":mioxkc9p]Lunchbucket goes high (higher than anyone) on Feliciano after trashing him all year as Mr. Put-the-Leadoff-Batter-On. High also on Heilman; low (lowest actually) on Church[/quote:mioxkc9p] Yeah, I don't like that. But there were just so many guys in that middle tier group. And Church and Feliciano appeared in a roughly equal amount of games, both sucked half the time and were effective the other half. Eh, But, OK 30 Santana 29 Wright * 28 Beltran 27 Delgado 26 Reyes 25 Pelfrey 24 Perez 23 Maine * 22 Tatis 21 Murphy 20 Wagner 19 Smith 18 Church 17 Schneider 16 Feliciano 15 Easley 14 Schoeneweis 13 Heilman 12 Castillo 11 P. Martinez 10 Castro 9 Sanchez 8 Chavez * 7 Stokes 6 Evans 5 Figueroa 4 Vargas 3 Pagan 2 Anderson 1 Ayala ______________ -1 Alou -2 Casanova -3 Cancel -4 A Reyes -5 Muniz -6 R. Martinez -7 Knight -8 Parnell -9 Armas -10 Niese -11 Rincon -12 Nixon -13 Kunz -14 Clark -15 Molina -16 Aguila -17 Phillips -18 Nunez Edgy DC Nov 07 2008 08:26 AM ="G-Fafif":se3wr9nl]30 Johan Santana 29 Carlos Delgado 28 David Wright 27 Carlos Beltran 26 Jose Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 Fernando Tatis 22 Ryan Church 21 John Maine 20 Billy Wagner 19 Daniel Murphy 18 Brian Schneider 17 Joe Smith 16 Damion Easley 15 Scott Schoeneweis 14 Pedro Feliciano 13 Nick Evans 12 Luis Ayala 11 Brian Stokes 10 Aaron Heilman 9 Ramon Castro 8 Duaner Sanchez 7 Endy Chavez 6 Pedro Martinez 5 Luis Castillo 4 Robinson Cancel 3 Argenis Reyes 2 Angel Pagan 1 Nelson Figueroa[/quote:se3wr9nl] How many of you folks do I have to chase away from Argenis Reyes 2008? He's bad for you. He won't look out for you. And Lusi Ayal is in another stratosphere that he shouldn't be sniffing. G-Fafif Nov 07 2008 08:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2g5hatbg]How many of you folks do I have to chase away from Argenis Reyes 2008? He's bad for you. He won't look out for you. And Lusi Ayal is in another stratosphere that he shouldn't be sniffing.[/quote:2g5hatbg] Must...not...compile...own...rankings. Must...copy...Edgy's...paper. Nymr83 Nov 07 2008 12:07 PM ="G-Fafif":2xmtej86] Must...not...compile...own...rankings. Must...copy...Edgy's...paper.[/quote:2xmtej86] I think he's grading them, so you'll probably get a better grade that way. Kong76 Nov 09 2008 01:07 PM Here's my first quick swing, I'm sure it'll be changed (by me or someone) ... Santana Wright Beltran J Reyes Delgado Pelfrey Perez Tatis Church Maine Easley Murphy Smith Schneider Feliciano Wagner Schoeneweis Castro Castillo Sanchez Heilman Evans Stokes Chavez P Martinez Pagan Figueroa Vargas Ayala Cancel Frayed Knot Nov 09 2008 07:32 PM ]I'm sure it'll be changed (by me or someone) ... We may cajole, browbeat or humiliate you into changing your vote but no one will change it for you. And besides, your list is closer to the overall consensus than anyone's. That said, you may want to explain how you have Feliciano with his 24 ER, 57 Hits & 26 BBs ranked ahead of Wagner and his 12, 32 & 10 in almost the same amount of IPs (53 v 47) Kong76 Nov 10 2008 04:18 AM I saw a couple of things I'd change after posting it, I'll humiliate myself thank you. Feel free to browbeat. As for Wagner, why is everyone ignoring his IDL factor? Edgy DC Nov 10 2008 07:43 AM Italian Drama League? Internet Dating Lapse? Inconceivieably Dead Leftarm? Gwreck Nov 10 2008 08:06 AM Inconvenient (trip to the) Disabled List? Kong76 Nov 10 2008 03:47 PM Gwreck's is better, mine was I Don't Like'im. Frayed Knot Nov 10 2008 05:09 PM Well here's where our consensus sits at the moment after 13 lists plus our PotG results: 30 - Santana 29 - Wright 28 - Beltran 27 - Reyes 26 - Delgado 25 - Pelfrey 24 - Perez 23 - Tatis 22 - Maine 21 - Church 20 - Wagner 19 - Schneider 18 - Murphy 17 - Easley 16 - Smith 15 - Schoeneweis 14 - Castillo 13 - Castro 12 - Feliciano 11 - Sanchez 10 - Chavez 9 - Heilman 8 - Stokes 7 - Martinez 6 - Evans 5 - Pagan 4 - Figueroa 3 - Ayala 2 - Vargas 1 - Alou Received votes but fell short: Cancel Casanova Anderson A Reyes Sosa Shut out: Aguila Armas Clark Knight Kunz R. Martinez Molina Muniz Niese Nixon Parnell Phillips Rincon Wise A couple of places on the big board are close and could change a bit on account of revisisions while others are pretty much set in stone at this point. Elster88 Nov 10 2008 06:29 PM What's the deadline for submission? Frayed Knot Nov 10 2008 08:26 PM Nothing specific. We tend to not wrap things up until conversation starts to peter out and the list is as set as its going to be - although we are kind of reaching that point. Edgy DC Nov 11 2008 07:27 AM I'm Raul Casanova. Reconsider me. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 11 2008 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":36ifpmno]I'm Raul Casanova. Reconsider me.[/quote:36ifpmno] One of the great mysteries of the year was his non-reappearance. We saw an awful lot of Cancel, and enough of Molina to assume neither one was going to out-hit Casanova. That said, the very fact that he was not given another chance sorta makes whatever small case Cancel has to be his superior. m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 12:50 PM after an extended period of inactivity, m.e.t.b.o.t. has been dusted, appropriately lubricated, and finally activated. m.e.t.b.o.t. has manipulated the win percentage data from the 2008 baseball season and, implementing a fancy new bit of mechanical programming and intricately crafted, steampunked sprocketry, has calculated the rankings for the 2008 new york metropolitan baseball players. the list is as follows. 30 Carlos Beltran 29 David Wright 28 Johan Santana 27 Carlos Delgado 26 Jose Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 Fernando Tatis 22 John Maine 21 Damion Easley 20 Ryan Church 19 Brian Schneider 18 Joe Smith 17 Daniel Murphy 16 Duaner Sanchez 15 Pedro Martinez 14 Billy Wagner 13 Luis Castillo 12 Claudio Vargas 11 Angel Pagan 10 Moises Alou 9 Endy Chavez 8 Jorge Sosa 7 Ramon Castro 6 Robinson Cancel 5 Pedro Feliciano 4 Brian Stokes 3 Nicholas Evans 2 Scott Schoeneweis 1 Marlon Anderson 0 Ramon Martinez -1 Aaron Heilman -2 Argenis Reyes -3 Carlos Muniz -4 Raul Casanova -5 Nelson Figueroa -6 Trot Nixon -7 Brandon Knight -8 Luis Ayala -9 Brady Clark -10 Robert Parnell -11 Tony Armas Jr. -12 Gustavo Molina -13 Ricardo Rincon -14 Abraham Nunez -15 Andy Phillips -16 Edward Kunz -17 Jonathon Niese -18 Chris Aguila -19 Matt Wise this is performed via a modification of an earlier graphical methodology attempted by human poster metsmarathon. m.e.t.b.o.t. has streamlined and vastly improved the implementation of this methodology. the graphical results are depicted below. a description of the methodology will be forthcoming. m.e.t.b.o.t. requires significant rewinding after posting images, as it requires significant mechanical effort to appropriately arrange pixels into something which humans might have a chance of comprehending visually. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 18 2008 12:59 PM Heilman doesn't rate? Wow! Look at Tatis! Look at Show! Look at Alou! Dig Joe Smith-over-Wagner! I love m.e.t.b.o.t. metirish Nov 18 2008 01:04 PM I can see now why Schoeneweis and Feliciano are still in Minaya's plans , excellent work metbot. Nymr83 Nov 18 2008 02:33 PM I highly approve of MetBot's placement of Heilman. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 02:42 PM And I of his placement of Argenis Reyes. Gwreck Nov 18 2008 03:26 PM The shocker to me is Jorge Sosa. Was it the 4-1 W-L record for Sosa that put him so high? m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 03:36 PM m.e.t.b.o.t. wonders if the graphic shows up. can any human poster verify this? essentially, what m.e.t.b.o.t. has done is determined a likely maximum value of win percentage added would be for both hitters and pitchers, based upon data reaching back into the 1970's. the yearly leaders in win percentage added ranged from about 6 up to a maximum of 12 for performance enhanced human barry bonds. the typical second place win percentage leader ranged from 5.5 to about 8. m.e.t.b.o.t. determined, using convenience and simplicity as a primary factor, that 7.5 win percentage added would make for a reasonable expected maximum, which works well with an expected maximum plate appearances of 750. and so, a rate was determined that for every 100 plate appearances, 1.0 WPA would be expected of the best batter. for pitchers, m.e.t.b.o.t applied the same methodology. the yearly leaders in pitching ranged between 5.5 and 6.5, for the most part. the sole outlier was dwight gooden in 1984, with a remarkable 9.0 wpa. interestingly, despite the total innings pitched of top pitchers decreasing during the previous 30-40 years, the maximum wpa has remained fairly static. m.e.t.b.o.t. selected 6.5 as the reasonable expected maximum win percentage added for pitchers, which works very well with an expected maximum innings pitched of 250. therefore, for every 33.1 innings pitched, 1.0 WPA would be expected of the best pitcher. with 250 innings pitched, a pitcher in the national league would expect nearly 100 plate appearances, as evidenced by johan santana's 81 plate appearances in 234.1 innings pitched. if the best pitcher were capable of being the best hitter, he would be expected to have 7.5 wpa in 250 ip + 100 pa. m.e.t.b.o.t hopes that this all makes sense to human crane pool forum participants. the terminal m.e.t.b.o.t. is utilizing to communicate these 2008 rankings and associated methodology is undergoing a forced reboot. as such, m.e.t.b.o.t. will resume discussion later this evening. G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 05:53 PM Robinson Cancel sends m.e.t.b.o.t. a glass of 3-in-One. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 07:10 PM I got the graphic. Reconsider Raul, m.e.t.b.o.t. m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 09:11 PM unfortunately, m.e.t.b.o.t. is not programmed to reconsider single players; m.e.t.b.o.t. can only reevaluate methodologies and perform recalculations. m.e.t.b.o.t. has performed a cursory review of the methodology used to arrive at the above listed rankings for 2008 and m.e.t.b.o.t. has determined that raul casanova is appropriately ranked relative to his teammates. in approximately 61 plate appearances, raul casanova contributed -0.35 wpa. based upon the current methodology whereby 1 inning pitched is considered equivalent to 3 plate appearances, there are 32 players who played more than raul casanova. to outrank a player with more playing time, raul casanova would have to significantly outperform that player. based on these calculations as performed by m.e.t.b.o.t., raul casanova has outperformed only one player - nelson figueroa, with -1.25 WPA in 1.50 time units (3*IP + PA) the series of diagonal lines in the picture show, essentially equivalent win percentages for the purpose of ranking. as can be seen in the lower left corner, brian stokes, nick evans, and scott schoeneweis all have approximately the same equivalency (0.80, 0.74, and 0.73, respectively) the updated picture below shows raul casanova, and those teammates immediately above and below him in equivalency. equivalency is defined by where that diagonal line intersects the y-axis, and is determined by the formula: WPA + [ ( 3*IP + PA ) / 100 ] = equivalency. this is m.e.t.b.o.t.'s attempt at mimicking wins above replacement, or win shares, or the like. modifying the relationship between playing time and win percentages is the most straightforward means of altering the ranking methodology. this can be approximated by varying the slope of the diagonal lines. as can be imagined, the proximity of those players directly behind raul casanova in equivalency implies that as you alter the relationship, you either lift nelson figueroa or trot nixon above raul casanova. nelson figueroa had a lower wpa in more playing time, while nixon had a higher wpa in less playing time, yet raul casanova was slightly ahead of each of them in equivalency. in fact, there is no way to draw a line on this graph which would have raul casanova and 29 other players on its positive side. even drawing an imaginary line up and to the right from casanova so as to exclude the cluster of billy wagner, moises alou and robinson cancel yields 31 better metropolitans. based on the rule of 3 ip = 1 plate appearance, raul casanova does not merit placement in the top 30 metropolitans of 2008. in fact, modifying this relationship such that 2.5 ip = 1 pa, raul casanova only improves to 33rd, and causing 2 ip = 1 pa brings him up to 32nd. m.e.t.b.o.t. does not consider it fruitful to reevaluate the placement of robinson cancel further. were m.e.t.b.o.t. capable of the emotion, m.e.t.b.o.t. would, however, consider this above exercise very welcome given the recent extended period of inactivity. regarding the rankings of robinson cancel and jorge sosa, despite the apparent statistical inadequacies of their respective performances in 2008, these two players each had positive win percentages added in very little playing time. jorge sosa had 0.48 wpa in 21.7 innings and 2 plate appearances, while robinson cancel had 0.46 wpa in 52 plate appearances. jorge sosa[/url:sg2qqlax] had more good outings than bad outings, and most of his bad outings came in blowouts. his four worst outings had wpa of -0.128, -0.117, -0.108, and -0.078, while his four best outings had wpa of 0.275, 0.172, 0.138, and 0.110. robinson cancel[/url:sg2qqlax] had more bad outings than good outings, as can be expected of any hitter. but when he contributed, his contributions were fairly positive. his four worst games had wpa of -0.214, -0.117, -0.076, and -0.070, while his four best outings had wpa of 0.334, 0.240, 0.170, and 0.84. one further point that m.e.t.b.o.t. has determined may be of potential interest to human cranepoolers. the colored tails leading diagonally down to the positions of the 5 primary starting pitchers in 2008 reflect the impact to their position that their offiensive contributions has had. at the upper right, the tail end of the line, is where the pitcher would place based only on his pitching performance. for instance, johan santana had a wpa of 4.08 in 234.1 innings pitched, but had a wpa of -1.27 in 81 plate appearances. also, if a human poster using mozilla firefox were to right click on an image and select the "view image" option, a much larger, more viewable image is available to be seen. this image can then potentially be zoomed into even further, to better aid comprehension. m.e.t.b.o.t. is unable to confirm whether this is applicable using internet explorer. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 09:24 PM Two methodology issues to consider: 1) One inning isn't equal to three plate appearances, but rather to three outs. In fact, it should be equal to about two thirds of three outs --- two outs. 2) The third out is a question of defense, which puts Casanova in positive terriotry. Positive territory, m.e.t.b.o.t.! m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 10:07 PM m.e.t.b.o.t. has no source for defensive input. for all of m.e.t.b.o.t.'s intents and purposes, defense is entirely the result of the pitches thrown, not the fielders to which the pitches are hit. m.e.t.b.o.t. recognizes the inherent flaw in this, but there is no data source avaiable which can provide a remedy within the win percentage framework. m.e.t.b.o.t. would be a very happy emotionless springwound contraption indeed if one day someone were capable of producing such a data source. ... how would human poster edgy dc compare the relative playing time of johan santana and jose reyes, defense aside? a strict perspective would be to consider plate appearances for and against, in which case johan santana would have an edge of approximately 1053 to jose reyes' 754. IP X 3 + H + BB should approximate total plate appearances against, give or take gidps, errors, and csa's. that gives santana 972, plus his 82 plate appearances for 1053. scaling those plate appearances against by 2/3, santana has 648, plus 82 plate appearances for, for 702. applying this playing time adjustment to all pitchers actually causes raul casanova to drop from 35th to 36th, as nelson figueroa's increased number of batters faced per inning pitched gives him a boost. if m.e.t.b.o.t. were to go to the extreme step of granting this increased 1/3 playing time to the batters, then raul casanova improves all the way up to 34th place. raul casanova amassed neither sufficient playing time nor positive contribution of win percentage to warrant inclusion in the top 30 players as determined by m.e.t.b.o.t. raul casanova participated in 13 games as a catcher. while his defense, according to baseballperspective.com was exemplary in those 13 games, rating 7% better than average, that, too, does not appear to be sufficient to escalate him into the top 30 players. worth noting, too, is the 11% better than average defensive rate posted by argenis reyes in 27 games at second base, and marlon anderson's 34% better than average defense at first base in 6 games, and 11% better than average defense in 25 games in left field. raul casanova would have to pass these two position players, along with averagely defensive ramon martinez to make it into the top 30, unless the 5 pitchers ahead of him were to fall by the wayside. Gwreck Nov 18 2008 11:38 PM So Beltran came in first under the Metbot system, without even factoring in defense? Wow.

Oops double post.

="Nymr83":27g5374t]i'm in a for a few (3-5) games as well if anyone wants to do this.[/quote:27g5374t] You could do a proportional buy-in, rate the cost per game, and divvy it up where any potential attendee could buy in even for 1-2 games. We probably won't go to more than 1-2 next year given the cost and distance. Fman99 Oct 20 2008 08:28 PM Oops double post. themetfairy Oct 20 2008 08:31 PM A complicating point is that, even within a plan, not all games are priced evenly. With my Sunday plan last year, the prices varied tremendously depending on what color coded ticket price applied to the date. Gwreck Oct 20 2008 08:56 PM I have a friend who does this with his Mariners season ticket group. I think they have something like 8 or 10 seats now but the concept stays the same: You have to buy in pairs; People commit to a set number of games at the start of the season; Snake-order draft to see who gets what games (ie. A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A); Draft position is determined by random chance; When it's your turn in the draft, you can take any game you want that's available (knowing that some games -- ie. Yankees, July weekends, etc -- cost more than others -- ie. April weeknights) Playoff games are determined by lottery, weighted by how many games in the plan you purchased. John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 20 2008 09:15 PM In Gwreck Oct 20 2008 09:20 PM I'd like to be "in" but I doubt that I can be the one to "cut the big check" unfortunately... John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 20 2008 09:21 PM Specially if you intend to collect from me. Nymr83 Oct 20 2008 11:04 PM i'm not sure who here can "cut the big check" or who would be willing to even admit it if they could. we could collect at least some money beforehand, or we could look at a 15-game plan to split up instead of a 40, it really all depends on how much interest we have. themetfairy Oct 21 2008 05:12 AM If it helps, they accept credit card payment for tickets. That just means that someone has a large enough credit limit to handle the transaction and trusts everyone else enough to pony up their share quickly. Fman99 Oct 21 2008 06:45 AM ="Gwreck":f4a68j0e]I have a friend who does this with his Mariners season ticket group. I think they have something like 8 or 10 seats now but the concept stays the same: You have to buy in pairs; People commit to a set number of games at the start of the season; Snake-order draft to see who gets what games (ie. A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A); Draft position is determined by random chance; When it's your turn in the draft, you can take any game you want that's available (knowing that some games -- ie. Yankees, July weekends, etc -- cost more than others -- ie. April weeknights) Playoff games are determined by lottery, weighted by how many games in the plan you purchased.[/quote:f4a68j0e] Yep. My cousin and her husband are in a group in the DC area that does this with four Nats season tickets. Benjamin Grimm Oct 21 2008 06:57 AM Are you guys talking about splitting up a 40 or a 15? And how many seats for each game? And how much would the "big check" be for? John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 21 2008 07:09 AM 2 tixx for 40 games at Citifield would be 3 grand or something at least? soupcan Oct 21 2008 07:52 AM I got two tix for all 81 games in whatever they are calling the upper deck. Don't yet know whether they are in left or right. I gave them a $250.00 deposit per ticket and they will contact me at some future date to let me know where I'll be. The total cost will be about $1,500.00 each. I'm sure I won't even be close to using all of them so if anybody's interested in taking a few off my hands, that's cool. Kong76 Oct 23 2008 02:45 PM I read thread quickly and see 81 and 40 games plans mentioned. I got a letter today that say there will also be five 15 game plans available to people with Mets accounts in the coming weeks ahead. If I can get a 15 game plan I'd be super happy and also willing to share or just meet for some games. Kong76 Oct 23 2008 03:04 PM Re-reading, I didn't go far enough back ... I can't keep up lately. I'll be happy to be offered something is where I was going with this, I really thought most plan holders were going to be left out completely. (and that may have been the original plan before we all became poorer the last couple of months) sharpie Oct 23 2008 03:59 PM I'd be in for buying into a larger plan. Or buying some Soup tix. Vic Sage Oct 24 2008 01:51 PM me, too. soupcan Oct 24 2008 02:02 PM Great, I'll keep you all posted. Farmer Ted Nov 12 2008 11:39 AM Doesn't look like Boston is going after any high-priced free agents. That, or they have a ton of cash stuffed away. BOSTON (AP) -- For the first time in 14 years, the Boston Red Sox aren't increasing any ticket prices at Fenway Park for the 2009 season. Prices range from $12 to $125 for tickets bought after Dec. 17. There is a discount for earlier purchases once tickets go on sale Dec. 13. Red Sox President Larry Lucchino says the team knows that fans are facing challenging economic times and wanted to give them a break. Fans with contracts for premium seats can keep their ticket prices the same if they agree to extend those contracts for one year. The team plans to add about 350 seats at Fenway Park before next season. themetfairy Nov 26 2008 01:20 PM Here are the Partial Season Ticket Plans[/url:205v8hxo]. Partial season ticket holders can make their purchases based on a seniority system. I'm not a long term season ticket holder, so I have to wait until December 10th to purchase my tickets. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 01:28 PM I don't think seniority has anything to do with it -- I think it's based on what you had in 2008. Order is: 1. Full Season Holders from 2008 who did not renew for a Full Season 2009 2. Weekday Plan Holders from 2008 3. Mini and Tuesday/Friday plan holders from 2008 4. Saturday and Sunday plan holders from 2008 Kong76 Nov 26 2008 02:34 PM Got the email earlier and the regular letter just now. Seems to me that if I log at 10am on 12/5 I should be able to get my single seat Sunday ticket and if I got lucky I could get two extra seats? I mean really, if they can't give me one seat after 5-6 years of full season and another 5 or so of plan seasons they can gobble my turkey neck and lick my giblets. themetfairy Nov 26 2008 03:10 PM If Kase can log in on 12/5, then seniority does matter. Kong76 Nov 26 2008 03:24 PM I'll post an image of the letter I got a little later. Kong76 Nov 26 2008 04:25 PM Gwreck Nov 26 2008 10:49 PM ="themetfairy":2gwrrk6t]If Kase can log in on 12/5, then seniority does matter.[/quote:2gwrrk6t] Indeed. Can't believe the Mets managed to get that one right (!). SI Metman Nov 26 2008 11:26 PM yep, I've only been a Sunday plan holder for 2 1/2 years and got the 10th on my letter. Fortunately they are sparing us from going to the last Sunday game in '09. Kong76 Dec 05 2008 08:15 AM Scored two seats, Sun+ plan, front row of the highest level, in the outfield. mezzman is now promresman Vic Sage Dec 05 2008 09:53 AM my friend can't buy tix till the 12th. shoot. themetfairy Dec 05 2008 09:56 AM ="Vic Sage":f2arzhqv]my friend can't buy tix till the 12th. shoot.[/quote:f2arzhqv] It's nice to know that I have priority over somebody.

Willets Point wrote: Long Duk Dong: Last of the Hollywood Stereotypes? I voted for Real Genius. Ultimately the math-nerd college savant bringing down the MIC and thwarting space missles struck closer to home for me than the hapless geeks of Sixteen Candles, prom-queen-dorking Anthony Michael Hall notwithstanding.

Yep. Same here. Hot 80's Teri Garr, I mean Tootsie, gets my vote.

Raiders. I've always had a thing for Karen Allen. Plus "Fish" never did much for me to be honest.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You were into that chick with the funny haircut, yeah? Didn't realize, for the longest time, that this is the same chick that was Anthony Edwards' nerd-love interest in the first "Revenge of the Nerds" movie. I am going to deliberate on this one for a while. A tough choice.

So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.