Vic Sage

go Gints!

My Mets predictions, from the 2011 thread: 1. Where they will finish in the NL East. 4th currently tied for 4th with Nats 2. What the final record will be. 76-86 currently 73-80 3. If you predict a wild card spot, say so. Nyet 4. If you predict a playoff appearance, how far will they go? nowhere yeah, got those covered. so i'm hoping they do better than 3-6 in the last nine, and finish ahead of the Nats, to exceed my expectations, such as they were. Isn't that all you can ever hope, that your team exceeds your expectations?

any gorram Browncoat knows that there bodyguard is JAYNE COBB, ya Hwoon dahn. We shiny?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Can't see us parting with Bay unless/until we get another legit RH hitter from somewhere, but then sure, I'm all for it (trade preferably). Why should we wait until we get "another" legit RH hitter? Bay's presence in (or absence from) our lineup has absolutely nothing to do with filling that need.

what... no pix? i expect clever graphics in this thread. C'mon, people... chop, chop, we're burning daylight.

...That doesn't make him right either time, but nor does it make him the originator of either policy. nor does it make him any less of a fucking shitbag. I say we print up that card and start selling them online, to fill the CPF treasure chest... until we get the cease & desist order, at least.

"Joe Torre, Fucking Shitbag" - he should have that printed up as his business card. and it should definitely go on his HOF plaque, should he ever get one. he doesn't already have one, does he?

I saw the Big V launch one in Buffalo last summer. Pascucci!! Come on down!

Gwreck wrote: Capuano's game score of 96 is the best in the majors this year. The Ervin Santana no-hitter was a 94; Verlander also had a 94 (and a 90 for his no-hitter). um, what is "game score" and how is it calculated?

FACT: Angel Pagan 2009 WAR: 3.0 Angel Pagan 2010 WAR: 5.1 Angel Pagan 2009 dWAR: 1.2 Angel Pagan 2010 dWAR: 2.2 FACT: Pagan was not "great" in 2009. Offensively, he was better than this season, but he was making the same stupid outfield and baserunning mistakes that he's making this year. i do NOT want to, nor WILL I, make an argument for Pagan, but lets be real. In 2009, he accumulated those 3.0 WAR in 88 games; the 5.1 in 2010 were garnered over a full season. He had an OPS of 122 in `09, compared to 107 in 2010. I'm not arguing that he was less of a bonehead in 09, he just hit better (specifically against LHP). So maybe "great" isn't the right word, in an objective sense, but merely great for him. It was certainly the best offensive season he's had to date, on a per AB basis. And surely it gave Omar the cahnfidence that he could use Pagan as his CFer, should he need to. But that season's production against LHP was an illusion of small sample size. The more he plays, the more he is exposed... at the plate, in the field, on the basepaths.

guys, we've already had the discussion about Pagan with Ceetar... it's like barking at a knot. He never lets reality cloud his judgment. but with regard to this: He played well in 2010, not so well in 2009 and this season. some fact checking please. He was great in 09 -- in the half season he played. It was clearly that great 1/2 season that earned him the starting job in 2010, where his crappy hitting vs LHP brought him back to Earth a bit, with a good, but not great, overall season. This year is more like last year than 09 -- and more like his pre-09 career in its entirety (including minor leagues). He is what he is... a bonehead, erratic in the field and on the bases despite obvious talent, with a significant career-long platoon differential. i.e., a platoon player.

i'm all about the retrocrit. I even love the word "retrocrit". Is that like a thing?

Ceetar wrote: Gooden was once photographed with a Coke can. instantly disqualified. i think it was the coke, as much as the Coke.

it beats skunky Rheingold... or a Coors of any kind.

i know, but i was just making a point. and you did give Tejada 4.5 points, while everybody else in the thread was (more or less) between .25 point and 2pts, so i do think you misplace the decimal. But if LWFS is to be taken literally, when no one else did ANYTHING of value, and the kid got a couple of hits, he should get a "6", right, cuz its all relative? But like i said, folks can hand out their Schaefer points on whatever basis they want; theoretically, if enough people vote, an outlier shouldn't skew the voting too much.

I'd rather have any public funding of any aspect of a new park that's going to get approved in such a locale to have a plan (involving the team) for revitalizing the area rather than ignoring it. This is a park near water and various immigrant communities as well as flushing meadows park. Something smarter could have been done beyond using eminent domain on behalf of private interests who want to build hotels, restaurants and amusements, but even that is preferable (if just barely) to the stadium's continued existence in the no-man's land of the iron triangle.

you can hand them out any way you want, but when i have voted (admittedly not much this year), its not been purely "relative", but as more an objective standard as i can determine, with a bit of subjective context thrown in. Given the limits of a 10pt system, and a 6pt per player limit, there are going to be games where a great individual performance isn't given its due. when, for example, a bunch of guys have good games, the points will be spread out. But I don't get the point of giving a superstar performance rating to a guy in a 10-0 whitewash. you hit 2 singles, and make a nice catch, but you've not participated in creating any runs. yet, because all your teammates are so much worse, you get 6 pts? No. I can see a few points, maybe, and if more players had contributed, you'd award partial points, but a superstar performance rating? Just cuz he didn't suck like everybody else? No. If a player goes 5-5, steals a base or 2, hits one out, makes some great defensive plays, then you can forgive the game context and simply award the performance. Its all on a continuum, i guess, but individual performances in a bad team game need to be truly outstanding to warrant those kind of schaefer points from me.

he had 2 more hits than i did, too. Yeah, I think that warrants a '6'.

yes, by all means, lets have the stadium look like clown vomit. Stadia used to have "quirks" because of the necessity of engineering them, often in downtown areas. Wall heights and distances were dictated by geography, economics and the limitations of engineering in the early-mid 20th century. What we have now, since Camden Yards, are a bunch of faux charming throwback stadiums, replicating or inventing quirks that are totally arbitrary and whimsical, based on nostalgia and marketing concepts. They are total bullshit, and CitiField is just another example of it. I have an idea... why not build a stadium that is engineered to provide the best possible view of the game from every seat in the place? That is laid out to be as "neutral" as possible, so as not to impose strategies on the game's management or roster construction, letting the best team win with the minimum amount of "noise"? That's color scheme and visual style celebrates the history and themes of the team playing there, with architectural design consistent with the best design of its OWN time? That is as cost efficient as possible, so that neither the taxpayer or even the owner is saddled with burdensome debt disproportionate to the value of a ballfield? That creates as many permanent jobs in its environment as possible by being integrated into its neighborhood, instead of a stand-alone destination that tries to ignore its surroundings at all costs? That provides not only top-price luxury boxes, but makes cheap seats plentiful, too, without reducing capacity to create "scarcity" and drive up ticket prices, effectively pricing out the majority of the fan base? CitiField accomplished almost none of this. But this is my criteria; yours and the Wilpons may differ.

it was a 4.5 point catch? really? I think you misplaced the decimal point.

instead of awarding points, i'd like to fuck each and every one of them in the liver with a harpoon.

saw it on the plane to san diego last month. liked it well enough.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Vivian Vance. that's just sick.

MFS62 wrote: Mike Carp has become the every day first baseman for the Mariners. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carpmi01.shtml Not doing too bad. Later Bad day for NY, losing not only Carp but Jason Vargas, who has had a serviceable career with Seattle, and Joe Smith, ditto for Cleveland, not to mention giving up fan fave Endy Chavez, and youngsters Ezequiel Carrera and Maikel Cleto, who are both unlikely to have impressive careers, but have both made it to the majors this season. All for a Putz. yikes. well, at least we got rid of Heilman in the deal. Apparently, we can now get him back if we want. which i'm sure we don't. Good, day for Seattle, though, getting not only Carp and Vargas, but OFer Franklin Gutierrez, too, as well as later trading Cleto for Brendan Ryan.

A pproximately 15 (depending on your definition) are or were full-time players and starters with the rest falling somewhere in between And i count about 1/3 to 1/2 of those, maybe 5-8 of the 50, as having had a significant long-term all-star level impact on their teams sufficient for a fan to jump up and down about having them. so that's maybe 10-15% chance of it mattering much. Which is about what i recall from my prior research on the subject.