Vic Sage

seawolf17 wrote: I'm not saying they forego offense entirely. I'm saying a current version of John Olerud would be much more desirable than a current version of, say, Mo Vaughn or Carlos Delgado. Teixeira would be fine; so would a Casey Kotchman-type. well, if your talking about a "current version of Olerud", your talking about a guy with a career OPS+ of 128, whose 3 seasons with the Mets were 135, 163 and 128 (with a career high of 186), so you're really not "forego"ing very much offense. Based on his career OPS+, Olerud was in the class of Keiith Hernandez, Eddie Murray and Don Mattingly, in the 127-128 range. Texiara (131) is more similar to Mo Vaughn (132) and Delgado (137), in the class of Palimiero, Cepeda, McGriff, and Will Clark, in the slightly higher 131-137 range (but none of these guys are in Dick Allen's range of 156, with a season high of 199!). But if you're talking about Kotchman, then you're really talking about a "mark grace" type (119 OPS), along with Garvey, Joyner, Gallaraga, Tino Martinez , with Gill Hodges and Cecil Cooper at the upper edge of a lower 112-121 range. So, philosophically, the real question isn't whether you'd take Texiera (or Olerud in his prime!) over Delgado right now... of course you would. who wouldn't? Its whether you would sacrifice offense for defense, by taking Kotchman ("mark grace" ) over, say, Ryan Howard, whose 141 OPS+ is more comparable to Delgado's 10-year peak. Anyone who doesn't take Howard over Kotchman is someone i want GMing the Phillies for the next decade.

can your wear an attitude watch with a familiar ring?

thanks, doc, for that blurt of sense. "A guy who can pick it" at 1b is, if not the least of their problems, certainly a problem of a lower priority than having a 1bman with an OPS+ significantly better than Delgado's current rate of 94, or last season's 103.

Frayed Knot wrote: ...I know virtually nothing about Pascucci including whether or not he can play the OF... Most of his career minor league games have been in the OF. However, I've read (somewhere) that he's considered an awful fielder. Still, I could live with that in LF, If he brought his career rate of a nearly .900 OPS to Shea.

Cooby, don't tell me you haven't toured the goat farms of Bumbleass, PA? I saw a special about them on the Travel Channel. Apparently, many of the farms are owned and operated by Amish goat farmers, who use none of the modern methods of goat milking, shearing and general husbandry available, and prefer to use "plain" methods. It was something to see. Check your tv guide for reruns.

Bill Brasky drank my milkshake and made me like it!

Nymr83 wrote: the animation list is the only one that really smacks of recentism which is nice. Titanic sucked, but more to the point what the heck is an "Epic" and what makes it one? i wouldnt consider it the same "type" of movie as any of the others on that list i'd call ben-hur, lawrence of arabia, the ten commandments, and spartacus the same "type" of movie and if you want to call that genre "epics" then fine but why is titanic included? While "epic" is now used more generally for any large scale movie, the "epic" is a genre that has certain characteristics: * length - generally well over 2 hours, usually in the 3+ hour range * aspect ratio - usually in cinemascope or other similar widescreen format * scale - a "cast of thousands", or effects to make it appear so * scope - saga set against huge historical conflicts (wars, disasters), or with difficult "epic" quests, generally taking place over an extended period of time There are religious epics (TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR), war epics (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, TROY), romantic epics (DR. ZHIVAGO, GONE WITH THE WIND, TITANIC, CLEOPATRA), as well as SF/Fantasy epics (LORD OF THE RINGS), crime epics (ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA), and general historical epics (BIRTH OF A NATION, FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, GANDHI). There are even family epics (FANNY & ALEXANDER).

="Fman99"]="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]A shot of Tatis standing next to Sexson. Jeez, how tall is that guy? He's like Bill Brasky. Bill Brasky?!? I know Bill Brasky! Hey, I know Bill Brasky, too! Did you know that they use his foreskin as a tarp when it rains at Yankee Stadium?

the last time Omar ran a franchise and he felt like his time might be running out (in that case, because the franchise might be contracted or sold), he traded minor leaguers Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips and Cliff Lee for Bartolo Colon. Do we still want to give him the rest of the year to right the ship? a ship that is floundering as a direct result of the decisions he's made to date?

that's where they should play the All-Star game every year. From an economic point of view, it doesn't matter where (or how big) the ballpark is; they make their money from tv and commercial tie-ins. it would put the focus on the history of the game, and put the A-S game in historical context. they could even have the induction ceremonies during A-S weekend. Good will and promotion value alone would be worth it. And nobody would have to give up a home game.

GMs have to deal with each other on a regular basis. You pull a move like that, you get a bad rep and its harder to do business. So it would not only have been unethical, it would've been short-sighted and self-defeating.

oh, i didn't see that as the question being posed. All i saw was a thread entitled "the best 2bman in the NL East", and Lunchbucket's question: ]Would any of you choose Uggla over Utley if you needed a 2Bman today? I wouldn't. If the discussion is limited to who has had the best season in the division so far this year, then i'll concede its a tossup so far.

gotcha. there were a few guys from Kingsport on the roster too. But mostly it seemed like college guys.

These stats are based on less then half a season worth of production. I'll take Utley. I think he is more likely to sustain his production, while Uggla is more likely to drop. Utley also seems the better all-around player, with superior speed and D. Uggla is more of a slugger.

i went to the game on Tuesday ... opening day at Keyspan park. It was a beautiful night, and the Clones won a 3-1 pitcher's duel, with some sparkling plays, some power pitching, some speed on the bases, and a couple of clutch hits down the line. top picks Reese Witherspoon and Tim Holt were on the roster but did not play. Crash Davis is apparently not yet signed. One of the picks, the CFer Neuwinheise (or something like that) was pretty impressive. Big, athletic guy... got a few hits, threw a guy out at 2b. There were a bunch of guys on the roster who had been with the savannah sand gnats last year. Isn't that a demotion? Or a lateral move, at best? That doesn't bode well.

superhero: the secret origin of a genreis a great book; a dissertation on the definitions of the genre. http://www.amazon.com/Superhero-Secret-Origin-Peter-Coogan/dp/193226518X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213900800&sr=1-1

mm, it is mentioned. see above. as for LONE RANGER, it was, like GREEN HORNET, not a comic book character adaptation. It was a radio program, adapted to tv. There were subsequent Lone Ranger comic book adaptations (just as there was of Tarzan, and other pulp characters either from literature, radio or films), but the character didn't start as a 4-colored 2 dimensional superheroe whose adventures were told in sequenced panels. Interestingly, GREEN HORNET wss actually a spinoff of the LONE RANGER, with the Hornet being Britt Reid, nephew of the Lone Ranger - Captain John Reid Now an argument can certainly be made that FLASH GORDON deserves mention, since Alex Raymond's character began as a newspaper comic strip in 1934, pre-dating the comic book superhero. But if you include it, there is only a terrible 1954 series, and a terrible 2007 series, both of limited duration, low ratings and negative critical reaction.

Batman doesn't even meet #1 Yes, but the point was to meet at least 3 out of 5, not all 5, criteria. I didn't watch the "hercules" tv show; i was discussing the mythic version, but if you can identify the defining criteria in the show, then that's fine by me. I wasn't arguing about it, just trying to establish some reasonable criteria for defining it. What, no Greatest American Hero? i did mention it, in the post above discussing "fictional" superhero tv shows. But its not an adaptation of an existing comic book character.

I've already acknowledged the many flaws of the original superman tv show, and maybe my preference is purely nostalgic. But so might yours be. But the reason I ranked it 1st is because there has yet to be, in my opinion, a particularly good superhero tv series based on any of the established characters, and i think the top 5 are all pretty much equally mediocre, in different ways. But in addition to my personal preference, there is the matter of cultural impact. You have to remember that, when Reeves was flying around on TV in the 1950s, superhero comics were being burned by PTA and church groups, banned from newsstands, preached and prosyletized against by minisiters and psychiatrists, and investigated by senate sub-committees. Comics had turned to romance, westerns and funny animals, as well as SF and horror (which had its own problems). So, that Reeves kept Superman flying as an American hero during this era was no small feat. I really didn't much like the HULK show. I certainly don't think its in any way superior to Batman or Wonder Woman. I think THE FLASH had the potential to eventually be the best tv adaptation ever. But it was not to be. All the best tv adaptations of comics have been animated. I'm still waiting for a good (not even great) live action one.

MY RANKINGs: 1) Adventures of Superman (1952-1958) 2) Batman (1966-1968) 3) Wonder Woman (1976-1979) 4) Incredible Hulk (1978-1982) 5) Flash (1990-91) 6) Lois & Clark (1993-97) 7) Smallville (2001-present) 8) The Tick (2001-02) 9) Superboy (1988-92) 10) Swampthing (1990-93) 11) Nightman (97-98) 12) Amazing Spider-man (1978-79) 13) Sable (1987) 14) Witchblade (2001-02) 15) Blade (2006) 16) Birds of Prey (2002-03) 17) Shazam! (1974-76)

But that's what i mean... once you go down that road, is any fantasy story then eligible as a "superhero" story? Hercules is an ancient greek myth. He has no secret identity, no costume per se, no "headquarters" or "lair". Is he a superhero? Clearly, he's "super" and he's a "hero"... but a "superhero"? It's harder to say. writer Kurt Busiek has said that there are five chief elements to a story that make it a "superhero story": 1. A superhuman ability (or several); 2. A nickname or code-name; 3. A costume; 4. A quest; 5. A milieu -- a catch-all for parts of the superhero environment such as a secret headquarters, an arch-villain, and other such staples. Busiek's rule is that if a story has three out of five of those elements, it can be fairly called a superhero story. So, how would you categorize "Hercules" under this narrower definition? Obviously, he has superhuman strength (#1) and, while he doesn't have a single overarching quest, he leads a heroic life, so maybe you can grant him #4. But he has no definitive costume, name (other than his own) or superheroic milieu. As a half-mortal, he does not reside in Olympus, and tbough he vanquished certain monsters, he has no recurring villain. Now contrast Hercules with Thor, another god of antiquity, but one who falls much more within classic "superhero" definitions. * As the god of thunder, he has superpowers; * in the Marvel comics version, he has a secret identity ... Dr. donald Blake (or whoever it is they use now); * his costume includes the norse helmet and his mighty hammer, Mjolnir, * his quest is the protection of Midgard (earth); * his milieu includes his fellow Norse gods, the realm of Asgard, and his villianous brother Loki, with whom he is in constant conflict. Now, how about Tarzan?

i didn't include "fictional" superhero shows, only adaptations of pre-existing comic book characters. Once you go down the road of defining the superhero genre more broadly, things get very subjective. But of course HEROES and BUFFY would be on the list, as well as 60s relics like CAPTAIN NICE and MR. TERRIFIC; 70s shows like ELCTRA WOMAN & DYNA GIRL, MAN FROM ATLANTIS, the BIONIC WOMAN, and SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN; 80s shows like GREATEST AMERICAN HERO, MISFITS OF SCIENCE, MY SECRET IDENTITY and KNIGHT RIDER; 90s shows like SUPERFORCE, ADVENTURES OF PETE & PETE and MUTANT X. I did miss SHAZAM (1974-76 / 28 episodes), as well as: *NIGHTMAN (97-98 / 44 episodes) *SABLE (1987 / 7 episdodes) *SWAMPTHING (1990-93/ 72 episodes) Shazam was pretty awful, even for a saturday morning kids show.

A brief history of live superhero (ie, non-animated) TV series: Adventures of Superman (1952-1958 / 104 episodes) - George Reeves survived the awful scripts, terrible ensemble acting and low budget production values to singlehandedly kept the superhero genre alive through the 1950s. Batman (1966-1968 / 120 episodes) - the unfairly maligned tv series was over-the-top camp, but was a cultural touchstone in its day. The spinoff of The Green Hornet as a secondary series only lasted 1 season, but debuted Bruce Lee to American audiences. Wonder Woman (1976-1979 / 60 episodes [60m]) - Lynda Carter defied gravity in more ways than one in this cherished series that delivered many young boys to manhood. Incredible Hulk (1978-1982 / 87 episodes [60m]) - Bill Bixby gave a superhero protagonist significant gravitas, somewhat emeliorating the silliness of the rest of the proceedings. Amazing Spider-man (1978-79 / 15 episodes [60m]) - short-lived and unmemorable Superboy (1988-92 / 100 episodes) - mediocre Flash (1990-91 / 21 episodes [60m]) - underrated tv series, with good effects. Lois & Clark (1993-97 / 88 episodes [60m]) - this hour long romantic comedy/drama was more "moonlighting" than "superman", but was surprisingly successful thanks to the chemistry of the leads, until it jumped the shark with a wedding. Smallville (2001-present / 152 episodes [60m]) - the most successful tv adaptation of a superhero ever, its basically "Smallville 90210". Witchblade (2001-02 / 23 episodes [60m]) - Didn't make it The Tick (2001-02 / 9 episodes) - one of my favorites, i must've been the only one watching. Birds of Prey (2002-03 / 13 episodes [60m]) - Bad adaptation; just an excuse to get some hot women into latex.... not that there's anything wrong with that... Blade (2006 / 12 episodes [60m]) - Really bad adaptation of good movie adaptation of minor comicbook character.

we'll be in section A215... 1st base side. waiting patiently for Ollie's 5th inning implosion.

sure, we could've won a few more if the bullpen hadn't imploded last week. so, instead of being a few games under .500, we'd be a few games over .500. The fact is, we're a .500 or so team, and have been for over a full season now. We've lost games because of every element of this team... they've failed to hit with RISP, they've had inconsistent starters, often going less than 6 innings p/gm, they've had base-running mistakes and errors at inopportune times, and bad luck. But luck is the residue of design, for good or ill. And bad teams don't hit enough when the pitching implodes, and don't pitch well enough when the bats go cold. It's rarely 1 thing. Right now, the BP sucks. But i can assure you wagner will straighten himself out. But when he does, will our RFer have regained his senses? Who will play LF and hits 6th? How much longer do we let Delgado drag down the lineup? How do we win relying on a rookie, a damaged vet and a head case in the rotation? Do Heilman and Sanchez ever regain their form? There are too many question marks and not enough answers for this team to be better than mediocre this year.