Vic Sage

Playoff pulse: Balanced Mets creating a buzz By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports September 25, 2006 http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-pulse092506&prov=yhoo&type=lgns [here's a part of his column where he talks about lineup optimization] NUMBER CRUNCHING Heard from Cyril Morong, who, by analyzing years of data, constructed a formula how to put together an optimal lineup. He sent along an updated link to his research, and the comment section at the bottom is particularly interesting. Using Ken Arneson's program, here is a look at the current lineups of National League contenders, their ideal lineups and how the projected run total from the best of 362,800 possible lineups compares to the actual one. New York Mets Projected lineup 1) Jose Reyes 2) Paul Lo Duca 3) Carlos Beltran 4) Carlos Delgado 5) David Wright 6) Cliff Floyd 7) Shawn Green 8) Jose Valentin 9) Pedro Martinez Best lineup 1) Paul Lo Duca 2) Carlos Beltran 3) Jose Reyes 4) David Wright 5) Carlos Delgado 6) Cliff Floyd 7) Shawn Green 8) Jose Valentin 9) Pedro Martinez Projected lineup runs per game: 5.124 Best lineup runs per game: 5.183 Real runs per game: 5.161

"momentum is as good as the next day's starting pitcher"

i think both Maine and Milledge are going, and that the 25th slot will be between Robo and Tucker. With Floyd's fragile status, i think its much more important to have the extra OFer than a RP who'll only pitch in blowouts.

Saw it this weekend. I'll withhold comment for a week or so.

Willets Point wrote: The only thing necessary for good mojo is that Vic keeps his ass covered for the entire month of October. wow. WP tosses off a reference that goes back, back, back, waaaaay back! So, in the spirit of the moment, I'll not only agree to KEEP my beard and mustache on (as if i'd ever shave it!), bull I also pledge that i shall not de-pantsify myself in the vicinity of a Mets game, whether live or televised. so let it be written, so let it be done!

well, Johnny, you know I'M with ya!! In fact, I'm already past ya!

Green hasn't done anything since coming here to earn the game 1 start in RF. Chavez has been consistently good all year. Even when he's not hitting, his fielding and running are far superior to Green's. In a best-of-3 series, we don't have time to wait to "see what happens" after game 1. Unless Green's bat comes around over the next 2 weeks, Chavez should start in RF. Unless Floyd is too hurt to play, in which case Chavez should start in LF.

thats what i was going for, but i didn't know if Tucker or Ledee had any experience at 1b. I'd also like to see Green play 1b, for more flexibility. but here's an all reserve team (vs LHP): CF Chavez 2B Woodward RF Milledge 3B Franco 1B Tucker C Stinnett LF Ledee SS Hernandez

CF Chavez RF Milledge 3B Franco LF Tucker C Stinnett 1B Green 2B Woodward SS Hernandez

though beating the MFYs would bring me to orgiastic ecstasy, the thought of losing to them makes me suicidal. On the other hand, common sense says to pick the team with the weakest pitching, and that might actually be the MFYs (especially if Rivera is hurt). the Twins have great pitching, the A's are pretty good, the CWS and Tiggers have problems but have some quality too. I'm just not frightened of Randy Johnson, Wang, Cory lidle or Moose. Yeah, the MFYs can bang, but so can we. I actually like our chances in that matchup. so screw it. Bring on the Yank-mees!

]But, fair or not, his stats are diminished because they were part of the Sox' larger failure no, they're not. And if they are, its because hacks like this unfairly proclaim it to be so, even as they acknowledge the unfairness of it. and fairness aside, its just stupid. the "mvp" is the most valuable player in each LEAGUE, not for a particular team. EVERY team has an mvp, so if the criteria is simply the most important player for the winningest team, why bother having the media vote? why not simply take a poll of the players on the team that wins the most games in each league and give THAT team's best player the award? why not? because that would be stupid and meaningless. the vote is for the best player in the league, and while reasonable people can disagree as to what constitutes "best" (thus a vote is appropriate), you must first start with a league-wide comparision of players with the greatest offensive production before you distinguish them further with factors like defense, relative contribution to his team's wins (win shares), and intangibles like "clutch" and "leadership". On that basis, Jeter barely makes the top 5, much less an automatic lock over Ortiz, who even HACK-pish acknowledges is a greater offensive force and as "clutch" a player as Jeter.

a fellow browncoat!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(television_series) yeah, i was sad about Whedon's decision to kill off those characters, too. But its a dangerous universe.

Howard = 139.2 rc (1st) / 357 tb (1st) / 1.093 ops (2nd) Beltran = 114.1 rc (6th) / 294 tb (8th) / .999 ops (5th) Howard's greater production = 25 rc / 63 tb / .094 OPS to date. substantial? yeah. too much to be compensated for by excellent defense in CF over average defense at 1b? i honestly don't know. But i'd be loathe to decide it with win shares, giving Beltran an advantage simply because he's playing on a better team than Howard is.

I agree, but just how much more is his defense in CF worth than Howard's defense at 1b, sufficient to offset Howard's substantially greater production? I tend to discount defense generally, but i think he'd have to be Willy freakin Mays to make up the difference. but thats just me.

for instance, so far this season, the following players are in the top 10 in their respective leagues in all 3 of the following 3 stats (runs created, total bases, OPS), with the # times in top 5 in ( ): [u:de2e5c66f9]AL[/u:de2e5c66f9] Ortiz (3) Dye (2) Hafner (2) Morneau [u:de2e5c66f9]NL[/u:de2e5c66f9] Howard (3) Pujols (3) Cabrera (3) Berkman (2) Soriano (2) Beltran (1) Holliday (1) Atkins now, you can factor in defense, or adjust for parks, or use win shares, or some other matrix of stats to further distinguish these candidates, but i think passing over Ortiz to give the award to Jeter (for example), who was 4th in runs created, but only 14th in total bases and 14th in OPS, requires an overvaluation of his team's performance, an overvaluation of his defensive skills, and an overvaluation of his "intangibles". I think you first have to look at the individual's players' actual production, and then use defense and win shares (for example) as balancing factors. The fact that Jeter was this productive as a SS while Ortiz didn't play defense certainly is in important factor... but does it outweigh the overall dominance of Ortiz's bat? For that matter, does Jeter's glove outweigh Hafner's bat, or Dye and Morneau's bat & glove? I think its a reasonable debate, but the fact that Jeter is the "captain" of the winning Yanks really shouldn't enter into it, IMO. Similarly, Beltran is a great defensive CFer playing in a hitter's park on the best team in the NL, but does that outweigh the overall offensive dominance of Howard, Pujols and Cabrera who all were in the top 5 in all 3 categories? As a Mets fan, i might believe it does, but i don't think it necessarily should. Maybe looking at these numbers in the context of OPS+, and WS, or some other metrics, might be more instructive. But you have to start with the hard numbers, not fuzzy notions of subjective "value" divorced from production, nor should extra credit be given to a player who has the good luck to play with other good players (and thus likely wins more games) than the Ralph Kiners of the world who shine brightly for losing teams.

this is among my peeviest of pets. When the award was named, it was in a time where language usage was more florid. It was commonly understood by the writers of the time that the "most valuable player" simply meant the best player. For how in the world could the best player NOT be the most valuable one? Of course, reasonable people can differ on what constitutes "best", but the happenstance of who a player plays with certainly is NOT a reasonable criteria. Whether the best player is on a team with other great players, or is the only great player on his team, or whether he plays for a winning team or a losing team, should have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether a particular player is the "best". In fact, the first 2 winners in 1911 [Ty Cobb (Tigers - AL) and Frank Schulte (Cubs - NL)] both played for 2nd place teams. But as sportswriters have grown dumber over the last century (along with the rest of the populace), they've become so literal as to think there's some kind of substantive difference between "best" and "most valuable", thus requiring some kind of team context in order to evaluate the MVP, and a player on a losing team has to have a MUCH better year than a player on a winning team to win the MVP over the lesser player. And thats just so stupid it hurts my hair just to think about it.

SOMEBODY PLEASE SELL ME A PAIR! DON'T DEPRIVE MY 9-YEAR OLD GIRL OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HER METS IN THE PLAYOFFS!! IF YOU DON'T SELL ME A PAIR, I'LL KILL THIS CAT!!! this message is brought to you by the Guiltmongers of America...

if by "doing a pretty decent job" you mean of predicting the MVP voting, i can understand that. If, however, by "doing a decent job" you mean of SELECTING the best candidate, i disagree. As probably do you and Edgy.

i think adding BA as if it were 300 or more points skews that formula too much in favor of BA, which i don't think is a particularly important stat. I think they should add 5-3-1 points for top 3 in each of 10 key offensive categories (runs, rbi, hr, BA, slg%, ob%, runs created, win shares, total bases, sb-cs), for a perfect score of 50, with 5 bonus points for playing up the middle, and another 5 points for being on division winner, for a perfect score of 60. how would that score work out for current top players? Pujols still on top?

Valad is valid.

Michael Tucker is a dreadful hitter against LHPs. and, at age 35, that's not likely to change. Why on earth would you prefer to carry him over a RHed bat with power potential and speed? Yes, Milledge has been overmatched in the majors so far, but its not like Tucker has lit it up either. And at least Milledge has the potential to do something as a 5th OFer / PHer against LHPs / pinch-runner, unlike Tucker, whose significant limitations have been well-defined over the course of his career.

AFI's top 25: 1) Singin In the Rain - If not the best, certainly ONE of the best original movie musicals ever. Donen directs Kelly in his prime. Not only a great musical, its a musical ABOUT musicals, and a spoof of musicals, all at the same time, with great screenplay by Comden & Green. 2) West Side Story - Robert Wise directed this classic adaption of the Bernstein / Sondheim / Robbins show; it's still a masterpiece. 3) The Wizard of Oz - Garland becomes a star singing great Arlen/Harburg songs in one of the greatest movies ever. 4) The Sound of Music - Ugh. Perfectly good adaptation by Robert Wise of perfectly mediocre bit of R&H treacle. Warning: when viewing, have insulin nearby. 5) Cabaret - Fosse adapted and opened up Kander/Ebb work, improving on the original (1 of 3 Fosse-related movies on the list). 6) Mary Poppins - Imaginative, original, but overlong, heavy and dated. Andrews made this when she didn't get MY FAIR LADY. Some great Sherman Bros. songs. 7) A Star Is Born (1954) - Garland directed by Cukor in this touching soap opera with a few terrific songs and musical sequences. 8) My Fair Lady - Cukor' adaptation of the Lerner/Loewe hit is spectacular, but they should've cast Andrews. 9) An American in Paris - Gorgeous original movie musical based on Gershwin's music, written by Lerner, directed by Vincent Minelli, starring the inimitable Gene Kelly. 10) Meet Me in St. Louis - Garland and Minelli, quintessential Americana. Cloying, dated and overrated, but much beloved. 11) The King & I - One of the best R&H shows, well adapted, is interchangeable representative for R&H on this list. 12) Chicago - Adaptation of Kand/Ebb work, taking Fosse's threadbare staging and turning it into cinematic razzle dazzle. 13) 42nd Street - Warners made the definitive "back stage musical", with choreography of Busby Berkley. One of the original movie musicals on the list that was later adapted as a hit Broadway musical. 14) All that Jazz - Fosse's autobiographical music & dance spectacular wherein he contemplates his own death, while asking the musical question: "what's the matter, God... don't you LIKE musical comedies?" 15) Top Hat - Maybe not the best of Fred & Ginger (i prefer SWING TIME), but certainly a respectable representative, with memorable Irving Berlin songs. 16) Funny Girl - Love her or hate her, Streisand's stunning debut is a bigger than life biopic musical, with some great songs by Jule styne. 17) The Band Wagon - Arthur Schwartz/Howard Dietz songs are recycled for another "back stage musical" by Comden & Green (this time its Broadway), directed by Minelli, featuring one of Astaire's great later performances. 18) Yankee Doodle Dandy - Warners' George M. Cohan biopic shows Cagney's great talent at the top of his form. Still, more "biopic" than musical, and more a great performance than a great movie, and the songs... well, dated doesn't come close to describing them. 19) On the Town - One of MGM's numerous Kelly/Sinatra team ups, this "service comedy", based on a Robbins ballet, is a spectacular love letter to NY, shot mostly on location. Another Comden & Green show, directed by Donen, with Bernstein music. 20) Grease - hugely successful Travolta mega-musical adaptation of perennial Broadway hit; the pseudo-50s music is appropriate for a show of this crapitude. This movie makes me want to stick a pencil in my eye. 21) Seven Brides for Seven Brothers - Donen directed this original musical with great choreography by Michael Kidd. songs are forgettable, but show is energetic fun. 22) Beauty and the Beast (1991) - Menken/Ashman's great score brought Disney Animation to Broadway. 23) Guys and Dolls - Brando couldn't sing or dance, yet still pulls off this colorful adaptation of great Broadway show with Damon Runyon characters; written by Abe Borrows, with Frank Loesser's terrific score. 24) Showboat (1936) - James Whale directed this dated adaptation of a dated show (remade in 51), but it does have Paul Robeson's historic rendition of "Ole Man River", and the Kern/Hammerstein score is a classic. Still, a better show than a movie. 25) Moulin Rouge! - Spectacular Spectular! Baz Lurhman's visual feast uses pop songs in an innovative way to tell a mythic, yet moving, love story. I'd rate this much higher. movies not on the list: Oliver! Fiddler on the Roof Swingtime The Court Jester Willy Wonka Rocky Horror Hair The Music Man Royal Wedding Easter Parade 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T (just checking to see if you were paying attention).

you need a RHed Ofer, so Milledge should be on the roster. As for Floyd, if he's healthy enough, he should be there. Tucker is no more valuable than Ledee. He only makes it if Floyd is DLed.

my antipathy for Trax goes way back. I've given him a free pass for a while, but i'm happy to take this opportunity to dump on him. His pitching style is not only tedious, its cowardly. He gets ahead, and then slowwwwly nibbles. I can't count the number of times he's walked a guy who he had 0-2. And thats on his good days, when he's able to get ahead in the first place. His results (in terms of peripherals) have only ever been (at best) league average, and often below average. I don't think the fact that the Mets have scored a huge amount of runs in most of his starts this year should be allowed to disguise that fact. His useless in the pen, due to his reported need for a long warmup period. I don't think you want to see him pitching a game 3 or 4 against a good team in the playoffs.

BEAT THE DEVIL is sort of a love-it-or-hate-it kind of movie. Its a satire of Bogie's earlier films, but without any real laughs It seems made up on the spot because it basically was. There's no real plot, just alot of fun supporting characters throwing off bon mots, some of which were improvised and others were written by Truman Capote, brought it after they threw out the script after filming began, to write some witty lines. Bogie had a car accident during filming, knocking out some of his teeth, which prevented him from being able to speak clearly. Huston had to bring in an impersonator to dub some of his lines during post-production. If that reminds anyone of Ed Wood's replacement of the dead Bela Lugosi during PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, then your sort of getting the picture here. still, with so many good actors acting goofy, its not entirely without its charms. But i'd be loathe to actually recommend it to anybody, and its status as "flop turned cult classic" does mark the beginning of the downturn in Huston's career.