Vic Sage

i remember when McCarver came along, he was such a breath of fresh air, talking about baseball in an interesting and insightful way that jocks never did. He got irritating and self-aggrandizing toward the end, but for a while i thought we had the best baseball analyst in the biz working Mets games and i was happy about it. Now, not so much.

i bet Mel Rojas wished he had some camouflage when he was escorted out of town.

metirish wrote: here it is Meanwhile, Hudgens told Newsday about the critical SNY booth: "I'm glad I don't have to listen to those guys anymore. I just shake my head at the old-school guys that have it all figured out. Go up there and swing the bat. Well what do you want to swing at? It just confounds me. It's just hilarious, really." Actually, i don't disagree with Hudgens on this. I've noticed that, as the losing and non-hitting has mounted (since last season, really), the guys in the booth have all taken to task the hitting philosophy of the team. And that's fine; they're supposed to have opinions and voice them. But the tenor of it has become "these kids today, and their on base percentages; gosh darn it, in my day we tried to drive the run in!" This is coming from good players, like Keith, Ron and Bobby O, who i've come to like as broadcasters generally, and offer insight on other aspects of the game. Of course, if the team was hitting, none of this would be said, but failure breeds blame. I just thought we had a more enlightened set of jocks in our booth. But they sound like good ole boys who've got a problem with them thar statisticals... and whats all this about eevolushin and globil warmin? They are sounding more and more to me like cavemen from a Geiko commercial. The funny thing is (and by funny i mean not funny at all), this criticism is coming from a couple of pitchers who couldn't hit a lick. Darling (in 600 major league at bats) hit .144, with 15 BB and 175k. And he's got a problem with Duda's APPROACH? Ronnie, if you'd taken a few more pitches, you'd have kept yourself in a few more games, helped your team score a few more runs, and would've ended up with a few more wins. so shut up. And Bobby O was even worse! And Keith? Keith is a complete fucking hypocrite on this subject since he had the same kind of hitting approach that he's now excoriating the Mets for promoting. Keith NEVER swung at the first pitch. He'd just spit on it. He'd work the count, and wait for a good pitch to hit. He averaged 80-100 BBs a year and ended with an OBP north of .380. As I recall, he himself was criticized in his own time for sacrificing power to maintain this approach. The difference of course is then he could actually HIT the strike when it came, whereas the clowns wearing the blue and orange today couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat. I would have hoped an intelligent fellow like Gary Cohen would at least make it interesting by playing devil's advocate, so there was some debate on the issue. But no; he's just a jock sniffer happy to cozy up to whatever view Ron and Keith are spouting at any given moment. So I'm hoping the Mets start hitting, if only to shut the booth up about this.

I would have guessed that Hellboy and Unbreakable were 20th Century films. They seem like a long time ago HELLBOY (2004), but whether UNBREAKABLE (2000) was a 20th century film depends on whether you say 2000 was the last year of the 20th century or the 1st year of the 21st century. Rolling Stone included DONNIE DARKO (2000) on their list, so i followed suit.

Rolling Stone came out with a "top 20 sci fi films of the 21st century" list: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/lists/the-top-20-sci-fi-films-of-the-21st-century-20140515/under-the-skin-2013-19691231 There are some good choices here, but I have some quibbles. First, I don't think you should include on this kind of a list (where one is trying to rank �the best� of a particular period, rather than just one�s favorites) movies that have come out recently, because of our natural bias toward the new and the lack of historical perspective on such films. Secondly, if you�re going to include foreign films (like THE HOST), then you have to consider ALL of world cinema, and that�s just too daunting a task. So, here's my list -- 20 Best English-language SF features / 2000-2009 (listed chronologically): [Note that I have limited myself to only 1 superhero movie, since I distrust my own judgment about them (I tend to like them even when they�re terrible)] (movies on the Rolling Stone list are noted with a *) From the Rolling Stone list � DONNIE DARKO � MINORITY REPORT � SERENITY � CHILDREN OF MEN � CLOVERFIELD � WALL-E � DISTRICT 9 I have not seen THE HOST, MOON, PRIMER or SUNSHINE, but they seem promising. But REIGN OF FIRE, while some fun, is a piece of crap. Plus: UNBREAKABLE � Shamalayan�s exercise in superhero realism; sad and fascinating PITCH BLACK � Vin Diesel introduces Riddick in this thrilling little piece of horror/sf A.I. � Spielberg + Kubrick; an SF Pinocchio with great performances 28 DAYS LATER � A game-changer in the �fast zombie� sub-genre ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND � Philosophical, romantic; Jim Carrey in �serious actor� mode V FOR VENDETTA � underrated adaptation of Moore�s comic; power to the people! IDIOCRACY � Mike Judge�s hilarious and prescient satire about our intellectual decline as a species THE FOUNTAIN � Aronofsky�s flawed but ambitious study in the metaphysics of love and loss BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT � If I only get 1 superhero movie for the decade, this is it. Nuff said. STAR TREK � JJ Abrams successfully relaunched and rebooted the moribund franchise AVATAR � Cameron pushes the limits of color and 3D to retell the archetypal story of the warrior going native to preserve the natural world from Man�s destructive nature THE ROAD � McCarthy�s classic; an austere, deeply felt adaptation ZOMBIELAND � Hilarious revamp and update of the zombie apocalypse Honorable Mentions: FREQUENCY, X-MEN, X2, HELLBOY, A SCANNER DARKLY, RENAISSANCE, MAN FROM EARTH, IRON MAN, WATCHMEN, 9, MR. NOBODY, BLINDNESS And now here are 10 films from 2010-2014, for early consideration on the 2010-2019 list (but I may feel differently by 2024): � INCEPTION � ATTACK THE BLOCK � THE WORLD�S END � GRAVITY � HER I have not seen MONSTERS or UNDER THE SKIN, but LOOPER is convoluted. Plus: X-MEN: FIRST CLASS � This prequel to the series surpasses the original trilogy RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES � a successful reboot, and a remake (of sorts) of ESCAPE and CONQUEST but much better. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED � A funny, romantic indie � is it time travel or insanity? SEEKING A FRIEND FOR END OF THE WORLD - Funny/sad romance with great perf by Steve Carrell MAN OF STEEL � Thoughtful reconsideration of Superman in his best film adaptation Honorable mentions: PAUL, CABIN IN THE WOODS, MELANCHOLIA, AVENGERS, THE DIVIDE, OBLIVION, EUROPA REPORT, HOT TUB TIME MACHINE

Don't argue with Oscar Hammerstein, sir!

they could have been Betamax tapes.

a designated first-inning leadoff man? that's brilliant. IT WILL WORK!

Julio Franco, Professional Hitter ™

that was just what i asked for when i blew out the candles this evening.

Mets, you owe me a birthday present tonight. 10 runs in the 1st, and then slowly pull away...

i just voted for Montero,too... was that wrong?

now we're talking.

he's been effective in all categories except the BB/9 rate. But i don't think he can survive that in the majors. Still, if his rate is going down and he's still putting up solid peripherals, there's hope for him yet.

That's a good example. Kieschnick was basically replacement level, as both a hitter and pitcher, but he had his uses, and maybe the roster spot he save the Brewers in that period (by having him fill the slot as the last guy on the bench and the last guy in the pen) allowed them to carry a kid like Billy Hall, who would ultimately become a decent major league player. And Keesh did this in a system specifically designed to prevent these type of players from succeeding. Imagine if he was actually cultivated. i agree it's not going to happen, that all trends are towards specialization (not just in baseball), but i think its interesting to consider. And i think, like bullpen specialization, its not for the better. For that matter, I think that specialization in work, academia, arts, etc., has made for a lessening of civilization overall, if we measure the quality of leadership of the founding fathers (a generation of philosopher/warrior/statesman/scientist/writers) against our current one-dimensional leaders (in politics, business, the arts), you can measure our fall so far. But that's a story for another day.

yes, if your an everyday player in your 30s who hasn't pitched since college, you may well blow your arm out because your mechanics will likely suck. but if that hitter had continued to develop as a pitcher, and so had sound mechanics, he's no more likely to blow out his arm than any other pitcher. Pitching probably does increase a player's chance of injury over a guy who doesn't pitch, which is why you probably don't want a full-time starting player, much less Babe Ruth, taking that risk, if your team is dependent on his bat (and vice versa). But, if Ike Davis was a good enough college pitcher to be an occasional middle-inning guy, or even a mop-up guy, in the majors, then even if he is no more than a .230/25hr who can't hit lefties, i would think he'd be a great guy to have on our bench as a platoon 1bman/PHer who could also give us the kind of 50-75 IP we gave to guys like Scot Atchison, Greg Burke, Brandon Lyon or David Aardsma last year, while giving us another roster spot to play with.

well part of it is convincing anyone in charge of such decisions to actually do so. Since we can't get managers to stop with the "closer" bullshit, i have absolutely no expectation that this will change. But before even considering that, though, i just wanted people's thoughts on whether it's worth doing. The four best hitting pitchers by fWAR in 2011-2014 are Zack Grienke, Mike Leake, Clayton Kershaw and Yovani Gallardo. They've been used to pinch hit a mere 17 times in their combined careers. There are other caveats of course. Pitchers rarely throw other pitchers breaking balls in the dirt and the like. I'm sure the percent of fastballs is crazy high. Once a pitcher gets a reputation for maybe being able to hit a little bit, the guy on the mound tries a little harder, which means the pitcher-batter has to be even better to really add value as a pinch hitter. This analysis is based entirely on the CURRENT system, where good hitters are pushed off the mound toward a position while in the minors or even in college, never to return. So yes, we know that pitchers are, by and large, not good hitters. It's practically definitional. In theory I love the idea, but even a .200/.300/.400 pitcher is probably less valuable than a lefty/righty masher type. of course he's less valuable. But that lefty/righty masher type (a 1-dimensional PHer, a power guy who has too many holes in his swing to play everyday and may not have a defensive position) is certainly less valuable than the same guy who can pitch a few innings. And is the increased batting power of your 6th pinch hitter more valuable than being able to have that same guy pitch an inning or two in the 17th? I'm nor sure i understand the question. what if the increased power comes from your 2nd or 3rd PHer, who can ALSO pitch an inning or 2 in the 5th-6th innings? Isn't that a useful guy? But we'll never find out, because that kind of hitter never stays a pitcher, and that kind of pitcher never hits. The other side, a hitter pitching, intrigues me a little more, but with the state of most bullpens, particularly the back-ends, if you can get batters out with anything approaching reliability you're probably going to be a reliever already. Right. my point exactly. If you can pitch like that AND hit like that, why do they take the bat out of your hands and stop developing that skill while still in the minors? Benjamin Grimm wrote: I've heard that when Babe Ruth was still in the Red Sox pitching rotation, but also playing as an outfielder, that he batted ninth on days that he pitched, and cleanup on days that he was in the outfield. I never checked to see whether or not that was true. He's also quoting as saying doing both (pitching and playing OF) was too much and supposedly the Red Sox desire for him to keep pitching was part of what upset him about the team. Well, at least this is an argument to discuss, though i don't know if judging modern players by Babe Ruth's WORK ETHIC is really useful. At any rate, he's an extreme example, because he was their best hitter AND their best starting pitcher, throwing over 200-300+ innings a year, even with 133 IP as a full-time OFer in 1919. That may well be too much to expect of a normal human being. But a guy who can give you 150-200 PAs and 50-60 IPs would not necessarily be working harder than a full time hitter or pitcher. The question is, i think, assuming that such athletes existed (and I believe they would, if minor-league systems allowed them to exist), does this roster flexibility help a team? And if so, does it help only a little or alot? And if it would help alot, is it only conservative traditionalism that prevents it from happening?

my daughter watched it repeatedly; i've never had any desire to watch it.

i think people generally either like Wes Anderson's films or they don't; not in every case, but i think his movies have a certain identifiable style that either appeals to you or does not. On the other hand, he's such a unique filmmaker, people can love one of his films and hate another. So i guess i'm contradicting myself. Nevermind. As for me, I loved RUSHMORE, LIFE AQUATIC, and liked MOONRISE KINGDOM, but hated DARJEELING and TANNENBAUMS, so i'll give this one a try at some point, despite that its premise doesn't really appeal to me. I also still want to see MR. FOX.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/07/rangers-hitter-mitch-moreland-pitched-a-1-2-3-inning-and-was-clocked-at-95-mph/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs I've always thought that there was at least some untapped potential (in Moneyball terms, inefficiencies in the market) in using good-hitting pitchers and good-pitching hitters to expand the depth of a team's bench. Why can't a pitcher pinch-hit now and then, or even start at a position, if his bat warrants it? Or a hitter who can throw 95-mph strikes used in relief occasionally, to rest the pen or even to get higher leverage outs, allowing a team to carry an additional bench player, rather than a 12-man pitching staff. If a pitcher can hit the curve in the minors, they find a position for him and his pitching days are abandoned. And if a hitter has a better arm than a bat, he's given a shot on the mound, and if he makes it, then that's it. He's a pitcher. It was an early form of positional specialization that was adopted throughout the sport quite early on, but is it at least worth reconsidering, even as we reconsider the wisdom of things like bullpen specialization?

Edgy MD wrote: How oft do you think he's going to start? I'm thinking he'll initially get one game in four at short and one in six at second, clocking him in at 42.5%. Maybe if he hits, he'll get the odd start at first and/or third, getting him up to 50%. It'd be really interesting if they went all-in. Fans would roast them to no end, of course, if it failed. I don't think fans (generally) would be upset by trying Flores over Tejada, no matter HOW it turned out. Even a-holes on sportsradio would probably give them points for trying something, and it would give them a new story to bullshit about.

Yea! Should have brought him north out of ST, but better late than never. The upside of a 3-game sweep (where we scored 3 total runs) is that it sometimes yields change. And what's next... Satin dumped for Campbell? or Lutz? And EY better watch his ass, too, cuz my boy Saratelli is playing LF on a semi-regular basis and hitting .300. And while we're on the subject, if d'Arnaud continues his offensive futility, do they send him back down to straighten himself out? Teagarden is slugging down there now. And some turnover in the pen should be considered, sooner rather than later. We don't even have to give some of our studly young starters (like deGrom and Montero) some major league bullpen time, if that is of concern (it's not a concern to me; i think its a good way to limit their innings and give them experience getting major league hitters out, but lets assume they're not going to do that). But I hate that we are continuing to run broken down has-beens like Farnsworth, Valverde, and DiceK, out there regularly when minor-league "never-was"es like Socolovich (who looked good in ST), Carlyle and Carreno are pitching well in a hitter's park and league. Even Black is getting guys out, despite his continuing wildness.

yeah, this is all Wolfie's fault (... he said, scurrying off into the shadows)

FATHER FATHER FATHER of the YEAR YEAR YEAR goes to...

good plan; i'm in.