Ceetar

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Colon has been battling some back soreness as well, something which explains his passive approach at the plate last night. �I thought it wasn�t worth it to swing,� Colon said. �I swing at the balls pretty hard and I thought, �Not worth making my back worse,� so I told their catcher from the beginning, �Just throw it right down the middle, [i�m] not swinging.� I hate this quote so much. For all we know he's planting the ultimate bait. I mean, it's Bartolo Colon so you should throw it down the middle anyway. Lightning doesn't strike twice.

Frayed Knot wrote: Colon has been battling some back soreness as well, something which explains his passive approach at the plate last night. �I thought it wasn�t worth it to swing,� Colon said. �I swing at the balls pretty hard and I thought, �Not worth making my back worse,� so I told their catcher from the beginning, �Just throw it right down the middle, [i�m] not swinging.� I hate this quote so much.

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: Conforto ain't the best outfielder. He's better than I thought from initial reports, but still. If we move him to first other better options open up. I don't want to mess with Conforto's head but this might be needed from a team standpoint, and I think he'd take it in stride. Would he be good @ 1st? No clue. But he's a lefty and he's gonna be a hitter like Keith. I would love to see him try first base. Hmmm. And then an regular outfield of Cespedes-Lagares-Granderson, with Conforto getting to sink or swim as an everyday player at first base, or possibly in a platoon with Flores. I'd rather take a chance on this than Flores/Campbell/Kelly as the regular 1B. At the very least, we get the good outfield defense every day. It might be wise or whatever, but I do not want to platoon Conforto at any position. The sink or swim line, I know what you mean. He doesn't deserve to be put in that position. Yea, keep him in left. I don't want them babying him with a platoon tho, not unless/until it's 100% necessary. This Flores talk, it sooths me. Because Wilmer can do it. We have seen him do stuff, maybe stuff beyond his means. Wilmer could step up and be big purple big. Well, Conforto is already in a platoon. So.. I don't know how many more chances Wilmer needs. He'll be a decent stop gap as not completely worthless, but he just isn't a good hitter.

Edgy MD wrote: Maybe. I tend to think such books are developed and marketed to fly off the shelfs at conventions and industry meetings where the author is among the guest speakers. And they otherwise collect dust in the distribution warehouses. Thanks to things like Amazon and print on demand, not as much dust collecting!

I choose Keith out of retirement.

Centerfield wrote: 1. The length of baseball games. When I am home watching, there is nothing I'd rather watch. When I am at the game, there's no place I'd rather be. If I'm not watching, I don't care. I'm surprised I haven't read a thinkpiece on why the added time will be good to bring millennials to the game because it's easier to multitask.

Rockin' Doc wrote: To a great extent he seems overmatched at the plate. Gary harps on this some lately. I disagree. Just the other day he turned a Strasburg 98 mph fastball right around and drove it 98mph, 310+ feet to center field. Had he been just a tad slower catching up to it, it would've gone into the gap for a double.

Frayed Knot wrote: Zvon wrote: David Wright's first walk-off hit in 10 years. I thought Gary said since 2012 (the year, not the RUSH album). Either way it had been a while. "Damon going back..to the track..it's over his head and the Mets win it!" But yeah he's had a few since then. His last Grand Slam might've been 10 years ago though.

Zvon wrote: You should be running for President Ceets. next time. not eligible this iteration.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't expect the younger generation to appreciate newspapers the way we do, but to be so dismissive of them is just arrogant and ignorant. arrogant maybe. Ignorant, maybe not. I understand what newspapers are. You're entitled to like them, I'm not taking that away from you. But it's nostalgia and comfort and personal preference. And that's fine. You don't have to enjoy the best of everything, or the most efficient of everything. You don't only have to read the best stories or watch the best tv shows. But it's not dismissive to embrace improvement. And I'm not denying that it's a black and white issue that modern media delivery systems are better than the old ones across the board, but you don't really see society start to adopt change and then go 'fuck it, we had it better before' There's an ingrained institution that's ingrained because it was there first, because it's older. But as the original article pointed out, some of the quote-correcting is actually kinda racist. It's not really arrogant to think we're actively thinking about and working on ways to make the news facet of entertainment a little more fair. A little more inclusive.

Zvon wrote: Steven Matz becomes the Mets first LHP to give up two runs or fewer in six consecutive starts since Johan Santana from 2008-2009. I think he's pre tty good.

had a Pine Island IPA and a Charlie's Pale Ale at the Brewery, now a Pipeworks Careful Man, There's a Beverage Here! should I crack open an Arrogant Bastard for the 9th?

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: I think it's gonna be no night games the night before a day game. Or in CPF lingo, no gight names the night before a gay dame. This doesn't add up to me. I mean, if the challenge of playing is the two hours or so of stretching beforehand, wouldn't it make more sense to rest him during the actual day DGaaNGs, when there is less preparation time? Not if David prefers playing gay dames. I guess. Maybe I shouldn't use the lingo for that one. David is on record as preferring night games I think. but if he's struggling with pain/stiffness, rest him as much as possible against the brewers.

Zvon wrote: 100% of the folks who read the paper on a daily basis will see that correction the next day. Because we read the thing. I doubt that strongly. And not just factual errors. The story that turns out to not have been as juicy doesn't get a lot of followup, if any. But that's fine, it's just entertainment and there's plenty of chance you miss a followup on the internet too if it's weeks later. But the newspaper just brings me nothing of value. I stumble upon enough interesting stuff that's not an echo-chamber. I mean, it's not like Twitter is a cacophony of people falling all over each other to agree. I can jettison a post when I realize it's crap or not relevant to me in an instant. Plenty of people get value and different opinions out of say Phil Mushnick, but by not letting the Daily News editors be the curator of my news, I can simply drop him and forget it. It's a lot like only listening to music that's on the radio.

He's too good not to work through it, and I think ultimately he'll be better for it. I don't know what to make of the velocity issues unless they're just mechanics that he's still working on. arm strength. something? Hope it's not a warning sign of injury but if he's truly got less movement too sounds like it's probably mechanics. For the most part he's been sorta okay. Maybe would've been last night with some better defense and some better luck on where those balls were hit. Seems like the best thing for him is to pitch more and work on it. I'd understand if they wanted to try to dodge the Nats before he's right, but I think you gotta throw him back in there. Get back on the horse. Metaphors. Plus, an adjustment might fool the Nats hitters who just saw him. They'll be expecting easy to square up Harvey and if he can get just a little bit more on the pitches, he should fool them nicely.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They want to read the 50 pages a day that _they_ select. I see that as a weakness and not a strength. When I get news from the Internet (and I do, frequently) it is, as you say, likely to be stuff I'm interested in. But when I page through a newspaper I see other stuff, stuff I wouldn't have sought out. And I end up learning about things I wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to. I think this is a false flag personally. If you're going to be insular about your knowledge, it doesn't matter where you do it. You can seek out that other article on the internet the same way you do in the newspaper. But many people are going to skip over it in the paper too. There are plenty of people stuck in the Fox News and rags like the NY Post loop without exposing themselves to anything else. I see plenty of different stuff on the internet, in my feeds, where I browse. It's often tangentially related to an interest though, but that's why it's called an interest. I'm not saying "only show me Mets posts from Adam Rubin" but "Show me quality Mets posts, and maybe toss in a cool article about the Australian League, or Curling". You'd certainly be able to work a 5% random weight into any curated algorithm that would just pick something at random. But that's sorta the thing. The Internet allows you to seek out the quality stuff that YOU like, without having to over-invest in popular things other people like. I'm not going to read those 15 pages on politics, so why should someone was the paper and ink sending it to me?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Do you really think the Internet is so much better than newspapers because it's on a screen instead of paper? It's still content written by human beings. And do you really think that tweets are better than long-form journalism? no, i think it's a billion times better for _delivering_ the same shoddy reporting. And I could point to a billion places where tweets are better than short form journalism. Maybe not long-form, but the newspaper isn't the place for that either. People are no longer committing to reading the 50 pages _you_ select. They want to read the 50 pages a day that _they_ select. imo, if newspapers want to truly survive, they need to become dynamic. Because what I just said about selecting the content you read isn't quite true. We don't want the 50 pages of national watered down broad news. We want it cultivated to our interests. Newspapers should be a lot like feed readers, but with editors. We'd all have 10 pages on sports/the Mets in 'our' edition of the paper, but there would be a sport person running it that would omit pieces that were basically just Puma writing Colon fat jokes. Unless our personal cultivation wanted the gossipy type stuff like that. Some would get Harvey's beer flight lineup from last night and the specs on the girl he was with, Others wouldn't see it at all. From a software standpoint, it'd be pretty easy to write a program that dynamically prints stories tailored to a personal taste and dynamically piece it together into a newspaper format that could be then delivered the same way (the newspaper guy would just have to have it ordered and sorted) every morning. Developing the algorithm that generates that paper based on interests would be more difficult, but also a lot of fun imo. Sorta like how Pandora works, but probably better. Zvon wrote: What's keeping newspapers afloat? Old fogeys like me. I don't want my news from the internet. Because they put out news before confirming it. It's like they run to the phone to call their neighbor, not concerned with the facts, more concerned with the impact. I'll wait for my responsible newspaper, thank you very much (the NY rags are not in the responsible category imo). Sometimes they might get it wrong, but the next day they will set the record straight. The record on the web is all over the place and many times inaccurate (with no repercussion). And what percentage of the people that read the wrong print story find/read the correction the next day? It's less than the Internet for sure. Newspapers are subject to that same 'rush to call the neighbor' bit, because they have a hard deadline and a set volume. On the Internet you can wait another five minutes. Or publish a "as of now" or report partial information, as long as you qualify it properly. And certainly breaking news is wasted in the paper these days. Any developing story is going to overrun by the length it takes to format, print, deliver to consumer. There's a few more grains of salt on the internet, in that anyone can throw words out there and it's a higher responsibility of the reader to understand how to filter noise.

Ashie62 wrote: Sorry about your back Kase. Who or what is Bill? it's these things we use to pay for goods. We need to take some aggression out on baseballs thrown by Brewers.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Snob. Well sure, but a snob in the way people insisting on using cars instead of horses for travel are snobs.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're just being a snob. Newspapers are much more than sports stories. sure. bird-cage liner. political weapon. nice place to do a crossword and a sudoku.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree that this may just be a slump. And that David may have several hot streaks remaining in his career. But this is definitely a reminder that the best is behind him and the decline is in progress. It's really a question of how swift that decline will be. Clearly. I said as much 4/20-4/30 2007 when he went 4/35 over 10 games with a .469 OPS and 1 XBH. He was crap after that mostly, despite deserving the MVP.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: ...because they're clinging to the idea that the beat guys having access to get mostly meaningless say-nothing quotes is the only thing keeping newspapers afloat. I really doubt that's true. Both that it's what's keeping newspapers afloat and that anyone thinks that. Newspapers are still around because there are still readers around who appreciate how wonderful they are. Even though there are fewer of such readers and newspapers aren't as wonderful as they used to be. You don't think there are newspaper/website execs requiring athlete quotes in content? That's what I'm really saying, crappy state of journalism aside (I suspect newspapers are as 'wonderful' as they used to be, we just didn't notice how bad they were)

Yeah. I'm kinda surprised at Granderson's power up and away out of the strikezone. Small sample I guess (14 pitches)

And since this isn't Duda's thread: Grandy:

Where they pitch Duda: Where Duda's power is (.ISO)