Reading Pile: 12/16/12

Submitted by wrathamon on 12/16/12 2:06pm
The Hollows, To Hell You Ride & Cable and X-Force

The Hollows #1- I love the Maxx. I always thought it was such a unique piece of storytelling and art, and the animated series was a perfect adaptation. Everything else by Sam Keith……well, let’s be generous and say it’s been 50/50. He still has a unique art style, but in general a lot of his work always looks rushed or lazy to me.  This title looks better than the past couple projects, but it just doesn’t really draw me in or hold my interest. Ryall’s scripting is fine, but the overall pacing is sluggish.  The post-apocalyptic concept feels like just another entry for the sake of being a post-apocalyptic concept, and while future issues may expand on it I didn’t really find myself caring. It’s twenty-two pages of uninterrupted story for $3.99, which is better than most Marvel books. I’ll give #2 a chance and hope it picks up, but unfortunately I’m already bored with the series. C+

To Hell You Ride #1- Huh. Who knew Lance Henriksen was a writer? I have no idea if he split scripting duties with Joseph Maddrey or if one of them plotted while the other scripted, but the overall storytelling in this first issue was fairly sharp. One of the letters in the back (hey, look at that, a letters page) made a good point that this was a much more successful exercise in culture-crossing horror drama and I would have to agree. I thought Tom Mandrake’s art was the perfect fit for the tone and atmosphere, and while I realize his style might not appeal to some those readers who were fans of his work on the Spectre or Martian Manhunter should appreciate this new entry. It’s twenty-two pages of uninterrupted story for $3.99, but it’s a fairly engrossing read and felt dense so I would recommend it. B+

Cable and X-Force #1- Well it’s nice to see Larroca draw someone besides Tony Stark. I’ve never been a huge Cable fan despite enjoying a couple random creator runs (go read Joe Casey and Ladronn’s arc), but I liked this representation of the character. In fact I like the strange team they are building, and Dennis Hopeless does a pretty good job of pacing an introduction. Hopeless seems to have a good handle on characterization and humor to mix with the action, so hopefully this will develop into a fairly interesting series. It looks like the Phanlanx are up to bat again, so let’s hope that they can do something different with the Borg cliché. B+

The biggest change with Sims 3 Seasons

Submitted by erika on 12/16/12 11:20am
Every day is no longer the same.

Having played with Seasons for two weeks now, I continue to be blown away by what a big difference it makes in the game. This expansion pack, more than any other, truly changes the experience of playing The Sims 3.

Other expansion packs have given us more to do, different life forms to play, and new skills to master. But Seasons changes the entire game. And the way it does this is so subtle, you may not even really notice it at first.
 
What Seasons does is bring the game a true sense of the passage of time. Granted, we have been aware of time passing in the past. There is the clock, of course. And it gets dark at night. Your employed Sims and school-age Sims have a job schedule, and the party invite system keeps you watching the clock. But despite all these things, every day seemed pretty much the same before installing Seasons.
 
Supernatural made a small step in this direction with its moon phase system. But this system was just a seven-day clock that tells you when it's time for your werewolves to change, and your garden to be assaulted. It didn't really (to me, anyway) bring a sense of weight to the passage of days.
 
But with Seasons, your Sims no longer live in a magical world where every day is pleasant and sunny. Every day is a little bit different from the day before. You don't even realize what a difference this makes until you have played through several seasonal cycles.
 
The difference between the Sims 2 and Sims 3 Seasons is also readily apparent. There is much more variation, on a daily basis, in the Sims 3 Seasons. On a summer day the temperature might only reach the low 60s (if it's a foggy or rainy day). Or it could get up into the 90s (particularly at the peak of summer). In fall, on particularly chilly nights, frost will form throughout the town. If it gets cold enough, you may even have a freak early snowstorm. It's always cooler in the morning and at night than it is at mid-day.
 
Just like real life!
 
You get a lot of expanded activities, of course. Your Sims can make snowmen in winter, and bob for apples in fall. But what Seasons basically does is change the experience of the entire game, rather than adding more things to the existing game. I strongly recommend it!
 

The biggest change with Sims 3 Seasons

Submitted by erika on 12/16/12 10:48am

Swisher in Safeco

Submitted by jemanji on 12/15/12 11:59pm
Retreating to a rearward foxhole.

 

Fascinating peek behind the curtain from, not James in this case, but the Red Sox' VP:

.

The phils new SP, John Lannan , is 2-5with a 6- plus era in Citizens bank park. How much stock do u give such things generally and how much does it mean for pitching in cbp for lannan facing the nats braves mets etc?

Asked by: PeteDecour

Answered: 12/16/2012

 

It doesn't mean anything, except it expands my respect for the Phillies a little.   If a player plays well against YOU, you'd be surprised how much that drives demand for him within an organization.     It's unusual that a team would sign a player who has pitched poorly against them.  

.

Dr. D had to sit and digest that one for a minute.  I mean, it's definitely true; you think back over the past 20 years and it's hard to think of even a single exception.

And it's true, it seems, to a HUGE degree.

What is hard to figure, is how exactly this works within an organization.  Obviously you don't have six field scouts telling Jack Zduriencik, hey, Josh Hamilton hasn't hit very well in Safeco so far.  That isn't how it works.  

But a picture's worth 1,000 words, and if a player has looked lousy when a team's talent judges are watching, it's easy to focus in on his problems.  You can imagine that if (say) Josh Hamilton has fished at curve balls three feet outside, against the Mariners, and they have physically seen that a lot, that the Mariners would be a bit shrill about his strikeout rate.  It's human nature.

..............

If I had to name 5 guys who absolutely loved hitting in Safeco Field, there would be Vlad Guerrero, three other guys, and Nick Swisher.  He has played 45 games in this park, 226 plate appearances, which if prorated to 162 games would be:

AVG

OBP

SLG

HR

RBI

R

BB

K

.287

.375

.538

41

106

126 (!)

91

114

He's played a whale of a lot of games here, and that's a line you'd expect from ... well, from Josh Hamilton.

Interesting that the Mariners haven't been unduly locked in on Swisher, considering his rampages here.  

...............

Hamilton's gone now, and the question is, how much could Swisher help the M's in right field?  ::shrug:: a lot.  He has been averaging 4 WAR per season, and we expect him to do it for another 1-3 years.  Hey Terry, Moe, does Swisher remind you a little bit of a left-handed Dewey Evans?

Dwight Evans wasn't a franchise player, but he could play for my team any time.

.

Synergy

Submitted by jemanji on 12/15/12 11:59pm
Tapping the chin over Michael Bourn

.

Again splicing general baseball strategic insight ---> against --- > current tactical situations:

.

 

I was wondering if players' offensive or defensive values are mutually reinforcing enough with their teammates to change their relative values for different teams, or is value value? Ok, that doesn't make a lot of sense, so let me try an example...if a good fielding / mediocre hitting team and an all-bat, no-glove team are both looking for a shortstop, should they value the available players differently? Should the first team look to improve their strength or mitigate their weakness? Should the second team just give up on defense and get the best hitter available? Or is the best available shortstop just the best available shortstop?
Asked by: Zeke**
Answered: 12/15/2012
Well. . .I don't know if this is the RIGHT answer, but then, neither does anybody else.    I would consider the other things at the margin.   If you have a slow left fielder and a slow right fielder, you probably need a fast center fielder.   If you have a bad defensive third baseman, you probably need a good shortstop.  
 
I think there's a rational basis for that, which is this.   While we tend to think of plays as "belonging" to one fielder or another (and we tend to measure defense in that way, and we tend to model the game that way in simulations and table games). ..while we think of the issue in those terms, it is easily observable that there are many plays in the field which can be made by either of two fielders (and sometimes more than two.)   It stands to reason, then, that when one player's range contracts, his neighbor can cover that to some extent.. .whereas if two neighboring fielders both have poor range, there is probably an interactive effect.   
 
There is a second reason to avoid stacking up liabilities in the field, which is the curvature of the lines.    If you increase hits by 10%, you increase runs by 20%.   If you increase runs by 20%, you increase losses by 44%.   When you stack up parallel liabilities in the field, there may be a more-than-proportional cost because of the curvature of the lines.   

.

I do believe this to be true, though it hasn't been published yet as a study on Hardball Times, at least as far as I know.  That's okay; we believe millions of things we don't have conclusive proof for.

Dr. D has talked several times about redundancy in chess and in game theory.  You don't want four units of energy doing the same thing; you want them diversifying their possibilities.  In chess the concept is "mobility," and it increases one's options.  In basketball, you wouldn't want three players standing next to each other on the low post.

In baseball, it's easy to imagine that if you put Adrian Beltre next to Brendan Ryan, that Beltre would actually take away from Ryan's ability to affect a game.  ASSUMING THAT YOU ALREADY HAD ADRIAN BELTRE, you would be LESS motivated to ADD Brendan Ryan to your team.  Ryan wouldn't get you as many defensive runs as he'd get somebody else, right?

................

It's an old-timey baseball truism that you need a couple of great defenders out there somewhere.  Every, and we mean every, manager wants a great center fielder.  But, oddly, there isn't the same universal clamor for three great outfielders.  Rather, they think in terms of a Norm Cash "covering for" a Ted Williams in left.

Supposing you were to add Nick Swisher in right field, ALONGSIDE Michael Bourn in center field, you would exploit this principle.  The fact that defense is not a part of Swisher's 4.0 WAR would actually enhance Michael Bourn's defensive 2.0 WAR, perhaps raising it to 2.2 or 2.3 WAR.

Bourn isn't my idea of a 5.0 WAR player, exactly, but it's interesting to reflect that if some team were to purchase them as a pair, they might wind up with an impact outfield.

From an offensive standpoint, it might work the other way:  Bourn gets his stolen base for that series, and then Swisher coming up behind him draws a walk.  The SB is wasted in that event, and you still risked the CS.  Better to hit Swisher #5, perhaps, or Bourn #9.

....................

There's a beauty and elegance to this kind of ballclub construction, having a great defensive player at second base standing out there next to a thumper playing shortstop.  And a true greyhound in center field does allow you the luxury of putting WWF wrestlers in the corners.

.

Josh Hamilton Talking Points

Submitted by jemanji on 12/15/12 11:57pm
Back to the dreary winter.

.

Talking points, as opposed to analysis.  Jus' crackin' peanut shells, throwing 'em over the rail, and watching a game.

.................

Dr. D bears the M's no ill will, none whatsoever, for the Josh Hamilton whiff.  

Jon Heyman has it that the Mariners offered 4x$25, with two more years pretty easy to get, and he has it that the M's were bitterly disappointed to lose out on him.  As to this specific transaction, it doesn't sound like there was anything the Mariners could do.

..................

Rumor has it that Arte Moreno slammed a take-it-or-leave it offer, to prevent Hamilton from going back to the Rangers to match.

From a business standpoint this would be shrewd.  From a Christian standpoint - which Hamilton advertises to be his standpoint - it's a temptation from the pit.  If Hamilton gave the Rangers (his family, the ones who bore with him despite his addiction problems) his word that they'd get to match, and then $125M purchased a lie from Hamilton, well, that right there is Faustian temptation.  It could be the pivot point of a movie.

It would be nothing for Moreno to be proud of, either, to purchase a breach of a man's integrity with an ocean liner full of cash.  If that's what happened.

..................

Dr. D is guessing that the Mariners might have overbid Moreno, if they'd been given the chance.  Very likely they were proceeding on the basis that Hamilton would not succumb to a sudden take-it-or-leave-it offer from a team other than the Rangers.

In business it's called trust equity, and you mess with it at your peril.  

In many respects, the whole of life revolves around the question of short-term gain vs. long-term loss.  Hot fudge sundaes are that way.  Temper tantrums are that way.  A leeeetle bit farther down the scale, there's cocaine.  It produces euphoria for a certain number of minutes, with the price being that the dopamine pleasure cycle in your brain gets ruined.

................

You could excuse the Mariners for losing out on any particular Prince Fielder contract or Josh Hamilton contract or Adrian Gonzalez trade, in isolation.

But it's like if one of Jack Zduriencik's employees came late to work, 14 times.  The 14th time, it isn't going to matter that THIS time, it really WASN'T his fault.  He's being fired for the first 13 times.

...............

Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, etc. are aghast at the idea of overpaying for a marquee player - overpaying in FA dollars, or overpaying in prospects.  The aghastness was double-strength Excedrin strong on the James Shields front.

But their definition of overpaying is arbitrary.  They say, "on average, the industry paid $5M per WAR for free agents," and they're right.  But then they go on to say, "In any particular tactical situation, it is therefore incorrect to pay more than the industry average."  When they go on to say that, they're being ninnies.

In chess, there are times you sacrifice your queen to checkmate.  In Monopoly, there are times you pay $1000 for Illinois Avenue, and you win the game - despite paying 3x the industry average for Illinois.

If I'm the Mariners, I'm doing something about this losing streak on marquee players.  I'm doing something about the fact that no marquee hitter wants to play for the Seattle Mariners.  If giving double prospects for Giancarlo Stanton breaks a logjam, then let the bloggers laugh.  

It is the MACRO TREND that needs attention, and bloggers are not known for understanding macro trends.  CEO's, however, have to transcend short-term tactics.  That is what they are there for, to strategize and provide long term solutions.

Not that Stanton, or his equivalent, are going to make up for Pujols and Hamilton at this point.  The 2013-18  Mariners are about to get Liverpooled by the Manchester City Angels.  And they will RICHLY deserve it. Over the last decade, they have earned every inch of their second-class status.

BABVA,

Dr D

Point Counterpoint

Submitted by jemanji on 12/15/12 11:44pm
Jane, you ignorant misguided blogger.

.

Hmmmmm.  At the Bakery, our man Geoffy was pounding ants with sledgehammers, devoting 1500 words or so to the question of the 2012 Giants' lack of home runs.  Somethin' seemed slightly wacky about the implied dialogue.

Oh!  It was 'cause the biggest blog has been doing its usual moral duty, overcoming emotion with intelligence.  Guess we better re-read Geoffy's line of thought, this time with a little traction... oh.  Nice job.  He gets right to the point:  the 2012 Giants did have marquee hitting, if not a lot of team HR's.

.

Q.  The 2012 Giants won it all.  They had no home runs.  What do you grok from that?

A.  In 1989, Jeff Hostetler quarterbacked the Giants to a Super Bowl victory.  What do you grok from that?  Is the takeaway that --- > in the NFL, great quarterbacks don't matter as much as fans think they do?

Doug Williams won a Super Bowl.  Trent Dilfer did.  Dr. D therefore infers that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are not major competitive advantages.

ANY one component of a sports team, taken in isolation, can be overcome if all the other components are exaggeratedly powerful.  That's just stating the obvious.  You could win the NBA title with nobody taller than 6'7", if they were all Michael Jordan.

.

Q.  Maybe the real suggestion was merely that the 2013 Mariners aren't dead yet.

A.  Maybe, in a vacuum.  But the backdrop here is the ongoing 2001-2013 debate:  are marquee MLB players important?  That's what we've really been arguing about.

"The Giants won without home runs," that statement would be fine in a vacuum.  But of course the title of the post was, "Combatting Ignorance With Brilliance."  Or something like that.  Considering the title, the statement "The 2012 Giants won without home runs" feels a little bit like the 1937 curtain coming up to reveal King Kong and ... whoops, sorry, one night and one night only, we have a guy juggling three bowling pins.  

If you believe that Kennedy was killed by one gunman and I believe he was killed by the CIA, we've got a discussion.  Then if you retort, "that's okay, a lot of irrational people get into the JFK debate," our discussion is over.  True, the cognitive premise of our little talk is blown to smithereens, but let's not forget about the affective side of the human condition.  If you tell me that you're willing to combat my irrationality with rationality, I'd call that a teeny bit insulting.  Call me oversensitive.

.

Q.  How about the over'arcing point.

A.  But yeah.  The 2013 Mariners aren't dead yet.  It's possible to win without marquee hitters, like it's possible for an NFL team to win with a lousy quarterback.  

It's a pretty nice competitive advantage to have Tom Brady rather than Tarvaris Jackson.  If you're going to spot the other guys their Brady, I hope you realize HOW good you're going to have to be everywhere else.

 

Point Counterpoint, II

Submitted by jemanji on 12/15/12 11:00pm
Pooooor Dr. D and his gauche stimulus plans.

.

Q.  The Angels spent $300 million last year to bring in Pujols and Wilson, but the A's won more games.  Money isn't very important.

A.  Dr. D is confused.

The entire point of the WAR and VALUE statistics, woven into the fabric of Fangraphs' every page, is to position teams to spend money efficiently.

And they want to spend money efficiently, of course, because if they spend money intelligently, they can get 45 WAR for their $100M instead of 40 WAR.

............

Then a team decides to raise its payroll by $40M, purchasing an extra 13 WAR, and now these 13 WAR don't matter very much?    

The same people who obsess over the correctness of every new contract are --- > the same ones who tell it doesn't matter how much you spend.  Hey, babe, I was enjoying myself trying to squeeze an extra 2 WAR out of my $80M here.  When you start talking about dumping in an extra $40M and an extra 13 WAR, now ... well, that's just gauche.

Dude, it's not whether you spend $100 or $200; it's whether you're getting 95c for your dollar or $1.05 for it.

............

Fangraphs has always had a certain palpable subconscious bias against marquee players, giant contracts, and teams spending a lot of money.  Admittedly, there is benefit to having this argument around.

But don't spit down Dr. D's neck and tell him it's rainin'.  :- )  If WAR matters, then cash to buy it matters, and spending sprees on 6-WAR players matter.  

Can we stop arguing that more cash isn't a competitive advantage?  What do you think the chemical precursor to WAR is?

Your friend,

Jeff

Links for December 05, 2012

Submitted by phoenix on 12/15/12 11:41am

Style Profile: Kate Middleton

Submitted by Penny Lane on 12/14/12 12:50pm
Royal evening gowns, hats and day fashion

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and better known as Kate Middleton, has been a growing fashion icon since her marriage to Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, in April 2011. Now referred to as the "Kate Middleton Effect," Kate's fashion style has influenced women and fashion designers globally. Her choice of attire and designers has a significant impact on subsequent sales and trends mere days following one of Kate's fashion-forward outfits.  Apart from her notable style, Kate is actively involved in charitable causes and organizations all over the world. Have a look at her royal fashion as she attends various functions.

Evening Gowns

Kate looks stunning in a vibrant teal Jenny Packham gown for a gala marking the countdown to the London Olympic Games. 

Kate sparkles in an elegant, pale pink Jenny Packham gown at the Absolute Return for Kids Charity Gala.

Kate chose a black and nude Alice Temperley lace gown for the St. Andrew's University fundraiser in London.

Elegant Hats

One of Kate's many hats, a brown velvet chapeau with feathers and silver embellishments by Viven Sheriff.

Kate pairs a pale pink lace Jane Corbett hat with a pleated pink dress for a garden party at Buckingham Palace.

An elegant, wide brim hat for a wedding? It's a do. Kate pairs a Get Ahead Hats style with a royal blue Issa dress. 

Classy Day Styles

Kate wears an elegant blue lace Erdem dress for a visit to Quebec City Hall. 

Kate pairs bright coral jeans with a navy blazer and printed silk scarf for a preppy look and visit to London's Olympic Park. 

 Kate wore a bright purple Issa dress with a clean silhouette and maple leaf pin for a Canada Day celebration.

Pages