RobertR

I think capturing the tone of WATCHMEN is going to be the hardest job to pull off. Ideally, the final product should include the satirical elements of movies like DR. STRANGELOVE and FIGHT CLUB in the mix, along with the visual style and density of a BLADE RUNNER, some big ideas, and the superhero elements that we've come to expect (and to subvert some of the conventions of the genre). There's humor in WATCHMEN and bringing that out while not undermining the characters and the more serious elements is going to be a balancing act. From early reviews, it sounds like the movie suffers a bit from the dual constraints of running time and loyalty to the source material. Not enough to put me off, but enough to think that the longer directors cut is likely to be better in many respects. Robert

There's a very good chance that I'm going to be completely useless as a commentator on the actual film. I'm just too close to the original material to have any sort of objective critical distance. I'm perhaps most interested in the thoughts of those without much familiarity with the original material. Robert

Yeah, a .687 career minor league OPS is not a positive indicator for the majors. Especially for a former college player. http://minors.baseball-re....com/players.cgi?pid=6049 He's basically Jason Tyner. Gwynn doesn't have the ability to overcome his complete lack of power. Major league pitchers feed him hard stuff inside and he just can't turn on it. Go check his hit chart http://milwaukee.brewers....rID=448242&statType=1 and you'll see a lot of stuff that doesn't get out of the infield and most fly balls going to right center and right. Teams have figured out how to get him out. That doesn't mean he couldn't contribute in a reserve role. Only that expectations beyond that have more to do with what people are projecting on him rather than what he's actually done. Robert

Legit reviews are now starting to pop up. I'm most curious to see how people unfamiliar with the source material respond, but this is a good catchall link. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/ Robert

That's really low. It's basically embezzlement. Combined, with taking the money out of the hands of kids that could really use it. This is a true crime that hurts other people. If guilty, I hope they all get the book thrown at them. Robert

Honestly, I think it's because Cameron's contract is in 8 figures instead of 7 that riles up people. Even basically missing a month, he was well above replacement offensively and defensively. Baseball Prospectus had him at 5 wins above replacement. I don't think it's quite that high, but 3 to 5 is probably the right range. I find it hard to quibble with $10 million for a guy that could be worth 5 wins. Yeah, he's not a left-handed, OBP heavy guy. But, he is better defensively than any of the Brewers other options and considering the Brewers don't have exceptional strikeout pitchers, outfield defense shouldn't be scoffed at. He's not the perfect fit for the team, but all indications are that he's not overpaid relative to his contributions, of if he is it isn't much, and considering the hit that the Brewers defense would take, I'm willing to accept his ill fitting offense. Especially as a one year placeholder for Lorenzo Cain. Honestly, I have much more of a problem with Corey Hart and his .300-ish OBP of last year. Or Bill Hall's regression. Robert

That says more about the gambling sites than it does about the reality. Sean Penn won the SAG award which is the biggest branch of the Academy and a much better indicator than the Golden Globes. While it may have been an upset, it was only a mild upset. Robert

I've no quarrel with Slumdog Millionaire, Wall-E, and Man on Wire winning in their categories, although I'd agree that Slumdog Millionaire probably won a couple of awards too many. It was a pretty predictable night with the only true surprise being the Best Foreign Language Film winner. The show itself could have done with fewer commercials. And I liked the concept of the new things they tried, although they could have used a bit of tweaking. The montage look back at individual genres of film was an inspired idea, celebrating the whole year of film beyond the nominees, but other than the Apatow clip, I thought they were mostly pedestrian efforts. I thought the idea of past winners coming out and giving personal kudos to the individual acting nominees was a good idea and added a level of immediacy to the show, but I think the effort rambled somewhat and became repetitive. I like the basic idea though, but think it needs refining. Jackman's opening number was good, but the one in the middle wasn't and could have been cut without loss. I thought they bungled the In Memorium segment by not zooming in on the screen, the segment is supposed to be about the departed not Queen Latifah. Nothing too memorable, but I thought the shakeup of the show added some freshness. And, I agree, mirroring the awards with the film process was a good and educational idea. Robert

I'm still formulating my opinion of Ken Macha which is one of the most significant moves. To me a C seems about right for personnel. There wasn't much Melvin could do about Sabathia and Sheets, so that doesn't bother me, but for the most part Melvin ended up standing pat and taking a few calculated risks, mostly with the bullpen. If the young players take a significant step forward, it will probably all work out, but there's definitely less margin for error. And I really can't get too excited about the additions of Hoffman, Looper and a whole bunch of relievers. That said, there's no move the Brewers made that I see Melvin regretting in the long run either. Robert

I appreciate the answers, but I was hoping that they'd manage the plot developments with character developments better. Still, I'm enjoying the season as it really feels like it's moving forward towards an end point. Also, Brian K. Vaughn apparently has developed no sense of shame. I laughed at the Y, el Ultimo Hombre product placement. Robert

I really don't have too much more to add, except to say that I don't get why things got all heated? Especially over an issue that we know can't be proven by statistics. Does Aaron have a late career HR/PA peak that's unique? Yes. What's the argument? But, I think where HR/PA vs. league HR/PA falls down is a) it doesn't take into account park factors and b) it doesn't take into account that the average NL hitter also changed with expansion (i.e. the talent baseline of the HR/PA ratio likely got lower compared to Aaron). Or perhaps not, but addressing potential issues is certainly better than not. Aaron's in a unique position in history that when he was expected to decline, the situations he was in suddenly got easier. In his early 30s, the team moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta. In his mid 30s, suddenly pitchers were throwing from a shorter mound, expansion occurred so that he now got a chance to bat against lesser pitchers and be compared to lesser hitters, and the power alleys in Fulton County Stadium were moved in 10 feet (which was a situation that was unique to Aaron and at least a contributing factor for why he would benefit more than some of his other peers. Willie Stargell should be thrown on the chart as his best 5 year stretch of HRs coincides with Aaron's late peak and a move to a new ballpark.). The fact that Aaron aged more gracefully than some of his peers isn't that surprising either considering athletic, in shape, healthy superstars with a wide range of skills tend to age better than the average ballplayer. Really, I'd like to see a chart with a couple of alterations. For instance, on absolute scale with the NL league average shown, park adjustments factored in, and probably a dozen or so sluggers instead of a small sampling. That will tell us a lot more if there truly was something unusual going on that can't be explained by actual documented conditions. FWIW, here's a park factor spreadsheet for those that want to play around. http://spreadsheets.googl...PqasyNfGRqHZrUQ&gid=1 Robert

What's the big deal about admitting that Aaron was in a favorable situation to hit HRs, probably more favorable than any other park in his era? Fulton County Stadium wasn't nicknamed "The Launching Pad" for nothing. For that matter, when did Veteran's Stadium, Riverfront, Busch, and Three Rivers come on line? Those are parks that could affect the league context. I'm not saying that Aaron didn't have a unique late career peak as far as hitting HRs, btw the only way those five years were better than pretty much any 5 years previous to that. VORP and WARP don't support the idea that those were his 5 best years. I'm only saying that "Aaron had a late career peak in HRs, therefore he must have used steroids" has many holes to fill in the chain. Heck, if the Braves don't move, the mound isn't lowered, expansion doesn't happen, and the DH isn't instituted, there's a good case to be made that Ruth's record would have stood. There were many significant factors going on that were favorable to Aaron and trying to ignore all of them in favor of a simple explanation throws doubt on the validity of the argument. Especially since those other factors are documentable and the steroid allegation hasn't been. And, I'm doubly skeptical of a claim with respect to Aaron considering the social context of the time. Does anyone really believe that a black man in the south threatening a major record held by a white man wouldn't be held to all kinds of scrutiny in that era? Regardless, statistics are not going to prove these sorts of allegations. Robert

Great, simple physics is made up, now. FWIW, here are Aaron's Home and Road splits for HRs for the years 1969 to 1974. Home Year HR PA HR/PA 1969 21 318 0.066038 1970 23 287 0.080139 1971 31 275 0.112727 1972 19 274 0.069343 1973 24 242 0.099174 1974 11 192 0.057292 Total 129 1588 0.081234 Away Year HR PA HR/PA 1969 23 321 0.071651 1970 15 311 0.048232 1971 16 253 0.063241 1972 15 228 0.065789 1973 16 223 0.071749 1974 9 190 0.047368 Total 94 1526 0.061599 What's most telling to me is the ratio between HR/PA for the two splits of 1.318. Apparently, it was an amazing 32% easier for Aaron to hit HRs in Fulton County Stadium rather than away. I'd be curious to see how those splits fit on the graph, but my hunch is that Aaron's road split is going to fit much more neatly among the others. And his home split is going to be off the chart. That big a split certainly suggests that one of the biggest causes of Aaron's HR/PA spike is centered around Atlanta. Robert

And here I thought we were having a friendly, theoretical discussion. To me, Aaron's late career peak is the convergence of talent, location, and a drop in pitching talent due to expansion and lowering of the mound. The talent and location were unique to Aaron. And probably a change in approach, especially as he neared Ruth's record. Even among Hall of Famers he's unique. Just as Babe Ruth is. Just as Ty Cobb is. Just as Ted Williams is. Just as Rickey Henderson's SBs are. The holder of a significant record IS going to have unique qualities that allowed him to set that record that noone else had. That's somewhat circular logic, but it's also very true. And, frankly, I think people are trying too much was statistics. Nobody ever proved Bonds tooks PEDs through statistics. The proof was in the testimony and other evidence. And that other evidence is completely absent in the case of Aaron. Even tell all books like Ball Four don't provide proof. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence, but there's no smoking gun with respect to PEDs and Aaron and other stars of that era. Robert

The Physics of Baseball by Robert K. Adair Pages 18 and 19 "Since the retarding force on a ball is proportional to the density of air, a 400-foot drive by Cecil Fielder at Yankee Stadium, which is near sea level, on a windless summer day would translate to a 407-foot drive at Atlanta... The same home run would be expected to go ... about 4 feet farther at County Stadium in Milwaukee." So, we're looking at about 3 feet there due to the change from Milwaukee to Atlanta solely due to altitude. Page 24 "The density of the air is also reduced by about 1% for each 5 (degrees) F rise in temperature ... For the canonical 400-foot home run, a decrease in drag by 1% will add a little less than 2 feet to the ball's carry." Temperature data here. http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/ccd/nrmavg.html Atlanta is typically 10 to 15 degrees F warmer than Milwaukee. A little math and Atlanta, on average, can be expected to add 5 to 7 feet to a well hit ball. Basically, 1 to 2%. O.k. I was 1% high, you caught me doing the calcs by the seat of my pants. I'll also note that in 1969, that the power alleys in Fulton County Stadium were brought in 10 feet, to 375 feet, in addition to a lowered mound and expansion. See http://www.ballparks.com/...eball/national/fulton.htm As for why Aaron's best post-68 years were '71 and '73, instead of '69 and '70, I don't know. But, I think it's a mistake to not acknowledge the concept of standard deviation. Some years are just better than others for many reasons. Looking at the 1971 data, there's a huge home road split as far as home runs, 31 to 16. A slightly lesser split in '73, 24 to 16. Explain the split and you probably explain the spike. Again, though, this can't be proven or disproven by stats. And, it's a mistake to compare a Hall of Famer, let alone an all time great Hall of Famer, to the average ballplayer and expect them to follow the exact same pattern. They'll peak earlier and sustain that peak longer. I do think it's worth noting that Aaron only had three years above his average going by OPS+ past 1968. He was turning into the stereotypical slugger instead of the multi-dimensional player he was in his prime. Edit: FWIW, I'd really like to get Atlanta's weather data for 1973, wind and temperature. Robert

Another chart to look at for Aarons. XBH/Season. Year Age XBH 1965 31 73 Last Year in Milwaukee 1966 32 68 1967 33 79 1968 34 66 1969 35 77 Mound Lowered Plus Expansion 1970 36 65 1971 37 72 1972 38 44 1973 39 53 1974 40 36 1975 41 30 Traded to Milwaukee 1976 42 18 Honestly, it's pretty clear that in the mid-60s, he merely traded doubles for HRs and his true decline hit in 1972. Robert

A 2 to 3% increase in carry is not insignificant. That's the point where you start to turn doubles into HRs. I'd like to see an XBH/PA chart, albeit that's basically just SLG. What's more, looking at the graph, I think we're getting some distortions due to scale. To me, it looks like there's a standard deviation of around .5 HR/PA. A lot of what we're seeing in the chart is noise, IMO. A slow increase with age in HR rate, although a relatively stable OPS+, followed by a spike after the mound was lowered, and then a quick decline at the end of his career. Part of that goes to the old cliche that HRs and BBs are "old player's skills". Frankly, what's most notable about Aaron to me is not the HR rate, but the longevity and durability. While I understand that it's impossible to disprove something like that, I do think that the lowering of the mound is not something that can be waved away. Heck, it's not the only reason, 1969 also saw expansion of baseball by an unprecedented 4 teams with Montreal, San Diego, Kansas City, and Seattle all getting franchises. Aaron's biggest spike occurs in the 1969 season. I understand that correlation isn't necessarily causation, but the whole point to lowering the mound in the first place was to increase offense. Occam's Razor is still an awfully good axiom, the simplest explanation for Aaron's increase in HRs in 1969 is that the mound was lowered and pitching was diluted. And he was able to benefit more from it than the average player because he already was far above average. And it's the most likely reason. Especially since Ball Four had no problem relating the widespread use of amphetamines in baseball but had no mention of PEDs. Robert

Because I believe in science. The universal gas law isn't that complicated. As far as Aaron goes, his SLG really didn't take off until 1969, the year the mound was lowered. From 1965 to 1968, his SLG was consistent with his career norms. Heck, he produced one of the three lowest SLG of his career to date in 1966, he just exchanged some doubles for HRs. He had a good year in 1967. And, in 1968, he produced his lowest SLG since his rookie year. And, really, there were three years there, 69, 71, and 73, that really didn't indicate that he was in decline. Robert

I haven't watched Cain closely, but everything I hear indicates that he has a wide range of skills and tools. If he has a good year, there's no reason he shouldn't be in the mix for CF in 2010. He's one of the few players in the system that has both upside and no real obvious downside. Robert

We usually stick expansion teams in the middle. I think it's all around fair that way. Robert

Even if it is an upside thing, you have to have outfield spots on the 40 man roster. If Gwynn doesn't make the team, his spot on the 40 man roster will be taken by another outfielder. The Brewers are probably carrying too many pitchers on the 40 man roster as it is. Robert

It's a complete and utter fallacy that park factors affect everyone equally. Juan Pierre didn't benefit as much from Coors field as someone with some power like Dante Bichette did. Groundball hitters don't hit more home runs because a mound is lowered. Middle infielders that were completely without power, as was the norm in Aaron's era, were still completely without power. Park factors are most relevant to the average player, but when you're talking extremes of tools it's important to remember why a park plays as it does and how a hitter fits in. Park factors are a very useful device, but there are plenty of exceptions. Handedness for example. Playing in Fulton County Stadium, one of the hottest and the highest elevation ballpark in the NL when it was built most assuredly benefitted Aaron more than the rest of the league. Especially since he moved from one of the coldest ballparks. It's a stone cold fact that temperature and elevation affect air density, and Aaron most certainly benefitted from that more than most other ballplayers except his less talented teammates. Robert

I understand the graph, but I think that the HR/PA ratio compared to league average has some issues. Like park factors, you can't assume that everyone will benefit equally from a significant change in the baseball environment. It's not surprising that corner outfielders with power benefitted more from a lower mound than slap hitting middle infielders that didn't have the power to hit HRs no matter how flat the mound was. And, of course, I think it's a mistake to apply one cause, PEDs, to the increase in HRs in the 1990s. Smaller parks, better scouting, better physical training (apart from steroids), teams willing to play bigger players in the middle infield at the expense of defense, expansion (including a ballpark in Denver), etc. all contributed to the HR explosion. Robert

I don't doubt it. Two of the biggest factors affecting how far a ball will carry are elevation and temperature. Fulton County Stadium had the highest elevation in baseball at 1,050 feet compared to Milwaukee County Stadium which was approximately 600 feet above mean sea level. Atlanta is also much hotter than Milwaukee. Wind is the other wild card, but we know that the wind comes in off of Lake Michigan a significant amount of time in Milwaukee. Robert

The rating kind of limits your options. Road to Perdition or the Lone Wolf and Cub movies would fit well. There's certainly no shortage of "road" movies out there, Smoke Signals springs to mind. Although it's tough to mix the two with the apocalyptic atmosphere of The Road. I'd probably go with a bona fide classic, BICYCLE THIEVES, as perhaps the closest you can come. Robert