NickCave
-
Content Count
965 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by NickCave
-
-
The Horror! The Horror! (safe for everyone)
-
1
-
-
I don't have anywhere else to talk Big 10 football, so this is my Big 10 open thread
-
This Michigan Michigan St game is hot garbage. There have been like 14 plays of negative 8 yards or worse. I'll be so mad if MSU doesn't win.
-
He pops in now and then to defend himself. Like that time he tilted over a floor ruling and shipped a stack. Or that time we found out he'd literally joined a cult. Those were fun times.
Can you point me towards the cult stuff?
-
NavyButtons was obviously revenge-trolling but I still want to talk about baseball theory. I AM SO TORN
-
Clasic Drummond line. 12pts, 16rbs, 3stl, 2blk. 0-1FT, Pistons lose in OT
EDIT: I think Drummond will be a top 15 NBA player by the beginning of his 4th year, worst case scenario. He's amazing.
-
Hey you guuuuuyyyyyssss! It's the weekend, so I'm doing the birthday stuff. Pretty awful Saturday. I'm pretty upset about it.
Zelphade (37)
TakeItBack (25)
snippytran (31)
Wish I knew a word that would adequately describe my intense anger.
Loogie (36)
Marie Antoinette, Nelly
Edit: I've never had more respect for Fritz than I do right now. So hard to pick the celebrity birthdays. "Two and only two" is a fucking cruel rule. After fifteen seconds I'm not even sure the shape the joke should take. Do I want polar opposites? ("I'm trying, I'm trying to, drink away the part of the day I cannot sleep away.") Do I want strange bedfellows? Do I want the two goofiest famous people ever? How about a famous person overrated, and an awesome person underrated?
After about 45 minutes I said "**** it," panicked, and did this. It's stupid. Marie Antoinette is boring. So is Nelly. They do not enhance each other, you know? There is no ironic benefit, no juxtaposition, no paradox. There is just "Marie Antoinette" and there is just "Nelly" and there is just "ugh."
-
I saw it and thought it kinda sucked. I have read the books.
-
Jesus Christ, Michael Carter-Williams. Just what the hell? 22 points, 12 asists, 9 steals, 7 rebounds against the Heat in his NBA debut.
And Kentavious Caldwell-Pope is out there, shitting around 4/12 every game. Looks like Carter Williams is going to beat Caldwell-Pope's ass in the battle of hyphenated first round rookie guards.
-
Why did you quote me??! I hate looking at old threads. It makes me wince badly.
For real. Your use of "was," there in the conditional tense... cringe-worthy
-
Are we allowed to call the owner of the site names? I really want to.
As far as I can tell, the owner has not been active here in years. What are you worried about?
-
Yeah, I had just never seen a movie like that. IT was so kinetic. He's shots just weren't masturbatory awesomeness, like something like Touch of Evil's opening shot. They were used effectively to build drama. And Cuaron uses so much of the screen, you never know what direction something is going to be coming from. The movies are utterly immersive.
Exactly, all of those things. My TA was using words I didn't fully understand at the time, because he was a goblin, but he kept pointing out how alive every shot felt, and how uncomfortable it was once you knew you should expect a cut. Seriously, that part about "expecting a cut" was weird for me. We're so used to seeing cuts that it's massively discomforting when a single shot lasts longer than a few seconds.
But
is the scene he showed while screaming. "DIRECTING AND ACTING AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOOD THINGS AND THIS IS AMAZING AND ACTING AND PLEASE TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND [CRYING]." -
navy, do you know about the Eephus pitch? Perhaps that would be a suitable alternative to the "no ball" in terms of head games.
Oh, man, you couldn't leave a space for AmScray to get his favorite nut in?
-
When I first saw Children of Men I was underwhelmed. I thought it was a well-written, well-acted sci-fi flick, but nothing to write home about. Very good movie, but not A GREAT FILM or anything. Then I took a really cool film class, and we asked our TA what his favorite movies ever, were. He didn't answer that question, but he did tell us his favorite moves of the 2000s so far were 25th Hour, United 93, Royal Tennenbaums, The Incredibles, and Children of Men.
I asked him what the **** was so good about Children of Men, and he turned into a goblin. He was so ****ing passionate about how incredible of a movie it was that he got most of us to watch it with him on a Friday night while he walked us through the awesomeness. I didn't follow most of it, but I did understand the basic gist as to its, and Cuaron's, awesomeness.
-
Well, they do, but they aren't as long as they seem, I watched a short documentary about them in children of men, and they aren't actual continuous filming,
Well, I haven't seen that documentary, but I was assuming it wasn't a REAL 18 minute take. But it still has to be ultra sharp filmmaking. If it's going to look good, you've got some very precise acting, in terms of movement, marks, tempo, etc. Right? Just given the necessary camera locations and shot lines, there has to be some pretty ridiculous logistical challenges
-
1
-
-
When it comes to game theory and baseball, there are other super interesting things to talk about, but most of them have been pounded already. Tango/Litchman have a book called The Book that addresses all the cool game theoretically-optimizing stuff. One of the cool ones is the frequency with which one should bunt, specifically in high leverage situations. Like, say it's GTO to bunt for a hit 1/88 plate appearances down by two, in the ninth inning, with your #5 hitter up, runner on 1st no out, just as a balance issue, in order for your bunting to be unexploitable via fielder positioning. Let's say you randomize perfectly, using an 88 sided die in the dugout.
Now let's say it's game 7 of the World Series. Do you still use the die? Or are you like, "fuck this, he's gotta swing away?"
-
i have an incredibly hard time yet believing that it would never psyche someone out. like in football where they call a timeout right before the snap. if a decent enough player said that it would never upset someone's timing or snap someone's focus then i'd willingly abandon it.
I don't think icing the kicker works. There are a number of statistical profiles, many of which leave something to be desired, that address the issue, and the general consensus is that it has no effect. It really depends on what you control for, and then the issue becomes sample size, but there's no good statistical evidence that suggests icing the kicker has any tangible impact. I would recommend Moskowitz/Werthheim, but they've had some serious methodological issues (and some serious bonehead dum dum mistakes) pop up in their work before, so I don't want anyone to consider the issue closed.
-
To The_Poster_NickCave:
Dear Sir:
I feel shitty about the way things went between us. I was in so many ways responsible and for those ways I apologize. You are clearly the most talented baseball player on FCP and it would be my honor if I could dedicate this thread to you. I have a lot of thoughts about baseball, but very very little experience. Even more devine is that you have so much pitching experience and that's where most of my thoughts are dedicated.
May I throw you pitches and you can tell me whether or not you think my ideas would work?
If you prefer I **** off state it directly and I will never post in the baseball forum again.
If you wanna break brains with me start with this situation:
Bottom of the 9th in game 7 of the world series. No one on. The best pitcher ever (or, more accurately, the most interesting) considers throwing a "no-pitch." A "no-pitch" is going through the wind up and delivery but leaving the ball in the mitt. The pitcher is definitely capable of throwing the no-pitch as many times as he thinks it will take to get the batter off his timing.
Thoughts?
luv-navybu
WIthout reading any other posts.
First of all, most my pitching experience was limited to, "Hmmm, this guy is pretty terrible, let's see what happens if I throw a FASTBALL. Okay, well maybe he has TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE." Maybe 10 starts in my entire life did I ever have to really concern myself with things like sequencing, eye-level, or anything more important than "I throw an easy 88 with movement let's just get this over with."
That being said, I've spent much of my adult life thinking about baseball, and I actually have a real answer to this question, despite the fact that it's silly. Depending on the circumstances, a no pitch with the bases empty (heretofore a NOPE) is either no pitch, or more likely a ball. For the sake of argument, let's say it always results in a ball.
Luckily, we have access to some pretty decent numbers regarding the value of different counts. I don't have them on hand right now, but I can remember about what each pitch is worth. At the beginning of each PA, a random hitter is worth, in a vaccuum against a random pitcher, about .145 runs. (For reference, I am using AL numbers. I never did any of this for the NL because **** that.)
0-0 .145
1-0 .185
0-1 .100
Basically, by giving your opponent a 1-0 count, you increase the opposing team's run expectancy (RE) by .04. If you're better than average, the damage is even worse. If you're worse than average, it's mitigated somewhat. So by NOPEing, you're giving the other side .04 runs. Could it ever possibly be worth it?
No. A phrase like "disrupt his timing" is misleading. Hitters don't "time" pitchers, in the sense that they have a rhythm that can be disturbed. Instead, hitters make basic assumptions about what pitch they can expect to see using information about count, tendency, base/out state, inning, score, etc, and devise a strategy. Hitting is hard precisely because there are so many things a pitcher can show you, all from the same release point, at any given time. For example:
So, out of necessity, hitters start with the ball/strike state, and use that to determine the best approach. So, if the account is 3-0, the pitcher is very motivated to throw a strike, and the stakes for the at-bat are high. Fastballs are the easiest pitch to throw for strikes. Therefore, it's probably going to be a fastball. Conversely, the stakes for the hitter are low. If he guesses wrong, the worst case scenario is another great (3-1) hitter's count. So, given a 3-0 count, the hitter will narrow his focus to a single pitch (fastball) located in a place ("one pitch, one spot"). If the pitch is there, he'll unleash hell. If it is not, he'll do nothing.
Hitters, for the most part, have to be defensive when the count is not in their favor, and picky/aggressive when it is. A pitcher's advantage is the number of options he has (location, speed, break: see GIF above) The more in the hitter's favor the count is, the more he can narrow the pitcher's options, which means's he's more likely to get something he expects, which means he's more likely to cause serious damage.
These, for the most part, are the hitter's concerns. If a pitcher simply NOPES, it affects him in no way, because there is no consequence to his guessing wrong. "I"m looking fastball away, specifically high and away. This is a pitch I can hit hard. If I get fastball low-and-away or down the middle, I'll adjust. Anything off-speed or middle in is a no go. Oh... the pitcher fell over and glared at me. Okay, well, now it's 1-0, so..."
The pitcher is better off doing something that will force the hitter (or other hitters!) to consider the event in the future, because that is the crux of the hitter/pitcher matchup. Bust a guy inside, throw him a 0-0 slider in the dirt, start him off with a changeup and scream like a girl. Whatever. Those things might feature into the hitter/pitcher matchup. Just randomly doing nothing has zero impact.
-
So are there any sites for Americans to bet on sports? Not necessarily legal, but just something that would be easy to deposit and withdrawal?
By the way, this has nothing to do with betting on Philly to win it all.
Bovada still takes US action. It's a dogshit book, though. If you win any money they'll just start dealing you stupid lines or lowering your limits. Not sure how quick they pay out, but I know three people who are flush there, and the money comes.
-
I also liked Y Tu Mama Tambien.
I know he did one of the Harry Potter movies, but I don't remember which one was which.
Prisoner of Azkaban, which was probably the best film in the series. Best source material, too, though.
Cuaron's use of long takes must require a ridiculous amount of precision and planning. Can't be easy to act in, either. If you miss your mark my 2 inches the shot is ruined
-
What kind of scotch was it, buddy? Was it Highland Park?
No. Highland Park is an Island single malt, you uncultured boor, AND I SPECIFIED IT WAS A SPEYSIDE
I bought him a bottle of Aberlour 18. Originally, I was trying to find a bottle of Balvenie 17 Doublewood. I'm not sure how available it is, generally, as I only had it a few times when a friend of mine had a bottle I drank, but I couldn't find it in the city.
Anyway, the Aberlour 10 and 12 are enjoyable (though I haven't had the 16), so I figured I'd give the 18 a shot. We cracked it open last night and had a dram or two. Pretty good. I wouldn't hesitate to keep a bottle around for after dinner, if I could either keep liquor in the house longer than two days without drinking it all up, or ate anything for dinner besides McChickens and shit.
-
So I just saw gravity, on 2D, alas. It was absolutely incredible film making. This is a movie I simply can't imagine watching on a home screen, no matter how large and high quality. I've never seen anything like it. Maybe If I knew more about space physics, things would tilt me, but it seemed totally plausible and terrifying in a wholly novel way. Some of the shots, the long cuts ( I assume they were digitally manipulated A La Children of Men to appear to be long shots), it was just incredible.
Yes, the Dialog can be painful at times, but it's absolutely not a dialog driven movie.
And it legitimately has the best use of 3-D I can remember. (Captain Eo, notwithstanding, of course.)
-
1
-
-
Pappy 20 is my favorite booze of any kind, including scotches costing much, much more. If that faggot just leaves this on a shelf somewhere as a collectible or "investment," I'm going to go on tilt.
But,
If you weren't going to take it, you should have acted like he'd gotten you Old Grand Dad or something, and been like, "I bought you a bottle of ****ing Highland Park, and you buy me ****ing bourbon? I went to a state school, not trade school, needle dick." The best part is it might take him years to figure out that you were kidding and that the friendship is really over. Half my relationships have been in this pre-punchline period since HS, basically.
He's very grateful. Talked to him today. He's going to see what he an get for it, and says he is either giving me half. The money or buying me something awesome. If it turns out it's not easy to sell, or he can't get much, he says he'll offer it back to his dad or we will drink it.
I was too in shock to do anything but kill myself. Complicated plots were not an option.
-
such a wang thing to do.
There is literally no one in the world I don't hate right now.
The Happy Birthday Thread
in General
Posted
Celebrating Today
(34) IUnook
(46) TheDuck21
(43) Entrepeneur
(47) eddiedean987
If I was making a list of things I hate with unabashed abandon, slowrolling would be one of them. As a player, if my hand goes to showdown, and I think it has more than a 5% chance of winning, I show it down immediately. As a dealer, I wanted to murder the players that refused to show down after being called, or left of the button. I hated them. You know what the worst was? Listening to the "conversation."
"Do you have a pair?" I called you. "I have one pair." Show me. "I can't beat Ace King." Show me. "I can't beat top pair." Show me. "Okay, you're good." Show me. "[ACTS AS IF HE IS ABOUT TO FOLD HIS HAND]" Are you folding? "[LOOKS DEFEATED, FAKES TOWARDS THE MUCK AGAIN]" Fold or show me. "[LOOKS AT CARDS]" Turn your hand over in three seconds or I'm killing it and the pot gets shipped the other way.
Just, these mother****ers. Sometimes, it was a tournament, and their all in on the flop. The cards, by rule, have to get flipped over once the money goes in. STILL. They ask questions. "Do you have a pair? Ace King? No, I think I've got live cards. I have ace high. Can you beat Ace high?" Jesus, in TWO ****ING SECONDS YOU WILL HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEED
Charles Bronson and Dolph Lundgren, hell yeah.