Roman Holiday

    Se acompanham o meu blog com alguma regularidade já sabem que uma das minhas actrizes preferidas (pelo menos daquele período) é a Audrey Hepburn e que de vez em quando me dá vontade de rever um dos seus filmes deliciosos, neste caso o eleito foi o "Férias em Roma" ou "Roman Holiday" se preferirem...desta vez ao ver o filme de outra perspectiva, depois de andar a dar uma vista de olhos a um guia da cidade de Roma, percebi que o guarda-roupa, a saia plissada abaixo do joelho e a blusa de manga curta são o guarda-roupa perfeito para umas férias em Roma neste Verão, para além da inspiração nos anos 50 e as saias mais compridas ou abaixo do joelho e plissadas serem uma tendência que começa lentamente a ganhar força neste Verão, essa selecção tem também um aspecto prático, sendo que com esta indumentária é nos permitido entrar nas igrejas em Roma, pormenor importante, já que o património religioso representa uma importante parte e é o de maior relevância...deixo-vos também algumas sugestões do estilo Audrey actualizado...

    As you know Audrey Hepburn is one of my favorite actresses and I love to watch her movies again...this time I saw "Roman Holiday", but after searching some Rome Travel Guides, I found out one particular aspect in the movie, although the clothes used by Audrey in the film, pleated skirt and blouse, are very beautiful and feminine, they are really the perfect outfit to spend Holidays in Rome this Summer, because in the city the most important monuments are churchs so you have to wear specific clothes...fortunately this summer long skirts are one of the biggest trends, I show you some examples of how to use them...

    sources: workchic.com

    Mango Spring/Summer 2011

    Zara - People - MELTEM T. - FRANKFURT

    Zara - People - RUBEN - BARCELONA


    There has been a lot of talk (loose and otherwise) about the idea of dismantling divisions in search of something... anything new--as if "new and improved!" actually meant that.

    This is likely just another example of Budzilla leaking some ideas to the press in order to see how people react (though this motive was a bit different when the world's luckiest used car salesman was spewing his swill about contraction). But just in case it isn't, it's time for me to jump in with both feet and take the discussion into a realm stranger than any visited by any of the various members of the Starship Free Enterprise.

    Let's start with the premise that leagues and divisions should be preserved as they are now as opposed to the free-for-all that has been suggested. They will be preserved, but at the same time subverted. That's what Budzilla did when he introduced inter-league play, something that became tiresome within a few years and has now been bedraggled into some of the sillier sabermetric efforts to characterize the relative strengths of the leagues.

    Yes, you can own a moral imperative--but the moral
    high ground is out of stock...
    In any event, our subversion will be, for lack of a better phrase, more subversive. It will strain the bounds of credulity due to its overactive and overheated double-entry method for awarding the extra wild card teams that Budzilla and the suits at the networks seem determined to cram down our throats.

    Forget about the idea of just having 30 teams go at it head-to-head. That's a messy schedule, even messier that the spaghettini of the present day. It can't be balanced, and since there is no balance possible in a baseball universe comprised of 30 teams (could it be that Budzilla refuses to expand because there just aren't enough reputable multi-millionaires left in the world to own franchises? Was contraction actually a moral imperative? Insert bitter laugh track here...).

    What we want is a schedule that combines the notion of everyone playing everyone else and a race within divisions. What we need in order to do this is a double-entry standings system which preserves the standard way of winning divisions and wild card but adds a divisional sub-component for awarding the second and third wild card teams in each league.

    Got that? OK, here's a chart that demonstrates it. We use the results from the 2010 AL to keep the ping-pong ball suspended in mid-air. You've got division winners (in orange). You've got a wild card team (in yellow). That's the same old schtuff you've been seeing for years now. What's new (and improved!) is the divisional overlay, the double entry standings that permit teams who otherwise aren't quite going to make the grade to enter into the post-season by excelling within their own division.

    The teams in green shading at the right--the Blue Jays and the Angels--are the two teams not already in the post-season through the front door with the best divisional records.

    Now you could argue (and you doubtless will...) that the teams that should be the extra wild card teams are the ones who had the best overall won-loss records after the top four teams. My counterarguments are two: 1) that's the boring, conventional way to do it; 2) paying attention to the divisions will be more interesting once we introduce the other schedule wrinkle.

    Brows suitably knitted? OK, here's how we do it. We overlay the idea that everyone plays everyone: each team plays the other 29 in two two-game (home and away) series. That totals 116 games. The other 46 games are played back inside the divisions. Those games, plus the inter-division games that occur due to the mandate of everyone playing everyone, count in the standings as a secondary selection system for the extra wild card teams.

    The theory is that teams will keep playing harder, especially within their own division, once they realize that they can make the playoffs by excelling within a subset of the season.

    While the 2010 example doesn't show the actual number of games that would be played in each division under the proposed system, we'll take the results from the intra-divisional standings to create a six-team postseason: for purposes of our next travesty, we'll single out the Rays, Jays, Yankees, Twins, Rangers, and Angels.

    So here's the next twist. There are no play-in series. There are three best-of-five first round series, each pitting a wild card team against a division winner, with the latter team getting the home field advantage.

    But...but--that leaves three teams for the second round! Well, yes, it does. How the heck does that work? It works as a round-robin tournament, that's how it works.

    (In the old days when we wrote this type of stuff, it was in a book--a very thick book that folks were loath to throw across the room due to possible orthopedic consequences. Now, with blogs, life is much better: you can simply throw your lap-top or mobile device across the room. Ready, aim, chuck!)

    OK, those of you who are left, in unison: how the hell can a round-robin tournament work?

    Actually, it works really well. Let's presume for purpose of fleshing this out that the three teams that make it to the second round are the Rays, Yankees, and Rangers. What you do is take all three teams to the same city--in this case Tampa Bay, home of the team with the best in-season won-loss record. There the Rays have two home games, against the Yankees and Rangers. After a day off, the series moves to New York, where the Yankees have two home games against the Rays and Rangers. After another day off, the series moves to Texas, where the Rangers have at least two home games against the Yankees and Rays. If one team hasn't won four games at this point, the series continues back to Tampa for two more games. And so on, until someone wins four games. If you lose four games, you are out.

    The sample result shows you how it works. The tension builds up in triplicate. Note, though, that this sample was picked to highlight a scenario that might produce some objections on the grounds of fairness. The Rays, battling back from 0-3, don't get a chance to win their fourth game because the Rangers get there first. Unfair?

    Actually, no. The Rays had six chances to win four games. So did the Rangers, who managed to do just that. It's baseball's newest innovation: its own version of the pocket veto. If you get there first in the same number of games--well, that's how it goes sometimes.

    Of course, it's not likely that this scenario will occur all that often. Some of you with advanced wise guy tendencies, however, are probably wondering what the heck happens in the above scenario if the Yankees actually win that last game from the Rangers. If they do that, the three teams have identical 3-3 records.

    So how the heck do you have a single playoff game that gives all three teams a chance to win their fourth game at the same time? Once again, Goode Olde Malcolm has painted himself into a corner. (Or, should we say, painted three teams into a corner all at once.)

    Fear not, for here is the greatest "new and improved!" innovation yet. You simply have all three teams play in the game against each other!

    "Uh...Don??" "Just how do they do that?" "Can I have some of what you're smoking??"

    It's simple. Each "inning" consists of three home-away matchups--NYY/TEX, TEX/TBR, TBR/NYY. There are a total of four of these (though I'm open to it being five). Teams are allowed to start two different pitchers and use differing lineups in each of the two "games" they are playing. That way there's no random luck involved in when batters and pitchers appear against each other. Each team gets eight times up, eight times in the field.

    A very special scorecard will be required in order to keep track of what's going on, and a whole new scoreboard arrangement will be necessary.

    OK, it's not simple. (Though it's a lot easier than keeping track of the three separate scores that this "troika game" produces--let's see: the Yankees beat Texas 5-2; the Rays beat Texas 3-2; the Rays beat the Yankees 2-1.) But it's kind of amazing to superimpose two separate games on top of each other and get one result. Two lineup cards, two separate pitchers, two chances for Mariano Rivera to earn a save.

    Now this is what baseball ought to trot out there for the fans--something new and improved! Well, something new and different, at least. Something that no one has seen before! Baseball needs to have its own version of a jubilee year, and free itself from its own preconceptions and knee-jerk traditions. A number of new strategies could emerge from such a playoff system, and once in a blue moon we will have a three-way free-for-all game such as the one described above.

    I guarantee you: if you ever saw a game such as the one described above, you would never--never, never ever--forget it.


    Inspiração para ver e ouvir...Arte+Moda+Música...os padrões galácticos e futuristas de Josh Goot em perfeita conjugação com a obra visual e ilusória de Anish Kapoor e o ritmo dos Muse...
    A Inspiração de hoje...uma chuva de estrelas em modo acelerado!!!

    Inspiration to see and listen...Art+Fashion+Music...the galactic patterns of the collection from Josh Goot make the perfect combination with the optical installations of Anish Kapoor and the music from Muse

    source: Jack and Jill blog / www.anishkappor.com

Art Shoes

    Uma campanha interessante e pouco usual de Christian Louboutin...a associação improvável entre obras-primas da pintura e os também icónicos sapatos da sola vermelha...a colecção de Louboutin surge como o elemento estranho em cada imagem, mas ao mesmo tempo perfeitamente enquadrado, como se sempre tivesse pertencido ali

    An interesting and unusual campaign of Christian Louboutin...the unlikely association between masterpieces of painting and the iconic red soles shoes...Louboutin collection emerges as the foreign element in each image, but at same time seems to have always belonged to that world

    source: fashiongonerogue - Christian Louboutin Autumn Winter 2011 Photos by Peter Lippmann

Who Have Afraid of Neon colors ?

    Quem tem medo de usar cores fluorescentes?...para alguns é simplesmente demais, como um ruído demasiado agudo ou o demasiado quente ou frio, eu pessoalmente acho que têm uma energia contagiante e eléctrica, e afinal é apenas cor, mas que no entanto nos pode influenciar...este Verão os neon regressaram em força especialmente pela mão de Christopher Kane, a sua colecção, de que já vos falei noutras ocasiões resultou de uma fusão tão improvável quanto provocatória, pensem na Princesa Margarida de Inglaterra (façam uma pesquisa no google se não estiverem a ver,lol), agora façam a fusão com o universo punk, sim,sim!! punk...e voilá!!...roupas bem comportadas em cores neon, em que a rede elástica se elevou a renda, provocador?... irónico?...e um pouco mais de tudo...

    Who have afraid of wearing fluorescent colors?...is simply too much for some people, like a sound that is too sharp or a food that is too hot or cold, I personally think they have an energetic vibe and after all, is just color...this summer the neon colors returned by the hand of Christopher Kane...imagine Princess Margaret of England mixed with the punk universe...and voilá!!..."well-behaved" clothes with neon colors...provocative, ironic...and a little more of everything...

    source: fashiongonerogue / www.anishkapoor.com / www.joanavasconcelos.com


    It is disgustingly simple (though not as simple as looking at average runs scored per game).

    We want to look at what the average winning percentage in baseball during any single year (from 1901 to the present) when the team scores four runs or less.

    The higher the aggregate WPCT, the lower the run scoring basis for the league is in that given year. The opposite applies as well: the higher the runs scoring, the lower the aggregate WPCT.

    The "normal operating range" for this value is between 275 and .325, with occasional spikes of deadball-style performance (remember, it's an inverse relationship, so we're looking at above .325 WPCT years--with 1968 sticking out as the year of years...in case you're wondering, that's a .362 WPCT for games with 4- runs scored) and extra-lively performance (the 20s and 30s, the 90s and the 00s).

    As the chart shows us, the recent reversal began in 2008, and the increase from 2009 to 2010 was actually about twice as much (.020) as the increase between 2010 and this year (thus far).

    We'll look at the percentages of games in the 4- runs bucket and the 5+ runs bucket soon, but for now realize that in terms of effective run scoring, offense is simply getting back into line with the historical average (teams win just a shade under 30% of the time when they score four runs or less).

THE INFLUENCER...A Influenciadora

    Monthly space in my blog to collect and share positive influences about fashion, art, places and a little more of everything...


    Concentração vibrante de cores fluorescentes conjugadas com uma atitude retro, o clássico versus super-moderno, a atitude perfeita para receber o primeiro dia de Verão...
    Vibrant fluorescent colors combined with a retro attitude, classic versus super-modern, the perfect mood to the first day of summer...

    Charlotte di Calypso by Chadwick Tyler for Vogue Türkiye May 2011
    source:http://noirfacade.livejournal.com/830245.html ; http://solnaaguafria.blogspot.com/


    The loss of Josh Johnson is a major reason why
    the Florida Marlins have been free-fallin'...
    While we were all elsewhere watching, the Florida Marlins have thrown their season into reverse. That grinding sound is what you hear when a team shifts while still moving...

    So, the question 'round the mulberry bush is: what happened?

    The answer is that the Fish pitchers stopped pitching. (Losing Josh Johnson didn't help.) In the last 21 games through June 18, Florida's hurlers have posted a 5.69 ERA--and this in what the glibocracy has taken to calling the "new deadball era." (Not--and certainly not if the Fish keep up this "pace." They seem to be doing whatever they can to reverse that trend all by themselves.)

    But, as is usually the case around here, that led to a larger question. Just how often does a team go 2-19 over a 21-game run? Thanks to Forman et fils, we can answer that question (though--Sean...Mr. Chairman--you can make this easier to do than how things are currently set up: remember who gave ya yer first break...).

    IT turns out that 2-19 isn't all that uncommon. The chart at right shows the worst 21-game stretches over the past dozen years (2000-2011). In seven of those twelve years, there has been at least one team who has tanked down to this level of decrepitude.

    What makes things a bit different in 2011, however, is that the Fish were 29-19 when this 500-mile stretch of bad road came up to greet them. When you look over the winning percentages of the teams appearing on this list, there is only one other playing .600 ball when they suddenly vaporized more than a tenth of the season.

    Who was that, you ask? The 2006 Arizona Diamondbacks, who were 34-22 when they hit the skids.

    The key characteristic of these teams when they go bad is that their pitching goes south. In the case of the 2007 Orioles (who actually won three games), the pitching is more like T-ball. I mean, jeez, 196 runs in 21 games--hell, even the 1930 Phillies weren't givin' them up that fast.

    (Check out those 2006 Cubs, though. 3-18 but they were projected to win nine games. That has to be some of the most concentrated examples of bad luck in a season--we're going to have to look more closely at that sometime.)

    All this brings up, of course, another question. Just how many teams have actually been worse than 2-19 over a 21-game stretch? Has anybody actually lost at 21 games?

    The answer is: hell yes, somebody did. Two somebodies became nobodies in just this fashion. The most recent: the 1988 Orioles (roll over, George Will). As shown in the chart at left, they joined the 1961 Phillies in the long walk off a short pier department.

    Some of these teams were only respectably bad (and I think we know how they got that way). But there are several of the worst teams in the history of baseball (OK, not our old pals the Cleveland Spiders--we'll have to break out their season sometime, too). You can tell which teams are in the deepest part of the slag heap by noting which of them have not one, but two separate 1-20 stretches during the same season.

    Yes, the 1916 Philadelphia A's and the 1935 Boston Bees are clearly in a league of their own. (Note that the A's 1-20 streaks are adjacent to one another, meaning that they went 2-40 over that stretch. Outside of those Spiders, this has got to be the worst fourth of a season ever turned in--even the Bees went 7-35 in their worst 42-game stretch!)

    Our last chart shows the distribution of fewest wins over any 21-game stretch in all seasons from 1901 to the present. The range is 0 to 4. The average crept upward by decade until the 1960s, and then has declined a bit ever since. There hasn't been a year where the lowest 21-game win total was 4 since 1986.

    Of course, the Fish still have a chance to get to 1-20 (they are 1-18 in June). No one other than Anibal Sanchez has won a game for them since Memorial Day. As Chester A. Riley used to say, it's a revoltin' development...

Total Pageviews