CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Boy, I didn't think I was watching trendsetting stuff when the 2013 Brewers played Yuni B and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Alex+Gonzalez">Alex Gonzalez</a></span> at 1B, but the secret appears to be out!
There's also this assertion: "Baseball is fun because there’s a game nearly every day for six months. I can’t stress the corollary enough: The fun part about that is that you don’t have to watch all of them, or even the entirety of the games you do watch. "
But what of the folks who DO have to watch these games? When you watch baseball for a living (and there are many different jobs that require this) the extra minutes add up to a significantly changed work experience. I'm not saying that a game should be changed because journalists don't like watching it, but at least some of the ink spilled on this topic is due to the personal impact that bad pace of game has on the livelihood of those talking about the game.
Also, well played, snappy baseball is way more fun to watch. Slow due to tension is one thing. But slow pitchers or 32 throws to first in a 7-1 Tuesday night game isn't better baseball, even with the nacho and bathroom break. It's just wasted time.
It would be nice to see domestic violence written about in a way that acknowledges that not all abusers are male. That's one of the reasons why it is, in fact, a human rights issue. Problems Werth baseball's attitudes are even revealed in this way, as witness the guffaws that greeted <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=179">Chuck Finley</a></span> some years ago. "Domestic violence" is not a synonym for "violence against women." From a player policy perspective, of course, that is the issue, but the writing should be more careful here.
I think <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=36213">Goose Gossage</a></span> might have an interesting reaction to this article. Maybe you should send him a copy! /snark
I was thinking the same thing. But he did say they were time travelling.
I liked you.
any guy from 25-45 is guaranteed to have been awed by Russell's opening day blasts in Milwaukee; they're still the stuff of legend and wintertime dreams. Russell, please don't retire, and Doug Melvin, can't we find a spot for RTM?
that's more a medical side. Maury is explaining the process side, based on his expertise.
I'm sorry, I just can't stop.....
"But such moments are few and far between. Pavement has trouble with song beginnings and endings. The lead track, "Silence Kit," begins with 20 seconds of aimless noodling that sets the tone for the entire record, that lets the world know they just don't care."
Gosh, no one's ever done the "tighten up" intro before, have they? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8JppI
I think of Beethoven every single time I hear the intro to Silence Kit. Like it, don't like it--totally fine. But evidence that he/pavement aren't good musicians? That they don't care?
I'll take your advice at face value, and think very categorially about why I like Pavement. But let me suggest that your lack of liking them has convinced you that they aren't any good, or at least to invent a criteria by which you could "objectively" justify your own disliking.
The problem I had with this entire metaphor is that it relies on the idea that there is some way that we can define who is "good at music" that mirrors the ways we can identify who is "good at baseball." There are plenty of ways to put WARP on the board, some pretty, some not. But the way we SHOULD distinguish them is whether the WARP appear or not. How can we do that with Pavement? I think conflating technical proficiency with winning is to commingle a perfectly reasonable personal taste with something that at least has some objectively demonstrable characteristics.
if you think that people see themselves in Steven Malkmus, you're looking at the wrong thing. They definitely embody the slacker-vibe of mid/late 90s lore, but the whole point of Malkmus love is "Steven-as-guitar-god" not "hey, I could play that well and be a rock star, too." You may not like their output, but they were able to put runs on the board. The result is that they're not like Bloomquist, who in addition to "looking bad" as a ball player, also doesn't contribute to winning. I'm not sure how you define "winning" in music, but my choice is "people enjoy my music and have a good time listening to it."
If we translated your argument from pavement to sport, it'd be like saying that guys who aren't fundamentally sound (but still manage to make shots/hit home runs/catch footballs) aren't actually good players. That argument is simply, demonstrably false. It may be true that such players/bands are less likely to have long careers, or that they are easier to defend in the long run, or a bunch of other stuff. But basically, you're complaining that Stephen Malkmus doesn't work out enough the offseason, so his execution is sloppy. The question remains, so what, and why is this an effective metaphor to examine player performance? It's not like he performed Beethoven's 5th, so we can say "wow, Barenboim's conduction results in a much crisper performance" or something like that. What I'm hearing here is, ironically enough, the exact sort of arguments that are used to DEFEND the Ecksteins of the world (namely, that they "play the game the right way" and they have alot of gristle and whatnot.) Can we please get over that?
I love the internet.
Bradley, does it matter how deep his pockets run? The point of "sunk cost" is that Crane is going to have to spend the money if he doesn't trade them, so if he gets back great players in exchange for paying them to play elsewhere (and replaces them with young guys making the minimum), his relative wealth simply isn't part of the equation.
I somehow got this number.
nick punto is just bad, not fun.
why can't jeter be the goat? 250/280/292 ain't exactly the stuff of dreams, 6-24 isn't significantly better than 2-23.
In that case, get a load of my number!
you and me both, Greg. I've been handwringing for the last two years as the originals all departed. i think this renewal is the last.
could we compromise here and use, say, Creed instead?
Um, so are you saying that Cantu is one of the best 3rd basemen of the last 20 years?
just another brewers fan piping up.
If you do a Milwaukee event, I suspect ("though I have absolutely no reason for this belief") that the entire Pitch FX crew for Milwaukee would attend. We're only 90 miles (and a great train ride) up the coast from Chicago.
Cf cameras massively distort perceived strikes. I learned this working as a Questec operator in the mid 2000s, where I could compare plotted location with what I saw live in real-time. I learned to adjust my sense of what was what, particularly involving lefty-to righty and righty-to lefty pitches, but also involving when/where/how breaking pitches actually cross the planes of the strike zone.
what two years dragging down the twins staff are you talking about? are you talking about his first 120 IP in teh majors as a 21-22 year old who got 9 starts and 37 Relief appearances?
yeah, it's a bit much to wave away Parra's season as "bad luck" since he's done the same thing for three years in a row--had control problems combined with great stuff.
It is a small decentralized operation that sells its services. The editing drumbeat should continue to grow. Blogging in real time is one thing; retrospective articles is another. Great content, let's clean it up.
This is flat wrong. They had a $20 million operating surplus that was distributed to the partners (who had loaned the money to the franchise in the first place, during the Ramirez dumping days). This isn't 20+20, it's a case of earning a profit to pay off prior debts--just like earning a surplus to pay off your student loans.
Yost did something like that with Suppan for 2 years. Hit in the bottom of the 5th, pull him after walking the first batter of the 6th or whatever.
just so everyone is clear: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-sp.maese23may23,0,2772232.column
sandy alomar and benito santiago?
Joe, as another of the subscribers to your email newsletter (man, it was a different time, wasn't it?) I'll miss your BP articles as well. .
the TBS trax is not "hard" installed in the parks and is calibrated before each broadcast by an op who runs the system once a week (at best) during the regular season. Pitch FX is "hard" installed in each park, is calibrated as needed throughout the season, and is operated by teams who are stationed in each park for every game. If TBS can't get on the field to do a good calibration before the game, the results are abysmal--an outcome I observed firsthand during a Sunday TBS broadcast this season. They use the PFX data, but they display using their own calibration, so the two are not the same.
The problem with the TBS tracker is that it is not permanently mounted--it is set up for each broadcast. I watched the operator one Saturday desperately try to configure the software and have no luck whatsoever, with laughable broadcast results. It's not that they use an abacus, it's that they use great technology without a firm fix in space, and for a tracker, that's near deadly.
yes, nate silver has written an article comparing pecota to the other systems each year. And BP usually runs an article reviewing their pre-season predicitons. Joe, in particular, will review what he picked and offer self-criticism.
That argument would make sense if Anderson hadn't come so cheaply--probably valued about what he was worth.
so the phillies knew he was on the downside, eh? Something about 2008 looked different than 2006? He may well be on the downside, but I can't imagine the Phillies said "hey, Pat Burrell's on the downside, let's fix that with...37 year old Raul Ibanez!"
Christina, that still doesn't make any sense. Mike Rivera is as good as Bard or Zaun (or at least close enough where the difference is meaningless) so there just isn't a need to cover for the loss of Kendall. In fact, I think it's quite possible that Rivera might exceed Kendall's overall contribution. Regardless, the difference between Rivera and whatever backup might be out there is not the real issue facing this team. The "H" problem is real, as is the starting staff.
Are there really two Christopher Millers with user #s under 100? That seems bizarre.
Re the Astros "This is bad."
Did you mean that as an overall impression of the Astro's deal, or Carlos Lee's situation in particular?
re: point 5--You're quite right. The increasing "8th inning guy" claims amount to the epicycles of the "closer" myth. Since the "closer" is TRUE, you have to have guys who can "get to" the closer and make him relevant. Just so long as the closer is TRUE, you will see this sort of bullpen-creep. It takes the creation of an entire new model to sweep away this sort of stuff.
I'd like to point out that the relative "size" of ballplayers is a bone of contention for me. I walk the field in Milwaukee on a regular basis, and I'm consistently shocked by how SMALL all of the players are--even, say, Prince Fielder. These guys are, even if taller, only recognizable by their smaller girth. I may just be a Wisconsinite talking, but Corey Hart isn't that tall, Seth McClung isn't that big, and Prince Fielder isn't that rotund, at least not compared to the average person on the street. And that's remarkable, compared to football and basketball.
my guess is that Joe's blind spot about Dunn has a signficant correlation to his longstanding tendency to over-pick the Reds over the past few years. Braun is an altogether better ballplayer--a better hitter (though some more patience would help) and a better fielder. Braun is also a better athelete and better on the basepaths. Top it off with intangibles, and the complete package is an order of magnitude better. Do I like Adam Dunn? absolutely, but if he's hitting 3rd for my team, I'm in trouble.
most certainly--your system metaphorically follows the stoplight. but what I\'m saying is that our normal use of \"high\" and \"low\" are in inverse order to how (perhaps) they \"should\" be. We speak of \"high\" rankings that are actually \"low\" numbers. So when you speak of high green, I think for many people, that references \"good\" rather than the \"bad\" (within the green range) that you intend. It\'s not that you\'re wrong--it\'s just that your usages conflict with other , engrained usages, especially amongst sports fans. Does it make any sense that #1 is a \"high\" ranking? Of course not. But the usage and the precedent exist--just as the traffic light does.
Fangraphs refuses to take writing seriously. The writers react to editing as if they are allergic to it. It\'s a shame, because the stats, graphs, and analysis are often quite good.
I think it\'s the idea that green is at the bottom. It\'s as if, when describing the College top 25, you talked about how \"high\" (bad) a ranking seems for the #23 team or how low (good) it seems for the #2 team. Of course, we use those terms to refer to positions on the list, not the underlying numbers.
hey, it\'s great to see another wisconsin reader. Will you join the drumbeat for a BP event in Milwaukee?
oops--make that NE (not NW) of Austin.
Snow\'s BBQ in Lexington, TX (about 75 min NW of Austin) ships, and is the best brisket I have ever had. Forget about Coopers or Dreamland. And it\'s worth the Saturday morning trip (opens 7am).
point 2) absolutely--integrate the contract data and analysis. The loss of Doug Pappas has never been properly filled from a content perspective (setting aside the personal and emotional voids also created).
another BP reader in Milwaukee? Can you join me in my annual demand for a Book event here for once?
just to clarify, the Brewers knew of Torres\' retirement plans, and exercised their option as a hedge against him changing his mind and signing elsewhere for no compensation. It\'s actually a nice manouver, so it probably deserves better than throwaway snark.
I thought exactly the same thing, since I remember the first time you left BP, and the subsequent email from you about your newsletter. This had the same tone....
I have to agree with this comment. As a Pitch F/X operator, I learned pretty quickly that the off-center CF cams often deceive as to pitch location. Over time, I learned to correct my mental vision, but it took many games. Let\'s not get crazy about the precision that these broadcast tools offer.
On the other hand, I\'m firmly in favor of \"you flinch, you swung\" as a principle for \"checked\" swings.