Sammy Sosa is suing a developer for the alleged late delivery of over $8M worth of Florida condo (beisbol has been berry berry good to heem).
The developer isn't taking this lying down. He's counter-suing, alleging that Sosa contributed to the delays when Sosa belatedly tried to customize the units.
Slow news day, ain't it?
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Is There No End to the Good that Lawyers Can Do?
Shyster approves of lawyers giving money to youth baseball.
Shyster also approves of cognitive dissonance:
There is nothing more professional and competent than three lawyers with two pairs of Dockers between them. Sharks, I tell you. Sharks!
For the past four years, [the Tallahassee law firm of Fonvielle, Lewis, Foote & Messer] has been the biggest supporter of youth baseball, donating $4,500 annually to cover the cost of uniforms for nine teams in the Dizzy Dean League at all six city parks.
Shyster also approves of cognitive dissonance:
Not only does their sponsorship help to put a well-dressed team on the field, but it's a morale boost, Messer said.
“The more professional you look, the more professional you feel and the more competent you feel. I think it makes for a better team . . ."
This from a group of high-priced private practice attorneys who look like this:
There is nothing more professional and competent than three lawyers with two pairs of Dockers between them. Sharks, I tell you. Sharks!
A Ballpark in Progress
Brian VanderBeek of The Modesto Bee muses about Thurman Field, a ballpark that remains a work in progress ten years after its putative completion:
From how he tells it, it's not necessarily a bad thing. There are several major league venues that would have benefited from such an approach as opposed to the "let's cram all of the charm we can into the place on day one" aesthetic that prevails in today's retro parks.
I've been there for most of the games since the 1997 grand opening, with the number of national anthems and first-pitch ceremonies somewhere near 700. The one constant in those 10 years has not been a constant at all, but the ever-changing face and feel of Thurman Field.
It was erected in a design-and-build fashion, the construction industry's polite way to say "on the fly." New things were proposed each day, then erected, or altered or eliminated completely as the budget would allow.
What the city got was the best ballpark $2.2 million of taxpayer money possibly could build, and a work in progress. I think it was meant to be that way — perpetually.
From how he tells it, it's not necessarily a bad thing. There are several major league venues that would have benefited from such an approach as opposed to the "let's cram all of the charm we can into the place on day one" aesthetic that prevails in today's retro parks.
OMFG I got ur tix!!!one11!!
The A's are going to let you use your mobile phone as a ticket.
When the old man at the gate rips your phone in two, don't say I didn't warn you.
When the old man at the gate rips your phone in two, don't say I didn't warn you.
There Are No Such Things as Accidents
But how this is the Mets' fault, I have no idea:
A die-hard Mets fan whose back was broken when a boozy fan tumbled onto her has filed a lawsuit against the team.
Ellen Massey sustained a cracked vertebra during the team's home opener last month when she was slammed into by a flying fan who was allegedly toting a cup of beer.
Flying?
Monday, May 7, 2007
Guest Shyster: Mark Noel Rants on About Kearns, Lenin, and Andy Griffith
A bunch of people took me to task last week for the piece on the Kearns trade. Mostly fair task-taking in that I made a lot of sloppy mistakes, the sort of which are inevitable when one tries to blog clandestinely while pretending to do real work. But you'll have that, I suppose.
Most of the vitriol, predictably, came from Reds fans who claimed that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. That's probably true too, but so much of it seemed to come from that special slice of fandom who will simply not tolerate someone writing anything kind about their team's management. These folks long-ago decided that Krivsky was the anti-Christ, and far be it from some dumb blogger to tell them otherwise. They too are entitled to their opinion, so I took it all with the grain of salt I hope they intended and went on to other things.
My friend Mark Noel, however -- the man who inspired me to write about the trade in the first place -- is not willing to go so gentle into that goodnight, and so he wrote down a few hundred measured but intense words on the subject. I don't want to detract from the grandeur of his post by crudely excerpting it, so I'm going to post his whole rant below. Enjoy.
If anyone wants to tell Mark he's full of it, go register your objections to him directly at the RedsZone forums (go here -- registration required to get into this thread), where he is taking on all comers. I'll also freely pass on to Mark anything you have to say to him. Note: Mark is a real person, not some blogger's construct designed to distance myself from the argument. I'm not a Reds fan, and I'm done with the Kearns trade. Mark is just getting started.
A word of warning, however: like me, Mark is himself a shyster. Unlike me, however, Mark is not so burned out on the litigation business that he's above suing you until Hell won't have it if you piss him off, so watch your step. Also, contrary to what Mark says, I'm almost certain that he does believe that the cancellation of the Andy Griffith Show caused the assassinations and social unrest of 1968, and is merely pretending that he doesn't for rhetorical purposes. Doesn't change the point, but I thought that you should know what you're dealing with.
-- Shyster
REASSESSING "REASSESSING THE KEARNS TRADE"
Most of the vitriol, predictably, came from Reds fans who claimed that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. That's probably true too, but so much of it seemed to come from that special slice of fandom who will simply not tolerate someone writing anything kind about their team's management. These folks long-ago decided that Krivsky was the anti-Christ, and far be it from some dumb blogger to tell them otherwise. They too are entitled to their opinion, so I took it all with the grain of salt I hope they intended and went on to other things.
My friend Mark Noel, however -- the man who inspired me to write about the trade in the first place -- is not willing to go so gentle into that goodnight, and so he wrote down a few hundred measured but intense words on the subject. I don't want to detract from the grandeur of his post by crudely excerpting it, so I'm going to post his whole rant below. Enjoy.
If anyone wants to tell Mark he's full of it, go register your objections to him directly at the RedsZone forums (go here -- registration required to get into this thread), where he is taking on all comers. I'll also freely pass on to Mark anything you have to say to him. Note: Mark is a real person, not some blogger's construct designed to distance myself from the argument. I'm not a Reds fan, and I'm done with the Kearns trade. Mark is just getting started.
A word of warning, however: like me, Mark is himself a shyster. Unlike me, however, Mark is not so burned out on the litigation business that he's above suing you until Hell won't have it if you piss him off, so watch your step. Also, contrary to what Mark says, I'm almost certain that he does believe that the cancellation of the Andy Griffith Show caused the assassinations and social unrest of 1968, and is merely pretending that he doesn't for rhetorical purposes. Doesn't change the point, but I thought that you should know what you're dealing with.
-- Shyster
REASSESSING "REASSESSING THE KEARNS TRADE"
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" - V.I. Lenin
As the Reds fan who inspired Shyster's latest column, "Reassessing The Kearns Trade," I feel a good deal of responsibility for some of the critical remarks Shyster has taken on baseballthinkfactory.com and redszone.com. The article has generated over 100 posts at redszone.com. Generally speaking, those who still disagree with the trade will admit that the Reds have since improved with Hamilton and Gonzalez but raise two arguments on why the trade was nevertheless a mistake: (1) the Reds should have gotten more value for those players; and (2) the trade failed to achieve its stated purpose, which was to make the team better in 2006.
As to the first argument, it can only be debated with conjecture. The Reds gave up an average hitting NL right fielder with good defensive skills. They gave up an error-prone shortstop with a decent bat. It is clear that both players, arbitration eligible with free agency on the horizon, were getting expensive relative to their production. It is also clear that Wayne Krivsky wanted to go in a different long-term direction. Who knows what type of return Krivsky was offered for these players. My sense is that it was much less than Reds fans expect. Teams can go out and get players with similar production for perhaps a bit more money in free agency and not have to give up any players in return, even if those players are unproven prospects or major league rookies. It's very similar to my mentality when I am trading in a car, holding a garage sale, or selling my junk on eBay - I am consistently disappointed in the selling price. Human beings tend to over-value their own property relative to what is offered on the free and open market. I think that goes for fans of sports teams as well.
While the first argument may be worthy of debate, the second argument is where I was most concerned. I read posts pointing out that the Reds were 45-44 before the trade and 35-38 after it. As one poster on redszone.com put it: "Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub. That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure." Another poster pointed out how the Reds team batting average and runs per game dropped after the trade.
I began to worry. Had I been wrong? Had I let Shyster down? Had the loss of Kearns' and Lopez's bats really caused my Reds to miss out on that playoff spot for which they fell 3.5 games short. I decided to investigate by checking the stats. My conclusion is that many Reds fans have fallen for (or purposefully refused to see through) the fallacy that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The Andy Griffith Show went off the air on April 1, 1968. Within the next couple months, great Americans Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. I suppose one could argue that without the Andy Griffith Show, Americans lost their sense of civility and family values and that was the cause of these senseless tragedies. However, my gut tells me that there were other causal factors in play and the Andy Griffith Show-1968 assassinations was merely a spurious correlation.
Like the above example, after looking at the statistics, I became convinced that while there was a drop in run production and wins during the post-trade 2006 Reds season, that decline had very little to do with the absence of Kearns and Lopez. Rather, it is almost exclusively attributable to the horrendous September slumps of the other six starters in the Reds lineup.
Trade bashers ignore that the Reds improved their record from 45-44 at the trade on July 14th to 67-61 by August 24th. In so doing, they gained five games on their pre-trade record and were in a virtual first place deadlock with the Cardinals (who were 66-60 on August 24th). After August 24th, the wheels fell off. The Reds went 13-21 and finished 3.5 games behind the Cardinals for the NL Central title. The reasons for this decline can almost exclusively be explained by the September batting averages of the Reds' other six position players:
Adam Dunn: .157
Ken Griffy, Jr.: .071
Edwin Encarnacion: .214
Brandon Phillips: .149
Scott Hatteburg: .206
David Ross: .185
Given that team-wide futility, Alex Rodriquez and Alphonso Soriano could not have made the Reds winners in September, 2006, much less Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez. Royce Clayton was bench for most of September (going .206 in only 34 at bats). Meanwhile, Rich Aurillia, who ended up replacing Clayton at short for most of the games in September, hit a tidy .344 in September with 90 at bats. Austin Kearns was replaced by a platoon of Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia. While Freel struggled along with the rest of the team (a .206 September batting average with 53 at bats), Chris Denorfia hit .352 in September in 54 at bats. The Reds got equal or better offensive production during their decline in September 2006 from the Kearns and Lopez replacements. The problem was everyone else.
I wasn't the biggest trade supporter at the time. But I've come to realize that it probably resulted in a net benefit for the Reds organization and did not cost the Reds a 2006 run at glory. I think that some were so vehemently against the trade that, in an attempt to prove they were right, they have endorsed bogus arguments such as the trade cost the 2006 Reds a playoff spot. That sentiment has been echoed so many times that even though clearly wrong, it has been generally accepted as the truth.
I don't think every move Wayne Krivsky has made has been correct. I'm still scratching my head at the Rheal Cormier acquisition. I am frustrated that the Reds have not gone out and gotten a legitimate closer. However, from the top down, the Reds organization was one of the poorest run MLB systems in the 21st Century prior to Krivsky's arrival. If one looks realistically at the Reds roster prior to spring training 2006 (when Krivsky took over), I don't see how one can contend that the Reds have not improved in starting pitching, defense, and offense. Arroyo is pitching brilliantly, Lohse has started the season well, Gonzalez is an upgrade at short, Phillips is an upgrade at second, and Hamilton has been an upgrade from the beloved Austin Kearns. The bullpen is a disaster, but Rome was not built in a day. I'm excited about the long term signings of Arroyo and Harang, the prospect of Homer Bailey being in the rotation, and the nucleus of young players in who could shine in the next 3-4 seasons (Hamilton, Phillips, Encarnacion, Joey Votto, and Jay Bruce). Reds fans should give Wayne Krivsky a little patience in turning around the train wreck he inherited.
In the meantime, debate whether Krivsky got enough in return for Lopez and Kearns. However, don't fall victim to the notions that the Reds have downgraded at those positions long-term or that the trade cost the Reds a playoff spot in 2006. The numbers say otherwise and, unlike popular perception, the numbers don't lie.
As the Reds fan who inspired Shyster's latest column, "Reassessing The Kearns Trade," I feel a good deal of responsibility for some of the critical remarks Shyster has taken on baseballthinkfactory.com and redszone.com. The article has generated over 100 posts at redszone.com. Generally speaking, those who still disagree with the trade will admit that the Reds have since improved with Hamilton and Gonzalez but raise two arguments on why the trade was nevertheless a mistake: (1) the Reds should have gotten more value for those players; and (2) the trade failed to achieve its stated purpose, which was to make the team better in 2006.
As to the first argument, it can only be debated with conjecture. The Reds gave up an average hitting NL right fielder with good defensive skills. They gave up an error-prone shortstop with a decent bat. It is clear that both players, arbitration eligible with free agency on the horizon, were getting expensive relative to their production. It is also clear that Wayne Krivsky wanted to go in a different long-term direction. Who knows what type of return Krivsky was offered for these players. My sense is that it was much less than Reds fans expect. Teams can go out and get players with similar production for perhaps a bit more money in free agency and not have to give up any players in return, even if those players are unproven prospects or major league rookies. It's very similar to my mentality when I am trading in a car, holding a garage sale, or selling my junk on eBay - I am consistently disappointed in the selling price. Human beings tend to over-value their own property relative to what is offered on the free and open market. I think that goes for fans of sports teams as well.
While the first argument may be worthy of debate, the second argument is where I was most concerned. I read posts pointing out that the Reds were 45-44 before the trade and 35-38 after it. As one poster on redszone.com put it: "Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub. That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure." Another poster pointed out how the Reds team batting average and runs per game dropped after the trade.
I began to worry. Had I been wrong? Had I let Shyster down? Had the loss of Kearns' and Lopez's bats really caused my Reds to miss out on that playoff spot for which they fell 3.5 games short. I decided to investigate by checking the stats. My conclusion is that many Reds fans have fallen for (or purposefully refused to see through) the fallacy that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The Andy Griffith Show went off the air on April 1, 1968. Within the next couple months, great Americans Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. I suppose one could argue that without the Andy Griffith Show, Americans lost their sense of civility and family values and that was the cause of these senseless tragedies. However, my gut tells me that there were other causal factors in play and the Andy Griffith Show-1968 assassinations was merely a spurious correlation.
Like the above example, after looking at the statistics, I became convinced that while there was a drop in run production and wins during the post-trade 2006 Reds season, that decline had very little to do with the absence of Kearns and Lopez. Rather, it is almost exclusively attributable to the horrendous September slumps of the other six starters in the Reds lineup.
Trade bashers ignore that the Reds improved their record from 45-44 at the trade on July 14th to 67-61 by August 24th. In so doing, they gained five games on their pre-trade record and were in a virtual first place deadlock with the Cardinals (who were 66-60 on August 24th). After August 24th, the wheels fell off. The Reds went 13-21 and finished 3.5 games behind the Cardinals for the NL Central title. The reasons for this decline can almost exclusively be explained by the September batting averages of the Reds' other six position players:
Adam Dunn: .157
Ken Griffy, Jr.: .071
Edwin Encarnacion: .214
Brandon Phillips: .149
Scott Hatteburg: .206
David Ross: .185
Given that team-wide futility, Alex Rodriquez and Alphonso Soriano could not have made the Reds winners in September, 2006, much less Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez. Royce Clayton was bench for most of September (going .206 in only 34 at bats). Meanwhile, Rich Aurillia, who ended up replacing Clayton at short for most of the games in September, hit a tidy .344 in September with 90 at bats. Austin Kearns was replaced by a platoon of Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia. While Freel struggled along with the rest of the team (a .206 September batting average with 53 at bats), Chris Denorfia hit .352 in September in 54 at bats. The Reds got equal or better offensive production during their decline in September 2006 from the Kearns and Lopez replacements. The problem was everyone else.
I wasn't the biggest trade supporter at the time. But I've come to realize that it probably resulted in a net benefit for the Reds organization and did not cost the Reds a 2006 run at glory. I think that some were so vehemently against the trade that, in an attempt to prove they were right, they have endorsed bogus arguments such as the trade cost the 2006 Reds a playoff spot. That sentiment has been echoed so many times that even though clearly wrong, it has been generally accepted as the truth.
I don't think every move Wayne Krivsky has made has been correct. I'm still scratching my head at the Rheal Cormier acquisition. I am frustrated that the Reds have not gone out and gotten a legitimate closer. However, from the top down, the Reds organization was one of the poorest run MLB systems in the 21st Century prior to Krivsky's arrival. If one looks realistically at the Reds roster prior to spring training 2006 (when Krivsky took over), I don't see how one can contend that the Reds have not improved in starting pitching, defense, and offense. Arroyo is pitching brilliantly, Lohse has started the season well, Gonzalez is an upgrade at short, Phillips is an upgrade at second, and Hamilton has been an upgrade from the beloved Austin Kearns. The bullpen is a disaster, but Rome was not built in a day. I'm excited about the long term signings of Arroyo and Harang, the prospect of Homer Bailey being in the rotation, and the nucleus of young players in who could shine in the next 3-4 seasons (Hamilton, Phillips, Encarnacion, Joey Votto, and Jay Bruce). Reds fans should give Wayne Krivsky a little patience in turning around the train wreck he inherited.
In the meantime, debate whether Krivsky got enough in return for Lopez and Kearns. However, don't fall victim to the notions that the Reds have downgraded at those positions long-term or that the trade cost the Reds a playoff spot in 2006. The numbers say otherwise and, unlike popular perception, the numbers don't lie.
-- Mark Noel
That Ryan Freel is a Magnificent Bastard
A feel-good piece about Josh Hamilton's fast start. We've seen a lot of these by now, so you know what to expect. The story of an addiction seemingly beaten, the aw-shucks wonder of a nice kid off to a Hobbsian start, the self-congratulatory quotes from Ryan Freel:
The Reds' Ryan Freel watches Hamilton and marvels every day at his talent.This isn't the first time Freel (or someone on his behalf) has managed to turn the Josh Hamilton story into the Ryan Freel story. Check out this love-letter from last month about just how damn great an American Freel was for getting pushed off of center field in favor of the clearly-superior Hamilton:"He's just a treat to watch out there," Freel said. "He's opening a lot of people's eyes. I'm his biggest fan. I knew he had this ability in him. This guy can play.
By virtue of his athletic talent and personal journey, Hamilton is indisputably worthy of all the goodwill that has been doted on him over the past two months. And yet, as the script turns the way most people seem to want it to, the gallant character is compellingly played by Freel.
. . .Five years the little guy has been here, barreling into walls and straining the cleansing properties of whatever the clubhouse guys put on his earth-bearing trousers . . .
. . .[Freel] essentially offered his position to the tattooed rookie . . .. . .His success has been so sudden, and so celebrated, that a measure of resentment would not be unexpected from the Reds' clubhouse. But Hamilton's sincerity has precluded such a sentiment. The prevailing feeling is more like what Freel said. "It means a lot," Hamilton submitted by way of reply. "It speaks volumes about Freel."
In a story putatively about Josh Hamilton. Look, I'll give Mr. Scrappy credit for not sulking when Hamilton unexpectedly left him without a position, but the extent to which Hamilton's emergence has been couched in terms of how wonderful Ryan Freel has been throughout all of it is starting to wear thin. We get it, everyone: Freel is scrappy. He hustles. He's selfless. Lord only hopes he's single when it comes time for my daughter to start dating.
But let’s not forget that he’s not much more than a useful utilityman who somehow conned the Reds into thinking that he was a starting centerfielder. Intangibles are great, but even if Freel's “admirable selflessness” is required to figure in to every story written about Josh Hamilton, it doesn’t figure into Freel’s VORP, so let’s cool our jets about him for a while, okay?
Quote of the Day
"Why the fuck don't you guys leave me alone?"
Seattle Mariners pitcher Julio Mateo, as he was leaving his arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court after being charged with third degree assault for beating his wife.
I agree, Julio. What is the world coming to when a professional athlete can't beat his wife, choke her, bite her lip, and send her to the hospital for stitches without suffering the harsh glare of flashbulbs from the vultures in the New York press?
We're, Er, Outraged. Kinda.
After a respectful period during which they allowed emotions to soften and nerves to heal, the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Times Leader sent a man to Columbus, Ohio recently in order to see how Central Ohioans are coping with the Yankees' cutting ties with the Clippers in favor of the Red Barons.
Apparently we're doing OK.
Oh sure, the reporter found some random claims adjuster who was angry, and he managed to get the mayor's spokesman to say that the move "didn't sit well" with some in Columbus, but that's about as far as it goes. Even the mayor's guy backtracked in the next paragraph, saying that "there wasn't an outcry." A Columbus Dispatch reporter was interviewed who claimed he was "shocked by the apparent apathy," and that he was "surprised that there wasn't more of a backlash."
Which is about right. I live in Columbus, and beyond the handful of Yankees fans, no one gives a tinker's damn that the Clippers are now affiliated with the Nats. There were no great players here before because the Yankees sold off all of their prospects. There are none now because the Nats never had any in the first place. Aside from some stunt roster moves -- we had a few Irabu sightings in the late 90s and Drew Henson manned third for what seemed like a decade -- it's been deadsville since Jeter got called up. Attendance: about the same. New stadium: still on track. It just isn't an issue in C-Bus, where the years may come and go, but ignoring the Clippers is a constant.
Which has me thinking about that reporter from Scranton. What do you suppose his assignment was? My guess is that he was tasked with coming back with a story of outraged Ohioans, bitter as hell at what Scranton gained at their expense. While on the surface such a story may cast Scranton in the horse thief role, you know they'd eat it up. People love to be outraged at the outrage of others. After some momentary guilt, Joe Scranton would think to himself "screw those Columbus mutts. We love us some Yankees here in eastern PA. They weren't worthy in the first place." Other Scrantonians would feel some silent glee at the fact that, for once in their lives, they had something to brag about besides the size of their culm dumps.
But aside from one deranged claims adjuster, they didn't get it. Columbusites (Columbusers? I've been here awhile and I really don't know) came through with our typical apathy.
I couldn't be more proud.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
We Only Hate the Ones We Know
John Amaechi should not be known merely as the first gay NBA player. He should be known as the first egotistically delusional gay NBA player!
"I underestimated America. I braced myself for the wrath of a nation under God," Amaechi said at the Log Cabin Republicans' annual convention. "I imagined that it would be a firestorm, that it would be some insane number of letters demanding my deportation or my death."
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that in order for your run of the mill homophobia to turn into homicidal homophobia, the homophobe in question has to feel threatened. He has to feel like he's being attacked, or in the case of a celebrity or athlete, he has to feel insecure in his manhood for having been a fan or admirer, as if that very act makes him all icky and gay. For that to happen he has to, you know, have heard of you. Not to take anything away from your genuine courage and admirable candor, John, but the first reaction of even the most intolerant Americans wasn't "kill Amaechi!" It was "who's Amaechi?" As a former NBA journeyman no one had heard of until you came out, you simply don't rate with the Billy-Bob Queer-Bashers of the world. Sorry.
Amaechi goes on to note that none of his former teammates have contacted him since he came out of the closet:
"Probably 30 of my former [NBA] teammates have my e-mail and my telephone contacts and probably 16 or so of those I was in regular touch with and there are probably 10 people who I have [on instant messenger]. And zero -- nobody -- who's active in the NBA has been in touch with me since the day I came out, despite the fact that most of them knew I was gay in the first place," Amaechi said.
Why could that be?
"[Professional athletes] are our gladiators, our heroes. On the other hand, there's not many of you would trust them with your children, with your car keys or to do your accounting," he said. "Let's face it, for the most part, the stereotype is that they -- we -- are dumb as rocks. So, I don't know if they are a terribly good group to be looked at as kind of indicative of societal change or as leaders in that respect."
Oh, because in addition to being first gay NBA player and the first egotistically delusional gay NBA player, John Amaechi is, well, kind of a jerk too.
Friday, May 4, 2007
There Are No Athiests in Dugouts
Courtesy of a clever wag over at Baseball Think Factory, you are hereby provided with evidence that God is way into situational relief pitching:
Judges 20:16
Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded;
every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss.
True Story: Moses signed Jessee Orosco to his first professional contract.
Hancock was Drunk and Talking on His Cell Phone
Sad news in an already sad story.
In light of LaRussa's recent DUI and the close association between Anheuser-Busch and the St. Louis Cardinals, I fear that we are in for about a week's worth of moralizing from the media.
Please wake me when it's over.
In light of LaRussa's recent DUI and the close association between Anheuser-Busch and the St. Louis Cardinals, I fear that we are in for about a week's worth of moralizing from the media.
Please wake me when it's over.
Bad Hamstrings are the New Black
By now every GM has read Moneyball, and Beane has long since embraced defense as the new OBP. So what's the latest market inefficiency ready to be exploited? Jeff Sackmann at The Hardball Times thinks he has the answer:
In other words, eschewing the roster certainty most clubs desire and, in Sackmann's words, "figur[ing] out a way to get far more production out of seven players and $6 million than other teams get out of two players and $10 million."
Not a bad market inefficiency in that, unlike the appreciation of OBP and defense, it will take more than the mere circulation of the idea for its proponents' competitors to exploit, and thereby nullify the inefficiency. It will also take hard work and guts, because any GM who seeks to exploit this inefficiency will be spending way more time on the phones and in his office juggling the roster, and will get way more flak from fans and the media for bringing in the often injured, the no names, and the other assorted castoffs that tend not to generate excitement about a team's chances. Fans have come to accept chunky players who know how to take a walk, but they still don't like ten-man rotations and DL casualties.
Added bonus: given the deft roster management such an approach would require, it may cut down on the number of armchair GMs who struggle to manage their fantasy rosters on a week to week basis from believing that they could do just as good a job.
Sackmann cites Beane and Ricciardi's 2007 roster plate-spinning as examples of GMs who may very well be trying to embrace risk in the name of efficiency. Given their bloodlines I suppose it's possible that those two are in fact stockpiling problem players as the result of some premeditated plan. With all things written by the sabermetric community, however, one must assess whether this is an objective observation or, instead, a case of stathead heartthrob syndrome.
Anyone have any insight into whether Oakland and Toronto's seeming embrace of risky players is the result of a grand plan or rather some ad-hoc work? I don't want to wait for Michael Lewis' next book to find out.
In short, it's the acceptance of risk. That could mean, as in Cleveland's case, starting the year with a bunch of platoons with the understanding that some halves of those platoons won't be available for a month here and there. For Toronto, it means fully expecting to use eight or nine starters to get through the year. For Oakland, it means accepting that you may have to improvise to put three outfielders and a designated hitter in the lineup every night.
In other words, eschewing the roster certainty most clubs desire and, in Sackmann's words, "figur[ing] out a way to get far more production out of seven players and $6 million than other teams get out of two players and $10 million."
Not a bad market inefficiency in that, unlike the appreciation of OBP and defense, it will take more than the mere circulation of the idea for its proponents' competitors to exploit, and thereby nullify the inefficiency. It will also take hard work and guts, because any GM who seeks to exploit this inefficiency will be spending way more time on the phones and in his office juggling the roster, and will get way more flak from fans and the media for bringing in the often injured, the no names, and the other assorted castoffs that tend not to generate excitement about a team's chances. Fans have come to accept chunky players who know how to take a walk, but they still don't like ten-man rotations and DL casualties.
Added bonus: given the deft roster management such an approach would require, it may cut down on the number of armchair GMs who struggle to manage their fantasy rosters on a week to week basis from believing that they could do just as good a job.
Sackmann cites Beane and Ricciardi's 2007 roster plate-spinning as examples of GMs who may very well be trying to embrace risk in the name of efficiency. Given their bloodlines I suppose it's possible that those two are in fact stockpiling problem players as the result of some premeditated plan. With all things written by the sabermetric community, however, one must assess whether this is an objective observation or, instead, a case of stathead heartthrob syndrome.
Anyone have any insight into whether Oakland and Toronto's seeming embrace of risky players is the result of a grand plan or rather some ad-hoc work? I don't want to wait for Michael Lewis' next book to find out.
No One Ever Accuses Samantha and Angela Findlay of Juicing
Illinois softball is experiencing an offensive surge.
Has someone alerted Rick Reilly?
"the new technology in bats changed the dynamics. The pitchers aren't worse; the hitters are better . . .I think parents are spending money for hitting lessons where it used to be only for pitching
"the Findlay sisters were unique. 'No one would believe the hours those kids put in working on hitting with their father,' she said. 'They hit a ton. Now you see hitters everywhere that make me hold my breath.'"
Has someone alerted Rick Reilly?
I Didn't Know That
On this day in 1944:
I'm guessing that if you asked 100 baseball fans that question, 95 of them would have placed this date in the 1950s or later. At the very least after Jackie made his debut.
Blacks were allowed to buy grandstand seats for the first time in St. Louis history. St. Louis was the last of the major league clubs to integrate seating. Blacks had been restricted to the bleachers.
I'm guessing that if you asked 100 baseball fans that question, 95 of them would have placed this date in the 1950s or later. At the very least after Jackie made his debut.
Oh, Then I Suppose It's OK to Root for the Warriors Now
Golden State over Dallas is a pretty neat story. Less so, however, in light of this:
I don't have the time to confirm it this morning, but if someone could provide me the list of celebrities who were courtside at the Oakland Arena in 2001 as the Warriors were winning 17 games, Shyster would appreciate it greatly. Sarcasm? Never. Celebrities are widely known as being the most loyal fans. Just ask Snoop!
Er, um, yeah.
And the "We Believe" mantra that now rocks Oakland - Mickael Pietrus led the team out of the locker room holding one of the bright yellow T-shirts sporting the logo - has even caught the attention of celebrities like rapper Snoop Dogg, popular guitarist Carlos Santana, actors Woody Harrelson, Owen Wilson and Kate Hudson, and golfer Fred Couples. They were all in the stands for the clincher - and a few even headed to the celebratory locker room afterward.
I don't have the time to confirm it this morning, but if someone could provide me the list of celebrities who were courtside at the Oakland Arena in 2001 as the Warriors were winning 17 games, Shyster would appreciate it greatly. Sarcasm? Never. Celebrities are widely known as being the most loyal fans. Just ask Snoop!
"I'm here just supporting my main man, Baron," Dogg said from his seat on the floor, a humongous gold chain hanging from his neck. "The Lakers got knocked out, so what's the next best thing? I gotta come out and support Northern California."
Er, um, yeah.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Wojciechowski Owes the Clubhouse Kids an Apology
Here's Wojciechowski's column on Radomski. Upshot: Radomski's testimony is going to shake the game to its foundations. That's fair. He's probably right.
But what I'm having a hard time understanding is Wojciechowski's insistence on insulting Radomski based on the fact that he's a former clubhouse attendant. Things Wojo says about him in the column:
Look, I have no problem considering Radomski a scumbag for being a drug dealer, and though I disapprove of the term, I suppose he is technically a "rat" given that he has turned states' evidence.
But why the demeaning references to his job as a clubhouse attendant? A job, by the way, he was no longer performing at the time he began dealing drugs. Kids do that, job, and based on this and other stories about them, they do it at their peril. It's important work that allows the ballplayers we enjoy watching focus on their game without having to worry about their equipment. Referring to the tasks they perform (retrieving sani socks, doing gofer work, and working for tips) as epithets is offensive and uncalled for.
Wojo appears to be trying, albeit clumsily, to make a point about the lowly bringing down the high and mighty. In his efforts to do so, however, he has callously insulted hard working men and boys who do what they do because they love the game.
He owes the clubhouse kids an apology.
UPDATE: A fuller picture of what life is like for the Clubhouse Kids. (link via BTF).
But what I'm having a hard time understanding is Wojciechowski's insistence on insulting Radomski based on the fact that he's a former clubhouse attendant. Things Wojo says about him in the column:
"a 37-year-old nobody, a career jockstrap picker-upper, a glorified gofer who used to work for tips"
"He was a clubbie, and clubbies are supposed to shine up your cleats, fetch you the latest issue of Maxim and make sure there are enough forks and knives for the postgame food spread"
"a former no-name clubhouse assistant"
"A guy who retrieved sweaty sani socks off the clubhouse floor"
"a drug-selling weasel who picked up jerseys, but never wore one"
Look, I have no problem considering Radomski a scumbag for being a drug dealer, and though I disapprove of the term, I suppose he is technically a "rat" given that he has turned states' evidence.
But why the demeaning references to his job as a clubhouse attendant? A job, by the way, he was no longer performing at the time he began dealing drugs. Kids do that, job, and based on this and other stories about them, they do it at their peril. It's important work that allows the ballplayers we enjoy watching focus on their game without having to worry about their equipment. Referring to the tasks they perform (retrieving sani socks, doing gofer work, and working for tips) as epithets is offensive and uncalled for.
Wojo appears to be trying, albeit clumsily, to make a point about the lowly bringing down the high and mighty. In his efforts to do so, however, he has callously insulted hard working men and boys who do what they do because they love the game.
He owes the clubhouse kids an apology.
UPDATE: A fuller picture of what life is like for the Clubhouse Kids. (link via BTF).
The Son of Avarice and the Father of Despair
Park effects from the gambler's point of view:
When most of us talk about Petco Park, we talk about how much it favors the pitchers. Covers.com looks at it slightly differently:
My favorite thing about all of this: Covers.com's home page is obviously aping ESPN's.
Covers.com’s Ballpark Breakdown series investigates how a team’s home stadium affects your wagers.
When most of us talk about Petco Park, we talk about how much it favors the pitchers. Covers.com looks at it slightly differently:
Oddsmakers have tried to combat the ballpark’s low-scoring games, but they can only set totals so low . . .San Diego has played under in seven of 11 home games so far this season despite seeing the lowest home totals in baseball. The Padres are on pace for their fourth straight season of playing under since moving to Petco.
My favorite thing about all of this: Covers.com's home page is obviously aping ESPN's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
