131 thoughts on “May 20, 2011: Four”

  1. I updated the youtube embedding plugin. The release notes say it now supports the youtu.be short links. Who wants to be the brave soul to try it?

    2. That is a very well-maintained plugin. cc to sean: I have a subscription to the edit comment plug in. Do you need it, or did you take the plunge?

  2. NBA Update

    That rumbling you heard last night was Thunder. OKC beat the Mavericks in Dallas last night, snapping Dallas' 7 game post season winning streak and wresting away home court advantage in the series. Coach Scotty "Balls of Steel" Brooks sat Russell Westbrook the entire fourth quarter, simultaneously riding his bench to victory and sending young Mr. Westbrook a message in the loudest way possible. Young man, you will get the ball to Kevin Durant or you will sit.

    I figured that this WCF was going to be terrific and we've now seen a game for the ages from Dirk in game 1 and a pretty darned good effort in game 2 (29 points on 10-17 shooting, including 16 in the fourth quarter). The Dallas bench was lights out in game 1, but humbled by the OKC bench in game 2. James Harden was phenomenal last night and he is rocking a world class beard.

    1. The best part about the WCF, I find myself liking both teams, although personally I'd love to see Dirk get a ring this year. Much different from the ECF in which I have to grudgingly root for a team I can't like to beat an entirely unlikeable team.

      1. What I love about it is that after each game 1, I heard a number of ESPN "experts" declare that each series was over and there was no way the team that had lost could come back, only to see each series even after game 2.

        1. I tell what I was thinking after game one. Dirk got 48 in a super human effort, Jason Terry and J.J. Barea were awesome, Westbrook was terrible and the game was in Dallas. And still OKC had a chance to win. I'm not sure that Dallas has an answer for OKC or perhaps more accurately, I think OKC has an answer for Dallas.

      1. The bar I was at doesn't get all that excited over three-step travel violations.

  4. What this site needs is an email account that I can send email to. If you have an email client, please set up an email account that I can send emails regarding technical issues and the like to. I think wgom at wgom dot etc. would be a good one. Or if not, a gmail account that both sean and spooky can access.

    1. I've already setup wgom.org to use Google Apps, so I'll add a joint access wgom at this domain tonight.

    2. That is cool. Of course, now he's probably going to hear from every kid in town.

  6. for all you foodies, here's a stunning tutorial on brunch:
    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLYxeJjxc8s

    3. might want to give a heads-up to JeffA and Citizens with tender sensibilities that this one has naughty words.

      1. oh yeah. uh, a heads-up to jeffA and citizens with tender sensibilities: this one has naughty words.

        (sorry)

          1. Come to think of it, it probably doesn't have any words I haven't used before. I'm not proud of that, and I'm not coming out in favor of bad language, but as I've said before, when I look at my list of sins, I can think of a lot of things I need to work on that are more important than using an occasional cuss word.

            2. Words aren't born inherently evil. It's how we use them that makes them good or bad.

              1. A good point. Our aversion to certain words is mostly a distant echo of Norman intolerance for the peoples they subjugated in 1066. So when I utter those Anglo-Saxonisms, I do it to honor my oppressed ancestors and to strike a blow against intolerance of all kinds. Or because I'm really pissed off.

                2. I've always argued that the attempted burying of a word is what gives it power, although I'm somewhat positive that Bill Hicks or Frank Zappa said it and I was finally able to articulate what I'd always felt.

  7. Good Pos column on the Yankmes' ominous future.

    My favorite part, of course, included this:

    But we seem to be moving to a time where just about every team in baseball will have a first baseman who hits roughly like Mark Teixeira.

    What's that you say? All first basemen (James Loney excepted) are the same?!?

    1. I think I might agree with him on A-Rod. I haven't really been paying close attention (or even casual attention to the Yankees), but A-Rod set a career low LD% last year and is even lower so far this season. He's admitted to having used PEDs (I'm pretty sure this happened, right?) and a lot of those guys don't seem to have aged real well in the field. Plus, given testing, he's likely not using PEDs anymore, which should make him more prone to DL stints.

      I'd love to know something from the Yankees' top accountants: Does Jeter's contract count towards the player salary budget or the advertising budget? As advertising, given that the Yankees are a multi-billion-dollar operation, maybe you could justify his contract as advertising/PR. It's crazy that you could do that, but it's crazy that modern media outlets have made it possible for sports franchises to be worth that much money.

    2. Also, when did Cano get to be 30? My how the years are flying. I thought he was still 26 or 27.

      1. He's a Yankee, where even the players that feel young are old*. Unlike Felix who feels like 30 but just turned 26.

        He's actually 28. In 2013 he will be 30.

    1. I'm guessing that's how the Irish spell the city. 😛

      Here, if this has already made the rounds, sorry...
      httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UZgVogYevM

      2. I loved that, and only because it involved the only two sports I'm decent to good at.

        1. Awesome. And luckily, the loser didn't break any bones. I'm guessing that jousting is not a permitted activity in the standard contract.

    2. I can't believe the cobra bite didn't kill him in the early 90's. I thought after that he could survive anything.

    6. CBS had comparably articulate pro wrestler Randy (Macho Man) Savage, who was called upon to supply expert analysis of Kent Hrbek's controversial tackle/tag in Game 2. "Hrbek? I'm impressed," growled Savage. "Through the Macho Man's eyes, the tag was clean."

      From Neal Holston, Strib Oct. 23, 1991

    1. New Guy has the kissing virus?

      Sorry to hear that. Get well soon, buddy. We miss you. And mono sucks @ss. I had it in h.s. Not. Fun.

  11. Was looking up something on baseball-reference and saw that for each season the MN/DC franchise has played they list the best player (by WAR). I decided to sort it from best to worst. First thing that sticks out: Walter Johnson shows up 7 times in the top 10, including the top three spots.

    Which three Twins players fill out that top 10 list?

    (note - this doesn't mean top ten WAR seasons in franchise history, because theoretically the 2nd best WAR one season was better than the best WAR in another season, etc.)

      1. In the words of Meatloaf, 2 out 3 ain't bad. Ironically, as I believe his funeral is starting at this minute, Killer doesn't make it (perhaps his defense held him back?).

      2. Carew #4, Chuckie #10. Who was #8?

        PS - Worst Twins season leader (105 out of 110 seasons) was Doug Corbett in 1981 with a 2.5 WAR. DSpan is already at 2.4 for this season, for a little context.

        1. I'll guess Mauer. I have another guess, but I don't think his WAR was higher than Mauer's 2009.

      1. Ding! Ding! Ding! Good call, SoCal. Bert's 9.2 WAR in '73 is second to Carew's 10.9 in '77 in Twins' history.

  13. The state track meet is sorta being held today. There was a 90 minute delay to start the day today. Right now the heaven's have re-opened even worse. Of course, my brother's distance medley final was on the blocks when the rain returned.

  15. A different sort of baseball story.

    Dugan Smith was just another 10-year-old baseball nut when doctors discovered a malignant tumor near his femur, and only chemotherapy and surgery would save his life. Because of the severity and location of the tumor, doctors elected to go with a rare yet long-established surgical procedure called a Van Nes rotationplasty.

    1. My dad spent the last few years of his life with a prosthetic leg, amputated below the knee. This is a pretty awesome procedure, even if it looks a bit strange.

  16. The Indians' Travis Hafner joins Grady Sizemore on the DL. They are just 5-5 in their last 10 games. The Tigers have lost three straight and are only a game over .500 and the Royals are 3-7 in their last 10 and are still behind the Tigers and under .500. I still don't believe the Indians are for real, at least not best in the AL real, and I seriously doubt it will take 90 victories to win this division. The Twins may still be too far back, but I think the division is still winnable. Plus, the Twins are still only eight games back of the wild card in a very balanced mediocre AL.

    2. The Twins are last in the A.L. in runs/g (3.29). Twins are also last in the A.L. in runs allowed/g (5.21). League average is 4.22. The Twins have been outscored by 81 runs over 42 games. To get to the point at which the Twins will have scored more runs than allowed for the season, they will need to score, on average, 0.675 more runs/g than they allow the rest of the way.

      2. Obviously it's "easier" in some sense to have an extreme poor streak than an extreme good streak, but if they can be outscored by 81 runs over 42 games, it's not like it's out of the question to outscore their opponents by 81 runs over 120 games.

        The Indians are 9 games above .500 at the moment, which means they'll finish at 90 wins if they play out the remainder of the season as a .500 team. The Twins do have a bit of direct control over that, given the number of games left against Cleveland. For the Twins to finish at 90 wins, they'd have to 75-45 from here on out. Now, it's not like I'd put even odds on that or anything, but it's not unheard of for teams to do that. The '09 Rockies went 77-47 to close out their season after starting 15-23.

        Also worth noting, the Twins have played 15 home games and 27 road games. Home-field advantage in baseball isn't what it is in other sports, but it seems rare for a team to play 2/3rds of its games on the road during a stretch that long. And it seems like their have been a ton of 2-game series, which increases the frequency of travel for the same number of road games. The rain-outs we've had so far aren't going to allow that problem to completely subside, but some more home cooking sure wouldn't hurt.

        I really, really don't mean to insinuate that it would be likely for the Twins to win this. But if I was a gambling man, I'd be tempted to put, say, 20 bucks down on 20-to-1 odds that they win the division. I see Cleveland more as the 2010 Padres or 2003 Royals than the 2008 Rays. (All four teams have similar records after May 19th of their respective seasons.)

        1. Actually if the Indians are 9 games over .500 at the end of the season that would mean they are 85-76.

    3. Current odds to win the Central:

      221 Chicago White Sox +350
      222 Cleveland Indians -135
      223 Detroit Tigers +225
      224 Kansas City Royals +1600
      225 Minnesota Twins +2000

      I recognize at lot of value in the Twins and not so much with anyone else. I fail to see how discrepancy between the White Sox and Twins. 3.5 games should not equal 16.5 cents, especially when half of the Twins roster was out with the plague for April and May.

      1. If the Twins get out of last place, and if they then get to .500, then I'll start thinking about their chances to win the division.

        2. Pretty much this. I didn't think the Twins would win the division this year before the season started, and nothing I've seen so far has made me think otherwise. I did expect them to be more competitive than last place, however, so I still expect some improvement.

      2. So the implied odds are, if I'm doing this right:

        57% -- Cleveland
        31% -- Detroit
        22% -- Chicago
        6% -- KC
        5% -- Minnesota

        (Which is well over 100%, which makes sense since the house will want to set the odds in its favor.)

        I'm with you that the Chicago/MN spread seems too high. One three-game sweep and a win somewhere on a Chicago off-day and the Twins are tied with Chicago. But I wouldn't say the Twins have a whole lot better than 5% odds, either. If we lop 7% off each of the top three, we'd get:

        50% -- Cleveland
        24% -- Detroit
        15% -- Chicago
        6% -- KC
        5% -- MN

        That seems a little more like it, to me. 90+ wins probably takes the division, and it's not so unreasonable to expect Cleveland at 50/50 odds to finish with 90 wins. Then there's the rest of the field. On just a 3.5-game difference, I wouldn't say a 15% to 5% edge for Chicago over Minnesota would be fair, but given the run differentials (where Chicago has an implied 8-win advantage), I could see it.

    4. We've all seen teams make up four of five game deficits in the last few weeks of a season before. If the Twins can pick up just one game a week on the division leader going forward, they're back in contention and only a few games out of first by the All-Star break. This season is not over for the Twins, even if it sometimes feels like it for the fans. Morneau is starting to hit. Thome, Nishioka, and Mauer will all be back over the course of the next few weeks. The starters seem to be settling in now, and with some tweaking and a bit of an upgrade here or there I think they will get the bullpen sorted out. We have a ton of divisional games to play, plus interleague play. There's more than enough reason to keep watching and rooting. And this isn't just cockeyed optimism. I've watched a lot of baseball seasons unfold, and it's just too early to throw in the towel.

      1. And the unbalanced schedules make big rallies in the standings more likely. (It is easier to gain ground by beating your direct opposition than it is to beat someone else and hope they lose to a different team.) I haven't seen the numbers, but I'd bet we've seen proportionally more big movements in the standings in the Wild Card Era than the pre-WC ERA (aka the Age Of Innocence.) This is still essentially the same team that won the AL Central last year.

      2. I think the key is that we need to make some strides sooner than later. We're supposed to be sellers at the deadline, and I'd like that to be decided for sure one way or another by then, if any moves are going to be contemplated.

  17. Ok, I know where my next job is going to be:

    daily beer ration at Stone (all company employees get two free 8 ounce pours and one growler fill per day, in addition to a case of beer and a full keg each month)

  18. teh Daily Stupid, courtesy of Stribbers:

    ltufvessonMay 16, 113:20 pm

    Joe would not get by with this crap in NY. Time Twins got tough. Joe is not smart enough to realize that there is weight room shape and playing shape and you don't get in playing shape in weight room and pool. Still say Joe is a mental wimp and a physical wimp who won't play unless he is perfect. He is s $23 million bum.

    1. I'm torn between wanting to laugh and point at these, and wanting to not even be made aware that these people exist.

      It is simply incredible, given Posada's recent news, that Stribby here could type this with a straight face.

    2. I just hope I never, ever put my ignorance of any subject on public display like that.

    3. I think some Yankees fans might laugh hysterically at that comment given that the Twins also employ one Carl Pavano.

      I kind of hate that the players have such disparate salaries. If the top players were compensated something more like the worst players, then maybe we'd see less animosity towards the best players in the league. Maybe.

      1. the NBA has roughly the same spread from bottom to top as MLB. The defined maximum salary (first year of contract) is 35 pct of the cap (currently equal to ~$19 million) and the defined minimum salaries range from $490K (rookie minimum) to $1.4M (10+ year veteran minimum), or roughly, ratios of 1/39 to 1/13 with the defined maximum? The top players, of course, are able to sign contracts with out years considerably higher than the defined first-year maximum.

        In MLB, the minimum currently is $414K and the top players make in excess of $20M per year.

        I'm not sure that we see the same popular or press animosity toward the top NBA players as we do with MLB, but I suspect that is because most people understand that the marginal contributions of the top players are much, much proportionately greater in the NBA than in the MLB.

        Perusing basketball-reference.com and hardballtimes.com for Win Share data to back this assertion up:
        basketball-reference's "Win Share" is roughly equivalent to 3 hardballtimes.com "Win Shares" (by design, the basketball measure is 1 Win Share ~= 1 team win; 3 baseball Win Shares = 1 team win). The NBA leader typically amasses about 16-20 Win Shares in an 82-game season, compared to the baseball leader's ~40 in 162 games. So, rescale the basketball WS to baseball WS and season length, that implies that the league leader earns the equivalent of about 96 to 120 baseball-equivalent Win Shares.

        1. A comparison between basketball and other team sports is extremely difficult because the sport is designed for the best players to have the most impact. They are on the court the majority of the time and you can simply put the ball in the best player's hands when on offense. Meanwhile, the best hitter on a team can only come up once every 9 PAs and the order in which he appears is predetermined so you can't bring up your best hitter at the most crucial time. Then there's starting pitchers, who only start in 20 to 25 percent of a team's games. The relief pitchers you can control when they come in, but once you take them out, you can't bring them back in, so you have to choose carefully when to bring them in. Plus, the top relievers only pitch in 40 to 50 percent of games and rarely average more than one inning per appearance.

          1. They are on the court the majority of the time and you can simply put the ball in the best player's hands when on offense. Meanwhile, the best hitter on a team can only come up once every 9 PAs and the order in which he appears is predetermined so you can't bring up your best hitter at the most crucial time.

            But that is exactly the point for this discussion. In hoops, the best players have a much, much, much larger marginal impact on outcomes than in baseball. Hence, one would expect the top hoops players to command a much larger salary ratio over the minimum than should be true in baseball IF both were driven primarily by the marketplace.

            This argument implies that either the NBA's ratios of top salary to bottom salary is artificially depressed, or baseball's is artificially inflated, or both.

        2. I'm not a big NBA guy, but my experience is mainly with the Wolves, and I mainly remember KG getting so much crap for not being good enough on Wolves teams where he had essentially no help. That's the sort of thing that I think the big salaries breed. KG was the best player (by far?) on most (every?) Wolves team he played for, yet the conversation always seemed to revolve around whether or not he was good enough in the 4th quarter, or whether he relied too much on jump shots, or whatever, and not about how the Wolves would be nothing without KG. (And it turned out that, in fact, the Wolves have been absolutely terrible without KG.)

          So my comparison is:

          Popular Minnesota sports memes, after star gets large contract
          KG -- not good enough in 4th quarter, too many jump shots, not "alpha dog"
          Mauer -- pussy singles hitter

          And here's the reason you can't compare the situation in baseball to the situation in the NBA: max salary. Of course the NBA's stars are not as well compensated as MLB's stars, thanks to the max salary. If you believe that NBA stars are viewed more positively than MLB stars, I think it ought to follow that if there was a max salary in baseball, it would lead to top players being compensated less, and thus viewed in a more positive light. Which is basically the point I was trying to make. But I would never advocate for a max salary in baseball, and I don't think it's overall a good thing in the NBA.

          If baseball allowed its younger players to be free agents at an earlier stage, they would be compensated more to their abilities and stars wouldn't seem as overpaid by comparison. And with more players on the free agent market, teams wouldn't be as compelled to sign potentially damaging long-term deals. I guess I would revise my earlier statement and say that I wish MLB stars got paid more like league median.

  19. I don't know if you guys heard but the Chicago Cubs are playing in Fenway Park for the first time since 1918 tonight. That was so long ago that Woodrow Wilson was the president! Babe Ruth was a PITCHER for the RED SOX. Wild, I know.

    I watched way too much espn today.

  21. Noelle, one of the lead actresses from our production company, died a few hours ago. She's been fighting cancer for a couple of years so this is hardly unexpected, but I was just on set with her a couple of months ago and she struck me as someone who'd beat it and live forever. She and I had only recently become friends, and it's cruel that such a thing was cut short. She was just 23.

    I was thinking of her when I woke up today, for no reason. So I thought.

  22. I listened to Barreiro on KFAN last week. I learned that Delmon Young has proven that he's the type of player that can single-handedly carry a team with his bat for a month at a time. Joe Mauer is a slappy singles hitter that has never hit a home run.

    I'm glad that got cleared up.

  23. Cuddyer at second, Kubel in right, Young in left, Rivera catching, Casilla on the bench.

Comments are closed.