130 thoughts on “January 31, 2012: 120”

    1. Meh, saw that last year. This is only going to lead to another dunk contest commercial of some sort.

        1. Will Chris Paul lob the ball from the piranha tank, and will he merely jump over the stairs leading up to it instead of the actual tank?

  1. After last night's beatdown, the Wolves are currently 11th in the Hollinger power poll. He has them at 52.7% chance to go to the playoffs. Heady times.

    1. And they're doing it with Wes Johnson starting. Did you see that stat line from yesterday? Wowzers.

      Free Martell?

      1. I think we're going to see that Martell is an unrepentant gunner. But he's a better player than Wes, for sure.

        1. I do worry about that. Although I missed a bunch of the game last night, his stat line makes it look like he reined it in a bit. Of course, anyone would with Beas and Love scoring all the points.

  2. Remember last year at the end of the season when David Kahn said that the Wolves were done rebuilding and that all they needed to do was add players around the edges? Remember your level of despair then?

    1. This team is a lot of fun. I watched more Wolves action in the first week or so of the season than I watched Vikings football all season long.

          1. Just wanted to temper the irrational enthusiasm... even as I myself am succumbing to it moreso every day.

            1. Who would have thought that on March 1, 2011, the Wolves would be more likely to reach .500 than the Twins.

    1. Thanks. I am review RFPs for new Gophers baseball stadium today. Having background music makes it go a little easier.

  3. Who said it:

    It's refreshing to have a more coach-able team.

    Think about this one for a while and you should be able to get it. And no, it's not Rick Adelman.

      1. Spoiler SelectShow
  4. Co-worker has an MLB trivia day-by-day calendar, and he quizzes me every day. Today's question was which two AL teams have no retired numbers (other than 42 for Robinson). It was outdated b/c the Jays retired Robbie Alomar's number last summer.

    But with news that TK's #10 is being retired, I started to wonder which teams have the lowest and highest wins-to-retired-numbers ratio.
    I don't mean to include Jackie Robinson except for the Dodgers. Senators numbers aren't retired for the Twins, so their history should start in MN. Not sure if any SensMK2 are retired for the Rangers. Expos number apparently are retired for the Nats, so that history should count. I do mean for things like the Cards' retiring "SL" for Rogers Hornsby and a Mic for Jack Buck, because they're on the Retired numbers board. Any numbers retired for two players should count twice. I don't really have time for it today, but if someone here has the time to dig through things before, say, they fly off to Prague, I'm curious what the results are.

          1. With the string of unprecedented success under his management, for this franchise anyways, just one ring would be enough to get it done I would think.

  5. Spin has a pretty good profile of Lana del Rey that has managed to temper my dislike. I'm still not a big fan of the whole tumblr-chic aesthetic, but I can see now that all of the superficial backlash is rather undeserved. Has anyone picked up her album yet? I haven't, but I'm considerably more interested now. I also want to find out if this devastating review is justified at all.

    1. Ooh, I hadn't read the Onion's yet, just Spin's 6 and P4k's 5.5. Plus some lesser sites.
      I'll buy it next chance I get. Yes, I still buy music from a physical store. Anyone know if Target has the deluxe edition?

    2. That seems like a worthless review. The reviewer mentions the "marketing" and internet hype and then dive into the lyrics, but never talk about how she sings or if the music's any good, or whether the songs work. It's like the old caricature of a pitchfork review without three paragraphs that could be cribbed from a graduate student's sociology dissertation. I'm kindof disappointed, I thought the AV club had a nice mix by not being as haughty as Pitchfork, while still being more critical than SPIN

      I hope the album's good, I can't imagine it's that bad, already knowing four stellar songs and one that's not bad.

      Re: her lyrics. Is there any possibility that materialism of the lyrics could be a critique of shallow materialism. It doesn't sound like she's having fun, and I kindof see that as her point. She's after the dangerous guy and the glamour and it sucks. When I listen to Bonny 'Prince' Billy, or even Roy Orbison, I often infer that the lyrics are sung ironically, that they're lies the song's character is telling others or himself to make things bearable. I get the same thing out of those four Lana Del Rey songs.

      Rappers speak often of seeking the material and being dangerous, and they're never called out on it in a review like this. Can't a rich girl learn the same things?

      1. Yeah, it is a very weird review. I usually expect a lot better from the AV Club than some hastily cribbed notes about the male gaze and zero references to the music itself.

        1. Okay, Slate of all places gets at what I'm trying to say:

          The theme of Del Rey’s unhinged subjugation to her lovers is so unrelenting that, as the album goes on, it begins to resemble an outright critique of female passivity, rather than an extreme case of it.

          I've read lots of articles about her, but that's the first I've read about that meshes with my experience of her music.

          I should note that I haven't read the long SPIN article yet.

          1. Time for me to shut up about her, but I really did like the long SPIN article now that I've read it. I'd been waiting for Pitchfork to write something like a blend of this and the Slate article, but I guess they've moved on from ever putting together a deep and generally positive piece.

            1. Some of their essays are alright, but now I basically only go there because they'll occasionally mention somebody I haven't heard of.

              Also, this harshing isn't quite as savage as the beating they gave Black Kids (super-hyped for months, only to give their debut album a 0.0 - later retconned to a 3.3 - and an insulting wordless review).

    1. Haven't answered it yet - it went well. Seemed much colder than the last one. I'll have a picture or two and a thanks to all the contributors up shortly.

  6. Two different forecasts for this season: THT and RLYW.

    THT: 83 wins, 2nd place in division, 6 wins out of 1st (which is really a difference of 3 head-to-head games with the Tigers), 6th place in AL

    RLYW: 68 wins, 5th place in division, 14th place in AL, 29th place in MLB

    RLYW's projections use the MARCEL projections, which have a pretty high "what have you done for me lately" factor built into them, and generally presume rookies to be about average. The former consideration obviously hurts the Twins given their finish last year, and the latter consideration probably hurts them at least a little because average is pretty decent for a rookie and I don't think we really have a ton of rookies on the depth chart for next year. It's also unclear how playing time was dealt with.

    My gut feeling: 68 wins as an expectation feels low. They won 63 games last year with just about everything going wrong, and they've added some pieces in the offseason while really only losing Cuddyer and Slowey (I think?). If the SD on the prediction is 7-8 wins, then there would be something like a 15-16% chance that the Twins don't even win 60 games next year. On the other hand, 83 wins maybe seems optimistic, but it's certainly possible to envision scnearios where 83 wins could happen.

    Without doing anything sophisticated, somewhere in between, around 75-76 wins with wild swings depending on the health of Mauer, Morneau, and Span, seems reasonable.

          1. I'm not much of a podcast guy, so you could be typing that a lot. Nothing against the WGOM podcast, just not my favorite medium.

        1. And Thome and Del and CJ and Rene Rivera and Tolbert and Mijares and Repko and Hoey and Holm and...

    1. If the Twins win 75-81 games AND we see a return to health of Span, Morneau and Mauer, I'll likely consider it a good season. On the other hand, if we get ~150 games each out of that three, I'd probably expect a better than .500 record.

      I'm hopeful that Joe Benson will progress to be a regular in the OF rotation this year, that Chris Parmelee will earn some time, and that Liam Hendricks will earn a spot in the rotation.

      1. I worry more about Span and Morneau than I do about Mauer. Head injuries are tricky and even if Span and Morneau can play ~150 games each, I'm not too optimistic about how good they'll be in those games. Hopefully I'm wrong.

            1. With all of the physical abuse that catchers take over the course of a season, it's not hard to imagine Mauer coming back a little more fresh and strong this year. Sort of like '09 when he missed April, hit .365, and won the AL MVP. Not that he's likely to do that again--it will be hugely impressive the next time a catcher hits .365 and qualifies for the batting title--but rest can do wonders for an athlete sometimes.

      2. I think if Mauer and Morneau are both healthy, the Twins can be competitive this year. The Tigers were 6 wins above their pythagorean win/loss last year, and I don't think that even the addition of Fielder, given the awful defense they're going to be trotting out on the corners, they'll be much better than 90 wins next year. Maybe I'm a homer (and admittedly, I really dislike the Tigers), but I don't see them running away with the division.

        I'd guess the Twins, assuming healthy seasons from Mauer, Morneau, and Span are around a .500 team. If they get 2010 Liriano, Baker stays healthy, and the bullpen isn't atrocious, I wouldn't be surprised to see them win 85-90 games.

        I'm also hoping that Benson ends up in right, so that Consensual Pork can play in Left.

        1. I think I went with 73-75 wins with my podcast prediction. I'm assuming some of the problems aren't going to be immediately corrected with that, though. If I was to assume injuries and down years were done with, though, I'd be comfortable with 81 wins. Optimism just was never my thing, though.

        2. I know there are people on the record about it and soforth, but I'll have to see Cabrera and Fielder at the corners before I believe it. Leyland brought in Adam Everett not that long ago--I think he sees value in defense and this whole Cabrera-to-third business might be nothing more than a way to motivate Cabrera to get in shape.

          Something maybe worth considering:

          2011 fWAR -- Dude
          7.3 -- Cabrera, career best
          5.5 -- Prince Fielder, 2nd best year of career
          5.5 -- Avila, career best
          5.2 -- Here's Jhonny, career best
          2.9 -- Victor Martinez, expected '12 fWAR: 0.0

          I didn't see a ton of games last year, so Avila's a bit of a surprise to me. I don't remember much hype for him and that's a big season. He only played 151 games in the minors and hit .280/.372/.424 there, which might suggest a regression, but it's hard for 151 games to suggest much at all. Still, regressing from a 5.5 fWAR season has to be the rule more than the exception.

          In contrast:
          2.2 -- Span, worst in career (though considering that's 70 games, that's pretty good)
          1.8 -- Mauer, 2nd lowest in career
          -0.3 -- Morneau, worst in career

          Obviously, you'd rather have your players coming off of healthy years in which they played well (contract ramifications aside), but regression to the mean could be a big lift for the Twins relative to the Tigers.

          1. Yeah, I think pretty much everyone on that team had a career-like year, pitching staff included. It'll be... interesting. I'm full of irrational optimism because I'm just excited for Spring Training to get started.

            1. Let's see: (I haven't really looked at the numbers in a while)

              7.0 -- Verlander, 2nd best in career
              5.6 -- Fister, best in career (not all for Tigers)
              2.7 -- Scherzer, 3rd best in career
              2.7 -- Porcello, best in career
              2.0 -- Coke, best in career

              Scherzer's season seems more or less repeatable. Verlander can be that good, but as we saw with Mauer and Morneau last year, having that much value in one player can backfire. (And Verlander has how many innings pitched the last three years?) Fister seems like the obvious candidate to regress, though maybe he's the new Brad Radke. Coke seems like he could regress plenty as well.

              It's hard for me to be too optimsitic about Twins pitching. Pavano's 2.9 last year was pretty good. Baker's 2.7 was in limited time last year, but I wouldn't expect much more from him this year. With Liriano, obviously there's potential, but four of the last six years he's been 0.0-1.5 fWAR. And Blackburn would be pretty fortunate to be league average next year.

              1. Yeah, the Twins pitching staff scares me immensely. It doesn't seem like Jackson or Oswalt is going to sign for all that much money. I'm a bit disappointed they aren't taking a run at one of those guys. Replacing Blackburn with one of them would help the rotation a ton, I think. But they aren't signing quality relievers for a million bucks, so I doubt they're going to sign a middle of the rotation guy for $6-7 million. Sigh.

                1. It seems like Oswalt is only looking at teams who contended last year. (I haven't followed closely, but that's the impression I get.) I haven't heard much on Jackson. It seems hard for bad teams to convince good older FAs to sign with them unless they get really bowled over on money.

                  1. Last I heard on Jackson is that he was considering a one year deal, and the Red Sox offered $5-6 million. I know Boras wanted 5/$50 for him at first, but that's ridiculous.

          2. Avila was actually getting some MVP-talk from the Tigers media last year. A little overblown, but he did have a hell of a year.

  7. Tried to book a one-way flight from Fort Myers back to MSP on Sun Country's website. I'm done with them. It's like they are actively trying to make me not want to travel. A horrid business plan. I just threw up my hands and decided to wait until later to book my flights on some other airline's website. Might try Southwest even though it really wouldn't be very convenient.

    *sigh*

      1. Yeah, I'd have to drive to Sioux Falls or Des Moines, plus drive from Orlando, I think, when I get there. The biggest hurdle, though, is they don't fly quite the proper schedule for our condo booking.

    1. I like it where Southwest is given high quality marks on their onboard food service, which they don't do.

  8. Thanks to everyone here who was able to help me support the Special Olympics.
    Due in no small part to your generosity, I raised over $300 and my team nearly $1000! We jumped into White Bear Lake...it was cold.

    Me in the red, my buddy and his wife - before.

    Me on the left in the photo - before.


    Me during the plunge - just before submersion. I was in up to my chest at this point.


    My buddy's wife - I don't recall taking this picture as I was in a slight state of shock.

  9. so, for something completely random I was looking at the stats of the 1994 NFL leaders and noticed that Randall Cunningham had the longest punt hat year at 80 yards. (not even his longest punt of career, he had a 91 yarder in 1989). I clicked on his name for his complete punting stats, and I didnt know he had 8 punts for the Vikings in 1997. Turns out Mitch Berger was hurt for the first 2 games of the year.

  10. Guess who?

    G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
    Player A 1057 39216 24.2 0.551 0.503 7.9 26.9 17.6 20.9 1.9 3 11.7 25.9 111 98 90.9 73.9 164.7 0.202
    Player B 1074 38305 24.8 0.552 0.508 10 26.3 18.4 16.7 1.1 4.5 12.3 27.7 110 95 84.9 86.5 171.4 0.215
    Player C 1192 44608 24.4 0.583 0.527 8.5 23.8 16.5 16.3 1.9 1.5 12.2 29.9 114 101 118.7 77.6 196.3 0.211
    Spoiler SelectShow
    1. i think i heard they've won every home game in january. of course this is only their third home game in january...

      1. Let it be known that during an hour-plus-long podcast about the T-Wolves, I did manage to sneak a "the Wild are terrible" in there near the end.

  11. This just in. I neither condone nor condemn this practice.

    I don't quite understand what is being implied here, either:
    As a bonus, spa-goers get to sip on both types of leftover beer after the treatment, ensuring a relaxing experience one way or another.

    1. Cool. I would have liked to do it, but I had kid stuff, then finally got a call related to the show we're supposedly doing (short version: it's about money, and it's still probably happening). Anyway, you had a full slate of dudes and they're experts in the field.

      I'll think about doing an interview sometime soon. I'm kicking around two ideas:

      a) I don't announce the subject until the episode
      2) I announce the subject well before the recording session, and ask people to submit questions for that citizen via email

      ...obviously, I can't do both.

        1. Yeah, all I wanted to hear was some version of "it isn't cold feet" and that's what I heard. Edit: This is meant to mean "What I heard was not cold feet." That probably wasn't clear.

          Without getting boring (hopefully), the deal is that our money group had to close another deal before they made this deal - it was contracted that way - and that deal is held up. Ours isn't, but ours still hinges on theirs going through. That's a lot of BS for us to worry about, but we can't control it so we're just attempting to fill the time somehow.

            1. Yeah, there's no wrong way to do it.

              I really do like the idea of not announcing who it is beforehand, and just doing the recording session, letting Mags edit it (if he's inclined to do so) and putting it up.

      1. I want to apologize for repeatedly talking over folks. I knew I was doing it, but I figured that was better than awkward pauses. I love basketball.

        1. In that vein, I'm going to suggest that Mags solicit responses from the panel. Otherwise people like Buffalo and me are just going to dominate.

            1. Yeah, with the delay of Skype'ing and no visual cues, it's really hard to not talk over people. I think about half the time I would just keep going, hoping the other person would instinctively stop.

        2. heh, the only other local sports podcast i listen to is G&tG, and that's all that show is. i left a comment when seth was guest mentioning that i didn't hear much from him as pretty much every comment of his was interrupted by either G, tG, or both. that comment mysteriously disappeared from gleeman's blog...

          1. I once mentioned on Gleeman's site that I'd had dealings with a Minnesota sportswriter who was exceedingly terse and unfriendly. If it had been Shecky nothing would have happened, but since it was a writer Gleeman liked my comment vanished. That was pretty much the end of my commenting there.

Comments are closed.