Cup of Coffee

June 20, 2012: The Heat

102 Comments

Not actual heat. The basketball team. Three close, exciting games later, they're about to be rewarded for The Decision. It makes all those "Was this a failed experiment before it even began?" conversations on 4ltr two weeks ago seem a little pointless.

102 thoughts on “June 20, 2012: The Heat”

  1. sounds like things are pretty messed up in Duluth. The zoo flooded and are missing some animals like a polar bear. And a lot of roads are impassable because they are washed out, under water, or sinkholes have taken over.

    1. A polar bear is missing? If I lived in Duluth, I'd call in sick until it was found. Of course, that wouldn't stop the bear from holing up in my house.

      1. Polar bears are mean sons of guns. Still, I couldn't stop myself from giving it a big hug as it mauled me.

      2. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now we'll finally know how it got onto the island. Cuse and Lindelof are geniuses.

        Also, this escaped animal looks way too much like he's wearing a yellow bow-tie.

        1. Yeesh, my brother is up there. His place is dry, but I reminded him to watch out for sinkholes.

        2. I didn't know "below the jump" had gone mainstream. I've heard of below the fold w/ the broadcloths. In the Year 2000...

    1. I think there's an argument for Johnson's actions being unethical (paging Mr. Klosterman!), though I don't think it helps Joe Maddon to complain about it to the media. From a more practical standpoint, there might not be any real coach-pitcher confidentiality, but it seems like if you're going to violate that, you'd better get a good payoff out of the deal. Now Johnson's players know that they can't really trust him, and he didn't even get a win by outing Peralta. Maybe it doesn't really hurt Johnson much, but it didn't help him, either.

      If I'm Joe Maddon, I'm asking the umps to check out at least one Nats pitcher each game for the rest of the series, because I'm an ass like that.

      1. I don't think Johnson's actions can be called unethical, as they were done in furtherance of the game's actual rules and as an assistance to his team. Clearly not everyone does it.

        Yeah, trading on insider information is a bit dicey, but I'd bet Johnson didn't do it without the support of his players. He sounded pretty sheepish about the incident. And it sounds like Peralta was a good sport about it, too.

        And at what point do you draw the line? If you know a player is corking his bat on your team, do you report it when he changes teams? If you know a pitcher scoots off the rubber and inch, do you get the umps to notice it when he pitches against you? It seems to me that some types of "cheating" in baseball are minor - pine tar, scooting forward on the mound - and they get caught from time to time, even without insider knowledge. If it's minor cheating, then catching it is a pretty minor thing too. Even if you used insider knowledge to do so.

        Maddon going to the press and being a baby is the bigger deal, I think.

        1. Johnson's actions were done in assistance to his team, but he called out Peralta--a former co-worker--on something which he obviously didn't stop when Peralta was playing for him. I don't think it's clearly ethical to out someone who used to work for you without at least giving them a heads up, especially on something which is called so rarely. I may be in the minority on this, but I expect some honor among thieves.

          I also don't get how Maddon's comments are really a big deal. Anyone with two eyes can see that Peralta used to play for Johnson, so Maddon's not exactly breaking new ground by noting that Johnson essentially had inside information on Peralta. So what if Maddon decided to talk about it to the press? It's not like he invoked Castro or anything.

          1. I guess Maddon's attitude seemed to bother me. It was quite whiny, when no one else seemed to be making a big deal of it.

            Also, Johnson didn't start managing the Nationals until mid-season 2011. Peralta left them after 2010. In the interest of full disclosure, Johnson was in the Nat's front office during that time, but he certainly wasn't a down-on-the-field kind of guy, so it is not clear at all that he ever knew about it when Peralta was with the Nationals, and it's very clear that he wasn't in a position so as to stop Peralta form doing it when the two were affiliated with the same team.

          2. I think you make a good point, ubes; I think he should have gone to Peralta ahead of time, had a laugh about it, and then told him, "You ever think about pulling that on us, and I'm calling you on it." Of course, he might have already done that prior, so who knows?

            1. This is a fair point. Again though, I'd point out that Peralta didn't seem particularly upset, tipping his cap to the opposition and all.

              Also, they never had a player/manager relationship...

    1. also, a reply of sorts.

      Mix Tapes
      Duh. Do I have to explain this one? Suffice it to say that if mix-tape-making technology had been successfully eradicated, I probably wouldn't have gotten a girlfriend until I was 33 years old.

          1. 14-year-old me makes a mix-tape filled with painfully obvious songs and Weird Al, so it doesn't matter too much anyway.

        2. No, how about a wife?
          (Long-Distance relationships for our first year, and three following summers. They helped.)

          1. Um... continuing the eerieness, my wife and I had a long-distance relationship for all but a single semester of college prior to getting married. And yeah, the mixes helped.

            1. My wife and I were only together during college: completely different.*
              When did you meet/start dating the Missus?

              *Or: Mirror Images?

              1. We met in college. End of my junior year/her sophomore year we started dating. Summer apart, semester together, then she studied abroad the next semester. Summer apart, then I went to law school in D.C. 2 years later we got married. We were only together during college, but it only lasted basically 1 semester.

    2. I'm wholly unimpressed by the argument. Apparently only music matters for copyrights. And "music tech space" is the only place where this innovation can happen.

    3. I decided to go to the googles on David C. Lowery. I don't know how many of them are out there, but there's one who is a not-hugely successful musician, and one who drops a bunch of swears at people in comments sections of articles discussing copyright and music.

  6. NOw that the Euro group stages are over, here is the real bracket

    And for reference, here's the predictions from the podcast.

    All in all, we got 2 group winners correct (Spain & Germany), one second place team right (France), and 1 team right in the wrong spot (Czechs won, predicted 2nd). In my defense, my picks were a bit on the side of "This would be awesome if this happened" not necessarily "This is what I think'll happen".

  7. I wasn't aware until I was reading the Strib today but the Pohlads are amongst the largest contributors against the same sex marriage amendment in Minnesota.

      2. Which is why I presented it as an apolitical statement. It's relevant as this is a Twins site.

        1. There's no way to respond to it other than "i suppose that is a factual statement" without getting political. If that was your intent, then I guess whatever, but it doesn't really stimulate any conversation (or at least none that goes in a good direction).

          Light treading advised.

        2. Many of the Pohlad sons are very active politically and of course have gobs of money, making them incredibly popular that way. I don't know about the old man, but my recollection is that he was not.

          I believe that is safely in the acceptable zone.

        3. Any statement about a same-sex marriage amendment, whether factual or not, is political in nature. The spirit of the no politics rule at the WGOM is that people feel strongly about political issues and we have more fun as a group when we stay far from politics. There are plenty of other places to discuss the political leanings of the Pohlads.

          1. There are plenty of comments on here that are political in nature and much more divisive than just mentioning that the Pohlads donated to a certain cause.

            2. I am a frequent offender, in terms of making comments that have political overtones, undertones, etc. I welcome the bitchslap from my friends here whenever I may go over the line (in some Citizen's opinion) because, while I enjoy a good political fight, I value this community much more.

              MoT's Pohlad comment reads like political bait. I see the Twins connection (obviously), but I'm not sure how the comment itself was likely to lead to a productive conversation (without digging deeply into the Forbidden Zone).

              1. I'll give Milt the benefit of the doubt on intentions. It's just that it's so easy for political discussions to generate more heat than light, and it's so easy for statements to be interpreted as political even when they're not intended to be, that I prefer to err on the side of caution in this area.

              2. while I enjoy a good political fight, I value this community much more.

                Yup. It's why we've been politics-free for just under four years now...and much better for it.

            3. Some politics are less controversial than others and generally speaking, topics are usually dropped when it is pointed out that things are headed in a political direction.

    2. Here's how you talk about this without crossing into the Forbidden Zone. If the Pohlads have so much money for political causes, why did they cut 15 million dollars off the top of team payroll this year?

          1. You are missing the point, Algonad. JEO MARURER IS MAKING $23 MILLION DOLLARS TO SIT ON THE BNECH AND HIT INTO DOBLE PLAYS!

  8. I didn't get to see the game last night... this morning was a travel day. Let me just say this: LBJ is the greatest basketball player in the world. Hate The Decision all you want, but don't let that hatred cloud your thinking. He is the greatest, he's had a terrific playoff run, and he's about to win a title and an Finals MVP award (unless the Heat collapse, but I'm not seeing it). His game 6 against the Celtics was one of the greatest clutch efforts of all time. Not just for a minute or two at the end of the game, either. The Heat needed him to come up big and he took that game by the throat and choked all the life out of the Celtics all night long on their court. I didn't like how he handled The Decision (but in my mind, the shit that 'Melo and Dwight Howard have pulled are far, far greater sins), but on the court, there have been few in his class in the history of the game.

    1. LBJ certainly has the greatest basketball body in the world. The dude is unfairly strong, quick, fast and coordinated, with great court vision. He has that "man amongst boys" look to him, reminiscent of Shaq or Wilt in their primes, but with even more skill.

      I am amazed that Harden/Sefolosha/Durant have been able to hold him under 50 ppg.

      That said, I am totally rooting for the Thunder.

      1. I'm a disinterested observer in this series. I wanted the Celtics and the Thunder in the last round, but in this round, I'm just looking for entertaining basketball. Oh, and in our podcast before the playoffs started, I said Heat over Thunder.

        1. Speaking of the pod:

          I've been meaning to go back and see how people did on their predictions, but I haven't gotten around to it.

          Also, it looks like our Finals preview has turned into a Finals wrap-up. When does recording work for anyone? I'm free until the 28th.

    2. But obviously LeBron should have stayed with Cleveland, because when a local star re-signs with the home team, the fans will support him 100% and there's nothing like that support anywhere else.

    3. All that being true, it would still make me happier to see him and Wade never win another game again.

      1. For those Heat haters, how much better would it be for the Heat not to get a title now?

        1. I'm not gonna lie, it'd be pretty fun. The bad guys are supposed to lose when on the brink of victory, anyway.

    4. James is an incredible player, one of the greatest ever. This was a fact long before this season's playoffs, although it is emphasized by them.

      Of course, if the Thunder should come back and win this series, it would just be further evidence that James is the biggest choker of all time. This would be true even if he scored fifty points with twenty rebounds, fifteen assists and ten steals in each of the remaining games.

      Granted, it would be awfully hard for the Thunder to come back and win if he did that, but you know what I mean.

      1. One of the great ironies in sports is that Jerry West's nickname is "Mr. Clutch" even though his teams went 1-8 in Finals appearances, including four game 7 losses.

    1. I got chills reading about those two performances. '91 still gets me every time. I read my daughter our "Baby's First Twins Book" (or some such crap) the other day and almost teared up pointing out the pictures from the '91 series.

      1. Here's the crazy thing: I know I watched every second of game 6, but I have no recollection of where I watched it or with whom.

        1. Ditto. I assume it was with my immediately family in the living room, but I don't recall those details.

          1. Oddly, I remember exactly where I watched and with whom. Of course, that may be because I watched it in the den of our apartment by myself. We had just moved to Wessington Springs, so I knew very few people, and Mrs. A couldn't have cared less about the World Series (and still couldn't). She has many other admirable qualities, of course.

        2. I actually have more memories of watching the '87 world series than the '91.

          1. Me too, as I watched it in my future father-in-law's living room. He's a lifelong Cardinals fan.

        3. I was at game 6 and 7 but my memory still hears Jack Buck make that call in game 6.

        4. When I could, I watched the World Series in the lobby of my dorm room in college. I had one friend that was cheering for the Twins with me, but only because his sister was a Braves fan. Other than that, everyone else was cheering for the Braves. I remember having to do something during Game 6, but I don't remember what. I remember Puckett's triple in the first inning and then I think I turned on the radio about the time he had the sac fly. I do remember watching the home run. I was able to watch all of Game 7. 1991 was a better series, but 1987 was a much better season to enjoy. There was something magical about that team. I was a football manager in high school and I remember being on the football sideline for Game 3. Many people had brought mini TVs and I remember a huge cheer coming up from the crowd when the Twins scored right during a very innocuous football play. For Game 6, I was on my way to the football field when Hrbek hit his grand slam. I listened to a lot of the series with a transistor radio. I was able to watch Game 7, but I was at someone else's house and I was pretty much the only one watching, but they couldn't tear me away.

    2. That's a mighty fine list. Just about every one I was thinking had to be on there was, and in roughly the order I'd have figured.

      1. No love for the Relievers. Orlando Hernandez for the White Sox, Game 3 of the 2005 ALDS.
        Comes in with his team up one, bases loaded, no outs. Foul Pop, Infield Pop, Strikeout. Three more strikeouts vs 1 hit in the next two innings. Sox win, by two (one run in Top 9th makes Jenks' 1-2-3 save a bit cheaper.) This win sweeps the series.

        WPA: .616

  10. I mentioned that I would try to needle The Roommate into writing a post for us. He has declined, but was willing to share a few thoughts through me. Here's a little taste:

    I think I'll scream if I hear one more argument that allowing pirating is actually good for authors. It's an utterly irrelevant argument. The point is, authors, musicians, and other artists have the legal and moral right to authorize the publication and distribution of copies of their works. It's up to them to decide what's good for them—and if they want to do something that's not good for them, it's their right. Don't [redacted] someone's wife, and then tell him it's better that way, she was cheating on him anyway.

    We didn't talk about copyright duration.

    I'm uncertain about my position. I'm with Stick on patent law -- the monopoly rights over reproduction of intellectual properties pertaining to making things should be limited, not eternal. I'm less certain about copyright on artistic production. Is the principle really the same in the two cases?

    Should copyright be limited as a means to encourage derivative works for the long-run benefit of society, and if so, how long should the monopoly control period last? Why should anyone be allowed to simply reprint/reproduce an author's written works EVER without compensating the author?

    clearly derivative works seem to me to be in a different class. New artistic works that involve repurposing parts of an old work (sampling or variations on a theme in music; parodies; Calvin pissing on a truck; etc.) are contributions to the economy and sum total of human creativity.

    Sorry if this is too close to The Forbidden Zone. I should prolly shut it now.

    1. I'll just toss out this easy suggestion for drawing the line:

      How about the copyright dies with the artist? That way they get the benefit of their production their entire life, but people who didn't create the work (heirs, people copyright was sold to) don't get perpetual benefits.

        1. Alright, so you put a minimum on it. Instead of death, make it "until the author would have turned 100, or dies, whichever is later." Problem solved.

    2. Let me ask you this: what societal good does allowing eternal rights advance? I mean, it might be good for artists (and their as yet unborn great grandchildren), but what about for the rest of us? For the rest of us, it is a negative. I'm pretty sure all the people negatively impacted by eternal rights far outweighs the benefits for the few. What benefit is gained by society if high schools have to pay the Thornton Wilder estate a fee to put on "Our Town" for another 33 years (at least)? That is absurd.

      1. But theory doesn't give us a cutoff. why force schools to pay EVER to put on a play? Because we want to incentivize creative activities. We do so by protecting intellectual property rights. I suspect we all agree to this point. The questions arehow much incentive is "enough" incentive to maximize the social value, and how to balance the social value against individual liberty.

        1. I'm not sure that I agree that we want to incentivize all creative activities. I also disagree that the stated purpose of the establishment of the right in the first place was to do such. From the original copyright act of 1790:

          An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.

          Taking things out of the public domain is limiting freedom. When the government decides to limit freedom, it should have a compelling reason to do so. The original intent of this law was to encourage learning. Copyright is now used to protect belt buckles. I think we can all agree that copyright law has expanded into areas that have very little (i.e. nothing) to do with learning whatsoever.

          1. You state that the purpose of the original act was to "encourage learning". But the mechanism was to confer the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" copies of their "maps, charts, and books" for a limited term, given that the author met some conditions. This sounds to me as though the intent of the Act was indeed to incentivize creative activities. It just didn't originally include anything beyond "maps, charts, and books".

            This has nothing directly to do with "learning," and everything to do with incentivizing creative activities by punishing publication piracy (say those three words three times fast). The Act did not specify any requirements for contents. A book of poetry would be equally protected as a book of engineering formulas, or a navigation map.

            If the Act had been intended only to "encourage learning," why was it limited only to citizens of the U.S.? Why not protect authors of different nationalities as well? The Act was narrowly drawn to confer defensible intellectual property rights to citizens in order to encourage domestic production of marketable maps, charts, and books, and to change the terms of trade between domestic authors and publishers.

    3. For me, it's fairly easy to agree that it's fine to forbid people from making an exact duplicate of someone's work without some kind of permission (with money changing hands or not.) It seems a lot stickier when you start going past that.

      For instance, to keep this sports-related, take baseball's standard disclaimer language, prohibiting "any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball." Okay, a rebroadcast would seem to require making a copy of the original broadcast, so that seems reasonable to forbid. (And presumably DVR'ing a game for your own personal consumption, or some kind of "narrowcast" would appear to be fine.) Similarly, retransmission seems a lot like copying the original broadcast. But, any account of the game is prohibited without permission? I can't watch the game and tell people what I saw? Really? That seems like forbidding someone from making a sketch of a statue they saw on the street corner. It's a completely different medium and it's really hard for me to see an account of a game as a copy of the broadcast.

      1. wasn't Stats Inc. or some other place like BR sued a few years ago for having accounts of the games without permission? I recall that MLB lost.

      2. I've always kind of assumed that the sports oligopolies use really broad assertions of their rights as a deterrent, knowing full well that they can't actually enforce everything that they seem to be claiming.

        Internet broadcasting play-by-play of a game without negotiating rights -- barred. Writing up a blog post (or newspaper article) describing the game after-the-fact -- not barred. Publishing a box score? Not barred. Webcasting live "shot charts" of a basketball game? Not barred. All of this maps back to the Fair Use Doctrine.

        The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

        Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

        The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
        The nature of the copyrighted work
        The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
        The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

        The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

    4. I haven't commented on this because I don't usually chime in on the CsoC, but the real problem here is to fully impose the current copyright law on the internet will destroy the internet as we know it.

      It wasn't the artists or content creators that controlled the old business model, it was the distributors. Distribution is now effectively free. It is understandable that the distributors are horrified by this. They not only don't control the system anymore, they have no place in it.

      There are ways for artists to make money in this new system, but it won't be in the same ways as the old system. The amount of stuff that you can download on the internet that is free(non-infringing) and entertaining is immense. I never was a huge pirate, but I pretty much stopped when I realized I could get countless hours of podcasts, funny videos, etc. for free from people who probably would've never been allowed through the gate of the old system.

    2. In Minny, twister-counties that come to mind after listening to the 'CCO during storm season: Yellow Medicine, Polk, Kandiyohi, Renville, Stearns, Todd, Meeker, Wright, Lac qui Parle, Otter Tail, Wadena.

  13. Willingham led the AL in WPA before he hit a tie-breaking homer in the eighth inning tonight. Clutch.

Comments are closed.