157 thoughts on “July 11, 2012: Familiar”

  1. This is the first time I can remember that no teams have scheduled games for the Thursday after the ASG.

    2. I'm sure it's a nice break for the players, but for the fans, it is absolutely boo.

      1. It was usually just three games. 20% of the players can suffer for our entertainment: it means they get other scheduled days off.

    3. I love baseball and all, but I think a 4 day All Star Break should be the norm.

  2. If no one else saw it, Chuck James is done for the season after being cut by the Mets and is considering retirement:

    1. I hope he gets another chance. There's no real reason to think he's not as good as a lot of guys who are currently in the majors.

      1. I wonder if this season's injury might be healing slowly or poorly, or if it's some aggravation of his first injury that they now suspect there's no reason it won't keep recurring.

    2. No idea who that fan was that asked the question.
      It makes me sad, but I don't know how to communicate to a player that I really hoped he would come back and face my team and dominate it and make them sorry for scorning him.

  4. In my years working as a sports copy editor, the day after the MLB All-Star Game was known as the most uneventful sports day of the year. Can't believe the WNBA doesn't make this a big day for itself, since it has no MLB, golf or tennis to compete with. There are three WNBA games today and two are day games.

  5. So... after hearing back on interviews fairly quickly the previous times, this time I am sitting around more than a week later (admittedly, that week had the 4th of July in it) without having heard anything. It is driving me crazy. "Having nightmares about it" crazy. I knew I wanted this job - but I didn't realize how badly I wanted it. Also, I definitely want to leave my current employer too. Ugh.

  6. I've only met the guy a few times, but it sure looks like DPWY is about to get an elbow to the face here, right?

    1. Of all Selig's half-baked ideas through the years, this one is the half-bakedest. And it shows you how unseriously he can take the game.

    2. I used to like the idea, but that was before it was easy to watch NL games. Now, it's a silly idea and probably just to distract people from replay.

        1. I used to like this idea, but now I'm in favor of letting the home manager decide DH or DH on the day of the game. There would have to be some deadline--say two hours before game time, but that should be pretty easy.

          1. I'd be against that as one more step down the slippery slide to all-DH rules. (Following on the "balancing" into odd-numbered leagues, which requires year-round two interleague play.)

            Also, it'd just give second-guessers in the media more managerial decisions to gripe about.

            1. Slippery slide to all-DH rules? I think we're well beyond that point. As far as I can tell, the NL and NPB's Central League are the only leagues of any significance in the whole world that insist on no DH. No DH might be allowed in some games in the minor leagues, but both teams have to agree on it.

              At this point, having pitchers hit is practically a player safety issue. Some pitchers haven't faced live pitching in a game since they were in 9th or 10th grade. It hardly seems like a good idea to thrust them into the batter's box with such woeful preparation. From a practical standpoint, I'm probably closer to thinking that MLB should just pick one side and stick with it, so they can either require pitchers to hit in the minor leagues or just go with the all-DH in the minors.

    3. I was also for it at first, but then turned against it as I thought it was too cute: the road team's rules are followed?
      I would like to see Twins pitchers bat more, but maybe I just want to do away with the DH. No, that's not quite it either. I wish there were a way to have more frequent yet still infrequent pitchers batting in the AL.

      Idea: all interleague games are played following the rules of the league of the prior year's World Series winner. This time it counts!

      1. At time I also think that the rules for the Championship Season should be replicated in the World Series. If road team rules apply for the Championship Season, they should apply for the championship series.

    4. For reference, pitchers hitting:

      2012: .130/.167/.161
      2002: .148/.179/.192
      1992: .137/.166/.170
      1982: .151/.184/.191
      1972: .146/.184/.184
      1962: .150/.196/.192
      1952: .162/.202/.204

      At what point do pitchers just stop reaching base altogether?

      2. Well, I just used Excel with those seven points you gave me. (Annual numbers, with PA weights would probably be best.)
        OBP has the highest correlation to time, with Rsq = .8064.
        Over the listed years, OBP drops about .000561 per year, meaning that OBP for pitchers should be zero in about 300 years.

        (I checked linear, exponential, logarithmic, and power regression. All have about the same Rsq: Logarithmic is actually the best fit, but the 300 year estimate would be about the same.)

      3. Is this all pitchers or NL pitchers? AL pitchers hit worse due to lack of practice.

        1. Also, selection bias: pitchers who can hit better than other pitchers should migrate to the NL because they'll be more valuable. I haven't noticed it that much, but I can't assume NL managers completely ignore pitcher batting.

        2. With the current Interleague schedule, AL teams play 4.9% of the games under NL rules, so assume that they represent that much of the PAs in 2002.
          All Interleague games for 2012 have already been played, meaning that AL teams have played 9.2% of the games under NL rules. Assume that these correspond to PAs. If AL pitchers are half the batters that NL pitchers are (which would be a stretch), it drops the Rsq to .6292 and buys us another 90 years until pitchers get no hits.

          1. It appears to be both leagues, so I'm going to split it out for this year. This is any listed as a pitcher that hit, so could include a few position player-as-a-pitcher-hitting PAs.

            AL: .119/.144/.126/.270
            NL: .131/.169/.165/.334

            1. Shoot, I just closed my spreadsheet without saving.
              My 9.2% of 2012 Pitcher PAs are from the AL looks spot-on.
              Also, looks like AL pitchers get on base at about 85% of the rate of NL pitchers.
              Which probably only buys us another decade or so instead of 90 years until pitchers truly are automatic outs.

        3. AL pitchers hit worse due to lack of practice.

          Which is really saying something considering just how terrible NL pitchers are at hitting.

          Personally, I don't see why everyone should hit any more than everyone should pitch. Sure, pitchers hitting is historic, but so is hitting with no helmet and using trains to travel from city to city. Even historically it was clear that pitching was a unique position--the only position that players didn't play every day--and the DH is a simple rule which keeps me from having to watch pitchers do something they are clearly terrible at. It's bad enough having to watch Butera try to hit.

          1. the only position that players didn't play every day
            Old Hoss Radbourn would dispute this.

        2. That's what I was thinking, when at first I didn't see it:
          That still counts as a HBP, right?

          1. from a reader comment at Andrew Sullivan's blog:

            You’ll probably hear from more folks than me, but I don’t think the batter would be considered "hit by pitch" under MLB Rule 6.08(b), because it is unlikely that the batter would have made an attempt to avoid being touched by the ball. That is a prerequisite for the batter being entitled to first base without liability to be put out. Also, it is likely that with his x-ray vision, Superman would pitch a strike, and so even if the batter made an attempt to avoid being touched by the ball, the batter would not be entitled to first base.

            2. The strike thing is a good point. Unless you're Brandon Inge, you don't really have to move that much to get a HBP called. However, if the ball is a strike, then you can't get a HBP. I haven't seen anyone test that rule though.

            3. 2 questions:

              1. What does X-ray vision have to do with throwing strikes?

              2. To be a strike, doesn't the ball have to cross the plate in the strike zone? I guess one would have to decide what particles are still defined as the ball to determine a pitchf/x location.

              1. Regarding your second question, I believe that there is an even more significant problem in that even if the center of mass of the ball crosses over the coordinates where the plate used to be, there will be no umpire to rule ball/strike/hbp and the game would effectively be suspended indefinitely.

  9. So I get an email advert from Amazon. Something cool, right?

    Forever More: the greatest hits of John Tesch.

    Really? Just finish the job and emasculate me, Amazon.

        1. Oof, castration shears sounds even more uncomfortable!

          I've used emasculators on bull calves before, so I had an advantage in familiarity.

      3. Reminds me of the great joke: There once was a farmer that drove into the Big City to attend a conference on all the latest advances and techniques in modern farming. He walked into a seminar and stood in the back watching how a castration is done. Afterwards, he commented to the man next to him, "I don't need all those needles and tools and things; I just sneak up behind the bull with two bricks, and *SMACK*!" The man replied, "OUCH -- that's gotta hurt!" The farmer replied, "Only if you get your fingers between the bricks."

  10. How much do you want to bet that Mike Hautamaki boos Joe Mauer? From an article on ESPN1500 about Kevin Love calling on the Wolves to improve the roster:

    Mike Hautamaki · Top Commenter
    The ink has barely dried on that fat contract he signed and already he's throwing out ultimatums? Somebody should remind him that the Wolves' playoff chances died after Rubio got hurt, which begs the question: Who was the Wolves' MVP last season? Love might not like the answer.

        1. What's great is that K-Love is the clear leader in almost every hard statistical category and can be shown on paper to be the team MVP, but even if one insists on softer junk like "clutchiness" and "leadership," he also came out significantly ahead of any other Wolf. I'm not going to waste Mike Hautamaki's time or especially mine asking him where he came up with such garbage, because he's already decided the team's best player is the problem and he'll make some embarrassing crap up to fit the narrative, but deep down, I wonder where these people come up with this nonsense and why they bother being fans at all.

      2. The Wolves MVP was LeBron. Duh. If he'd been available for the whole season, the Wolves might have won the title!!!!111one111!!!

    2. I have heard a certain bespectacled former Laker say that Kevin Love wasn't the best player on the Wolves.

  11. Canis Hoopus has linked to an article speculating that the Wolves are interested in Kyle Korver. No truth to the rumor that David Duke has a new favorite team.

    1. I find it funny that an all-white Wolves could still be the most diverse team in the league.

    1. Huh. Maybe second hand ticket prices will reduce to a level I'm comfortable paying to go to a game there.

      Oh who am I kidding.

    1. It's hard to believe that he's got time for that, what with all the babes flocking to him and Dave after their personal ads.

    2. PETCO Park | San Diego Padres | San Diego, CA
      Ballast Point Brewing Company, Karl Strauss Brewery, Oggi’s Pizza & Brewing Co., Stone Brewing Co.

      AT&T Park | San Francisco Giants | San Francisco, CA
      Anchor Brewing, Lagunitas Brewing Company, New Belgium Brewing Company, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company

      Places like Seattle, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cleveland and Denver that have access to fantastic craft beers have no excuse for their terrible/limited selections.

      *looks around, bewildered*

      Ballast Point, Oggi's and Stone are all outstanding craft breweries that are local to SD. Granted, they could also feature AleSmith, Green Flash, and Pizza Port, but I would not complain about the selection that they do have.

      Anchor, Lagunitas, and Sierra Nevada are three major California "craft" breweries with regional or national reputations. Sure, one might wish to see Moylan's/Marin, Steelhead, Drake's, and 21st Amendment, for a few examples, but, again, the three mentioned (plus foreigner New Belgium) is still a pretty good lineup.

      1. Yeah, for SF, what the heck do they want to see?
        I would be happy to find a bar that served only those four breweries.

      2. Complaining about the Seattle selection seems whiny. It seems to me that just 10 years ago it was pretty rare to see anything outside of Bud/Miller/Coors. Having beers from four different breweries strikes me as a fine selection for a ballpark.

        Also, how do the Yankees get left off the list of room for improvement? The Mets have a much better selection and both teams are in the same city, so it's not like you can blame it on being in a bad beer region or something.

        It looks like in addition to Toronto, he also left off the Cubs.

    1. Maybe most interesting is the assistance or inspiration that he got from "Buster" Rhymes, in contrast to the anonymous douchebag who denied him help when he asked for it early in his time of using crack. (Is that you, Barreiro?)

  18. Tomorrow begins the long (13hr-ish) trek back to The Homeland; b-fast in Hannibal, lunch in Albert Lea, supper in Fergus Falls, and family by sunset. Most of the Runner relations will be there, plus the Polk County Fair, the Fertile-Beltrami 125th All-School Reunion, fireworks, parade, etc., etc. As usual, my job is to make sure Mrs. Runner and Runner daughter (and the dog?) don't end up horribly bored, which can sometimes a lot of work -- we'll see.

    And I think that the interwebs have made a little more in-roads up there. God, I hope so.

    1. Lunch in A.L. - Can't go wrong with the Maid Rite (if its still open). Used to go there with the FIL.

        1. also, even better (although different), is the Gondola ("noblest sandwich of them all") at George's Pizza. Tigers don't know nuffin about food. Gotta go with the Packers.

    3. I want to argue with it.
      I assume Muckdogs are like Muddogs, which are salamanders and thus not mammals at all.
      Should have included Idaho Falls Chukars.
      I would move Riverhawks from waterfowl to hawks.
      I think Twins should be under people.

        1. Oh, I think it's rad, too. I just know/care too much and must quibble like a tribble.

        1. Shows what I know.
          I would have never guessed their logo was a dirty junkyard dog (with sparkling-clean teeth!).
          I also suspect he's Jewish from what they show of the collar.

      3. Wait, wait. Why should "Twins" be under people? They've got it correctly marked under "named after their home" or whatever, right?

        1. I'd argue that the Twins are uniquely situated to be labeled under both. The Twin Cities is a nickname derived from the word Twin, thus the Twins are effectively named after both a home and people (after which their home is named)(and arguably a concept). They should really just be featured prominently in the middle, as some sort of center spoke that other concepts shoot off from. They deserve such attention.

        2. I can see that we may disagree on this point.
          Twins are people, although the name comes from the region.
          I would move any "Saints" to people, and also the "Triplets"
          Surely, many of the other team names come from the city or regional name.
          Case in point: the L.A. Angels.

          1. I don't know that it can even be argued. They would never have been given the name "Twins" if they weren't from the Twin Cities. If they're not labeled under why they were given the name, then what's the image for? "Tiger" is also a nickname that Mary Jane Watson gave Spider-Man. Should the Tigers be under "Nicknames that Mary Jane Watson gave Spider-Man"?

            1. Would the Angels have been named thus had they not been from LA? The Sound if not from Nashville?
              The Indians from Indianapolis (not listed)? The Bison if not from Buffalo? The Orioles if not from Balitmore?

              No, the question is 1) What is the team name? and 2) How do we organize that?

              I think the whole "Place of Origin" category needs to be re-thought, other than States, City Name Derivation, and Capitals.
              What is a Philly or Bingo or Sweeg or Billie? Something from that City.
              What is a 51, a Twin, a Knickerbocker, a Triplet, a Triangle, a Saint, or a Ute? They are all things that have definitions removed from their place of origin, and I would reclassify them as a concept, a person, an article of clothing, a person, a concept, a person of the cloth, and a Native American, respectively.

              2. Nicely done, AMR. I think you argued that quite persuasively, though I don't know if you're going to sway spooky.

                1. Yeah, I still couldn't agree less. If the poster lists Twins as "people," then anyone outside of the Twins fanbase who looks at it will assume they were given that name, for some reason, to refer to siblings born within the same hour. The idea that people would think this about the Twins is bothersome to me, and furthermore, the base word doesn't refer to people at all. The "Twin" in Twin Cities is referring to the two cities. Attributing them with the objects that their names could (but don't) refer to seems to be the opposite of what the poster is trying to do.

                  1. Again, I disagree.
                    For nothing other than those I have listed, they are categorized by the item in the name. Sure, "Twins" may be derived from the name for the two large cities on either side of the river, but they're not the Minnesota Twin Cities or Minnesota Twin Citians. They are the Minnesota Twins. And Twins are people who have siblings with whom they shared their mothers' womb.

                    The LA Angels of Anaheim are listed under "Supernatural Beings", although the Angels were named by the translation of their city's name (they were originally as they are presently: the Los Angeles Angels).

                    Again to your example of Tigers, they are placed in "Mammals/Felines/Big Cats/Tigers" as that's what a Tiger is, regardless of the origin of that nickname.

                    The Isotopes aren't categorized under "Television Programs/Cartoons" but "Element Variants" even though they were named referencing the Simpsons.

                    Is it possible that you think the team's name refers to the cities directly? Like, the "Twins" of the name is really just a shortened term for the "Twin Cities".

                    I don't think I will argue this further. If this isn't enough to sway you, then we are at an impasse.

                    1. Is it possible that you think the team's name refers to the cities directly? Like, the "Twins" of the name is really just a shortened term for the "Twin Cities".

                      ...possible? It isn't "possible." That's the exact reason they have the name - not my opinion, but fact. I thought I understood your argument, but that comment I quoted threw me. This is easily searchable information.

                      On the other hand, I've never cared so little about a half-assed argument I was part of.

                    2. On the other hand, I've never cared so little about a half-assed argument I was part of.

                      The argument kept me thoroughly entertained, and that's all I really care about.

                      Now, back to all-caps and misspelled words over at Canis Hoopus while I try to decipher if the T-Wolves are actually going to sign Batum or what the hell Kahn is up to.

                    3. Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed myself, and I have utmost respect for AMR so it never felt mean-spirited like such a conversation might on FB or, shudder, Bleacher Report. I just don't think I feel strongly enough about the subject to go much longer.

                    4. Two last thoughts:

                      1.
                      "Twins" makes sense apart from the Twin Cities. There's even a Korean team with the same nickname, the LG Twins. "Saints" makes sense apart from St. Paul, there's a football team in New Orleans that has the same name. "Triangles" makes sense apart from Raleigh-Durham, perhaps a team somewhere else just wants to beat the "Particles" and are big TMBG fans.

                      However, "Sweegs" makes no sense outside of Oswego. "Phillies" makes no sense outside of Philadelphia. "Burghers" makes no sense outside of Pittsburgh (or another 'Burgh). "Candians" makes no sense in another Country. "Virginians" makes no sense in 49 out of 50 states.

                      Therefore, "Twins" belongs to be categorized as to what a "Twin" is in the dictionary rather than the fact that it is a reference to the region.

                      2.
                      Could you answer, Spooky, how "Twins" is any different than "Angels" (who are classified by the dictionary definition)?

                    5. I felt that this was an argument of utmost import and of unusually high rancour, especially for a discussion on the internet! By disagreeing with me, Spooky has insulted me, my family, and my hometown (which produced two players for the Twins!). He has offended me to the core, and if he weren't one of the directors of this magazine, I would ask for him to be banned.

                      Sure, I could just look the other way despite him being wrong in every imaginable way. But this is a poster that might actually physically exist and which could be hung upon a young child's wall, and the way in which it classifies baseball team nicknames. (Nicknames! We're not talking about monetary policy or human rights here... this is important!) A baseball team is a group of people and do you know who else wanted to classify people in incorrect ways? The Nazis.

                      So, no, I cannot in good conscience look the other way and excuse your dangerous and repulsive ideas. If you do not see the light on this, Mr. Spoonmilk, I do not know how much longer I can keep considering you my friend.

                    6. PS. I failed to congratulate you on the good news at your job! Glad to see things turn around for you after the Pilot and the way your wife's been treated.

                    7. I think I've got AMR's back on this one, since "Twins" are a thing in and of themselves. Of course, Spooky is absolutely right that the reason the Twins are so named is because of the city. But the classifications aren't of "reasons for names" but rather are classifications of "names themselves". Thus, Spooky's point suffers for semantic reasons. Regardless, since there aren't any specific people who are twins being referred to by the mascot, I think it really refers more to the concept of twinhood than people.

                      Also, if the classifications were "reasons for names" (the Spooky argument)(e.g., so-named because of the locale, so-named because of weather phenomena often experienced at the locale, so-named for animals that frequent the locale, so-named because no one could think of anything better than "wildcat", etc.) then I'd give Spooky the edge. But if we're really going to apply Spooky's logic, it probably would behoove us to point out that the Twin Cities is itself a nickname, derived from the concept of "twins." Thus, if we're going with the "reasons for names" we should probably trace it back another step, not to people, but to concepts.

                      The point is, either way, concepts wins.

                    8. CC to Allan S.:
                      This is what happens with 4-day ASG breaks. Please don't let it happen again.

                    9. Now Phyllo's making sense in part and talking nonsense in part.

                      As for the part that's the concurrence in part, I will just add "Phyllo's right that Spooky's wrong".
                      As for the part that's the dissention in part, I must retort:
                      "Royals" and "Monarchs" doesn't refer to any specific Royals but more the concept of royalty, but there they are, in "People".
                      "Infants" doesn't refer to any specific babies, but more the concept of infancy, but they are categorized as "People", as they should be.

                      If you or Spooky are denying that twins are people, or at least whose personhood is not the most basic part of their nature, can you think of anyone else who might have argued that some people had less than full personhood? That's right, our nation's founding fathers. But also the Nazis.

                      Point is, either way, if Phyllo's disagreeing with me, he's wrong.

                    10. Could you answer, Spooky, how "Twins" is any different than "Angels" (who are classified by the dictionary definition)?

                      Yes (every time I think I'm out...). It's completely different.

                      "Twins" is a nickname for the two Cities together. It isn't the official name of either city. Los Angeles - or "The Angels" is the actual name of that city. It really is named to refer to angels. The Twin Cities area isn't named to refer to twin people - it's only called that to refer to twin cities.

                      Now LEAVE ME ALONE I DON'T CARE AAAAAUUUUGGHGHHH

        3. "Place of Origin/Metropolitan area" is okay, but I looked under "People" first, for whatever that's worth.

        4. I understand that Calvin Griffith wanted to name the club the Twin Cities Twins, but that was nixed by MLB. I say it's where they came from.

              2. Although, originally it would have been Twin Cities Twins of Bloomington, which would be more apt to the stupid naming of LAAA.

          2. I can see why he picked that: if anyone's seen the prototype "MT" logo, the "TC" is clearly superior.

Comments are closed.