122 thoughts on “October 2, 2012: Not Immune”

  1. Looking forward to spending a day "in the field", with some time at Alton & Southern's Gateway Yard and other work-related sites around the StL area. Unfortunately, like with most railyards, they aren't located in the better parts of town.

    We also have third row seats near the home bullpen for tonight's Cardinals game; not that I care much one way or the other, but if the Cards clinch tonight, I have fewer grumpy neighbors to deal with.

  2. Mark Stein has released his pre-season power rankings and he has the Wolves 14th (8th in the West).

    I. Can. Hardly. Wait.

    1. I am not a betting man* but I would blow the cobwebs off my wallet to take the over on that.

      *My annual "gimme" with Spooky excepted. Speaking of that, I am almost ready to concede that Blackburn will fall short of 11 wins this season and to start shopping for beer.

    1. Without reading, I believe that the Angels are playing in Seattle, so I guess he's talking about how much he enjoys playing at Safeco.

      1. Nope, but it is about a former Seattle player currently playing about 6 hours from Pine Bluff.
        And what do you know, his contract* is up!
        *Warning: Link to the BR ii page

        1. What's amazing is that he managed to be a net gain for the Angels with the contract. I crudely estimate that the contract expected him to deliver 18 wins and he performed at 19.7 rWAR and 18.0 fWAR.

          1. The key to that deal for the Angels is that they could make it and still have enough money to sign Albert Pujols going into year 5 of that deal. Having a $150M+ payroll is nice like that.

            1. Having a $3 billion TV deal also helps. Though to get that, you generally need the $150 million payroll first.

            1. Ditto. I think rWAR (read: DRS) is over-rating his defense some, but a quick estimate says 4 wins next season. If he plays through his age 40 season (four more seasons), that's roughly 12 more wins. Which puts him at the cusp of the Hall for career rWAR.

  4. What a difference a year makes. Hollinger on the PekSmash:

    Scouting report
    + Overpowering, wrecking ball of a big man who plays with unbridled physicality.
    + Good scorer around the basket. Draws fouls and can catch. Brutal ball handler.
    + Poor defensive rebounder. Competes on defense but doesn't move well.

    Analysis
    On a per-minute basis, the NBA leader in points in the paint in 2011-12 was not Dwight Howard. It was not LeBron James or Blake Griffin or Andrew Bynum.

    It was Nikola Pekovic, and that fact underscores just how good he was in his second pro season.

    I understand the reluctance to give him the most-improved award since he didn't play a full season, but it's worth noting that Pekovic made the single biggest PER improvement in more than two decades. Pekovic's double-digit jump from rotation afterthought in 2010-11 to vital cog in 2011-12 was more than a point better than the next-largest leap, by Miami's Dwyane Wade in 2008-09.

    His value could be seen immediately when an injury ended his season -- for all the talk of how Ricky Rubio's demise affected the Wolves, the loss of Pekovic at nearly the same time hurt them just as badly.

    The most important development for Pekovic was to get him to stop fouling on every play, and he underwent a rather dramatic transformation in that regard. After leading the league with a shocking 8.16 personals per 40 minutes as a rookie, he fell to 3.51 last season -- one of the lower rates among centers. His other big weakness, turnovers, also became much less of an issue. That went hand in hand, as many of the fouls were offensive fouls from illegal screens and his road-grader-in-reverse method of posting up.

    Eliminating turnovers left him free to do what he does well, finish around the basket and rebound. Pekovic averaged a point every two minutes while converting 65.9 percent of his shots in the basket area; he also helped himself with a 74.3 percent mark from the free throw line. He made only six shots outside 10 feet all season, but his free throw mark suggests he could convert short-range jumpers as well. Pekovic's rebound numbers, a big disappointment in his rookie campaign, also proved very solid.

    Defensively, Pekovic doesn't move particularly well, nor does he block shots, but he's learned how to be physical without fouling and his size really helps in post defense. Minnesota gave up 3.3 points per 100 possessions more with him on the court, but he's so valuable offensively that it's a minor price to pay.

        1. My Best Buy was being dinks about preordering it last night, and the website didn't have in store pickup. I have to wait for it to ship. But I don't want to wait for it to get here.

          1. I figure there will be plenty of copies available, so I'm waiting a couple days. i can't play it until the weekend, anyway. I'm totally psyched to take control of the Unicorn, though.

            1. Yeah, preorders on a sports game aren't necessary. Stores are shipped tons of them.

              In fact, in general, if preorders are available, you know they'll have enough that you don't have to preorder a copy. Companies have figured out that people figured it out, though, so they added 'preorder bonuses' into the mix.

              1. The best thing about those preorder bonuses is the absurd amounts of money people pay for them. I sold the code for Reptile from the new Mortal Kombat for $45 on eBay less than an hour after getting home with the game. Ridiculous.

            2. Oh there should be. They just had a preorder deal since I'm in their Gamers Club. That was my biggest frustration about them not letting me preorder it - I'm sure if I walk in there today there will literally be hundreds of copies on the shelf available. I don't have time to play now either, but I too am excited to run the Pek 'n roll with the Unicorn.

    2. Y'all have convinced me to engage with the wolves. A good friend just moved to Baton Rouge and has already bought us tickets to see the Hornets V OKC for the week I return. This'll be the first NBA game I've attended since 1994. Holy cows, I didn't realize it had been that long. I'm excited, you guys.

      1. I've only seen two NBA games live, and one was paid for by my company (I got second-row seats just off of the basket). I should try to hit one or two this season.

        1. I once saw a game at the Target Center. Wolves vs. Suns. Charles Barkley was injured and didn't play, but the Suns without him were too much for Luc Longley, Christian Slater, &co. Luc was the fan favorite because who the hell else?

      3. The last time I bought tickets to a Timberwolves game was KG's first return after being traded. Then he was injured and didn't play and I didn't end up going.

        1. My last T-Wolves game was with E-6 when KG played in Minneapolis as a Celtic for the first time. I'm planning on going this year with Miss SBG.

        1. So you're saying we should go to a game in Milwaukee? (parking would be cheaper too.) I'm in, lets do this.

      6. Three seasons ago, I got a call in early November by a guy claiming to be from the Wolves. He said I won a raffle that got me two tickets to every home game. I told him it must be a joke because I didn't enter a raffle. He insisted he was telling me the truth. Anyway, two days later I got an envelope in the mail that contained two tickets to every game. Sheenie and I ended up going about 15 times (and giving away a few that we couldn't use, but in general, nobody wanted these tickets). In that entire season, we saw ONE POSSESSION in which the Wolves had a fourth quarter lead. Watching BAJ and Flynn was beyond brutal.

        Anyway, the next year, Sheenie got some really awesome seats (mid-court, about fifteen rows up) from someone at work to an OKC game that the Wolves almost won (Durant fouled out while the Wolves were winning with a few minutes to go, but they blew it thanks to some SCB idiocy). I didn't make it to a game last season, but have already told a friend with a partial ticket package that I'll be his guy if he needs to get rid of any.

        Before the season I won the tickets, I think I had been to may three Wolves games in my life as well as a few other random NBA games (went to a Hornets game a few years ago to see Pops Mensah-Bonsu, went to a couple of Wizards games back in the day just to see Jordan).

  5. Alright folks, I'll see y'all on the dark side of the moon, er the other side of the Atlantic.

  6. AL Triple Crown Update:

    Avg.
    Cabrera .329
    Trout .325
    Mauer .322
    Beltre .319
    Jeter .316
    Hunter .314

    Runs
    Trout 129
    Cabrera 109
    Jackson, Jones, Kinsler 103
    Cano, Hamilton 102

    Net Stolen Bases
    Trout 48-4=44
    Crisp 39-4=35
    Revere 40-7=33
    Rajai Davis 45-13=32
    Jennings 31-2=29

    1. I have also invented a new counting stat called "Bases Created" which someone else probably already created once before.
      BC = TB + BB + HBP + SB - CS - GIDP

      MLB Leaders:
      Braun 439
      Trout 420
      Cabrera 419
      Encarnacion, McCutcheon 401
      Fielder 388
      Headley 385

      Then, we can do a BCP, Bases Created Percentage, or BC/(PA+GIDP). Adding GIDP so that one can't score a GIDP as -1 for 1, but rather 0 for 2. Doesn't change results much.
      ML Leaders:
      Trout .659
      Braun .645
      Stanton .642 (.637 with 4 empty PAs needed to qualify)
      Encarnacion .617
      Hamilton .600
      Votto .632 (.595 with 29 empty PAs needed to qualify)
      McCutcheon .594
      Cabrera .582
      Beltre .562
      Bruce .559
      Gonzales .553
      Willingham, Ramirez, Headley .552
      Fielder .551

      That's right, Trout is basically worth two bases every three plate appearances.

    2. It's really unfortunate that Cabrera is probably going to win the triple crown, because without that, the MVP argument shifts to Cabrera and Trout having very similar value as hitters and Trout having way more baserunning and defensive value. Most of my thoughts on the whole matter were elaborated by Joe Posnanski here.

      1. I like how the Triple Crown is being bandied about as a justification for picking an MVP. Of course! It's not like someone else won the Triple Crown and also failed to win the MVP. That never happened twice to the same person. Nope.

        1. Slacker didn't pull in MVP votes in 1943, 1944, 1945, 1952, or any year after 1960.
          2nd-place 1947 makes the most sense: a) bias against back-to-back MVPs, b) Dimaggio hitting streak. I mean, in retrospect it's indefensible, but I get it. Also, lost MVP by one point. If someone who voted him fifth had instead voted him fourth, he would have won.

          1. I'm not sure DiMaggio's streak was much of a factor in 1947, since he had it in 1941. Incidentally, during Dimaggio's streak, Williams hit for a much higher average than old Joltin' Joe.

            2. Still, makes more sense than my construction from last night's gamelog that allows Revere to have had the most steals since Carew while Knobbers still has the most steals in a season of any player wearing a Twins uniform.

          2. Was that the season a Boston writer left Williams off his ballot entirely just because he didn't like him?

          3. Williams led the AL in in OBP and SLG every single year that he played a full season from 1941 to 1954. Now, he missed 1943-45 and 52-53 because of war and he was hurt in 1950, but good lord was he something.

            1. He led in rWAR for position players in 1941-42, 1946-47, 1949 and 1951. In 1948, he was second to Lou Boudreau. In 1954, he was second to Minnie Minosa. In 1955 he was third behind Mantle and Kaline.

              In 1950 he finished 10th despite playing only 89 games. Are you kidding me??!!! His slash line that season was 317/452/647 with a 168 OPS+. The OBP, SLG, OPS (obviously) and OPS+ would have led the league had he maintained those levels to qualify.

        2. My only consolation in this is that Cabrera is at least having a very, very good season at the plate. Unlike, say, Justin Morneau's 2006 MVP win, for which there is frankly no justification--he wasn't even top 10 in the league in wOBA and had essentially no defensive value.

  7. Mauer Cabrera Trout
    0-8 0.31752 0.32480 0.32021
    1-8 0.31934 0.32640 0.32200
    2-8 0.32117 0.32800 0.32379
    3-8 0.32299 0.32960 0.32558
    4-8 0.32482 0.33120 0.32737
    5-8 0.32664 0.33280 0.32916
    6-8 0.32847 0.33440 0.33095
    7-8 0.33029 0.33600 0.33274
    8-8 0.33212 0.33760 0.33453

    Quick and dirty table outlining Batting Title outcomes. Plenty of assumptions made (NO walks, 8 AB each) but gives everyone an idea.

    1. So, basically Mauer has to go off, because if he went 3-for-8 (.375), Cabrera would still be ahead of him even with an 0-for-8. 4-for-8 and Cabrera would have to go 0-for-8 or worse for Mauer to just barely edge him.

      1. I fully expect Cabrera to get at least one day off. Probably today, since, you know, they clinched yesterday. I'm sure that a few barlyepops were consumed.

        1. Not by Cabrera apparently. Since, you know... the GM only drives you from jail to the ballpark an unlimited number of times once.

    2. Mags, you managed to find yet another bug (the first was your Olympic results list) with generating the table. Thankfully, this fix was easier.

        1. This bug was the headers not being identified as such, making it look kind of funny. The previous bug I think was marking a bunch of rows as "footer" rows, so they were colored gray and not sortable.

    3. For a little more nuance. Hits are across the top, AB down the left. Impossible results (ie going 8-4) are --

      Mauer (Currently 174/540)

      Hits-->/AB↓ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
      0 0.322222222 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      1 0.321626617 0.323475046 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      2 0.321033210 0.322878229 0.324723247 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      3 0.320441989 0.322283610 0.324125230 0.325966851 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      4 0.319852941 0.321691176 0.323529412 0.325367647 0.327205882 -- -- -- -- -- --
      5 0.319266055 0.321100917 0.322935780 0.324770642 0.326605505 0.328440367 -- -- -- -- --
      6 0.318681319 0.320512821 0.322344322 0.324175824 0.326007326 0.327838828 0.329670330 -- -- -- --
      7 0.318098720 0.319926874 0.321755027 0.323583181 0.325411335 0.327239488 0.329067642 0.330895795 -- -- --
      8 0.317518248 0.319343066 0.321167883 0.322992701 0.324817518 0.326642336 0.328467153 0.330291971 0.332116788 -- --
      9 0.316939891 0.318761384 0.320582878 0.322404372 0.324225865 0.326047359 0.327868852 0.329690346 0.331511840 0.333333333 --
      10 0.316363636 0.318181818 0.320000000 0.321818182 0.323636364 0.325454545 0.327272727 0.329090909 0.330909091 0.332727273 0.334545455

      Cabrera (Currently 203/617)

      Hits-->/AB↓ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
      0 0.329011345 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      1 0.328478964 0.330097087 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      2 0.327948304 0.329563813 0.331179321 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      3 0.327419355 0.329032258 0.330645161 0.332258065 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      4 0.326892110 0.328502415 0.330112721 0.331723027 0.333333333 -- -- -- -- -- --
      5 0.326366559 0.327974277 0.329581994 0.331189711 0.332797428 0.334405145 -- -- -- -- --
      6 0.325842697 0.327447833 0.329052970 0.330658106 0.332263242 0.333868379 0.335473515 -- -- -- --
      7 0.325320513 0.326923077 0.328525641 0.330128205 0.331730769 0.333333333 0.334935897 0.336538462 -- -- --
      8 0.324800000 0.326400000 0.328000000 0.329600000 0.331200000 0.332800000 0.334400000 0.336000000 0.337600000 -- --
      9 0.324281150 0.325878594 0.327476038 0.329073482 0.330670927 0.332268371 0.333865815 0.335463259 0.337060703 0.338658147 --
      10 0.323763955 0.325358852 0.326953748 0.328548644 0.330143541 0.331738437 0.333333333 0.334928230 0.336523126 0.338118022 0.339712919

      Trout (Currently 179/551)

      Hits-->/AB↓ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
      0 0.324863884 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      1 0.324275362 0.326086957 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      2 0.323688969 0.325497288 0.327305606 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      3 0.323104693 0.324909747 0.326714801 0.328519856 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      4 0.322522523 0.324324324 0.326126126 0.327927928 0.329729730 -- -- -- -- -- --
      5 0.321942446 0.323741007 0.325539568 0.327338129 0.329136691 0.330935252 -- -- -- -- --
      6 0.321364452 0.323159785 0.324955117 0.326750449 0.328545781 0.330341113 0.332136445 -- -- -- --
      7 0.320788530 0.322580645 0.324372760 0.326164875 0.327956989 0.329749104 0.331541219 0.333333333 -- -- --
      8 0.320214669 0.322003578 0.323792487 0.325581395 0.327370304 0.329159213 0.330948122 0.332737030 0.334525939 -- --
      9 0.319642857 0.321428571 0.323214286 0.325000000 0.326785714 0.328571429 0.330357143 0.332142857 0.333928571 0.335714286 --
      10 0.319073084 0.320855615 0.322638146 0.324420677 0.326203209 0.327985740 0.329768271 0.331550802 0.333333333 0.335115865 0.336898396

  8. As bad as this season has been for the Twins, it would have been so much worse to me if the Twins had pretty much singlehandedly given the division to the White Sox. The Twins had a winning record against the Indians and Royals and were 8-10 vs. the Tigers and 4-14 vs. the White Sox. I'm glad the Tigers finally clinched, although I don't like the Tigers much better. I know some fans cheer for the team from the Twins' division in the playoffs if the Twins don't win it, but I can't see myself cheering for the Tigers except maybe against the Yankees, and I never would cheer for the White Sox.

        1. Yeah, I gotta say, I was really hoping for a sweep over the weekend. I'm also horrified to find myself actively rooting against a possible triple crown, when throughout my childhood, I was captivated by the possibility of seeing one happen.

    2. I feel the same way. I can't imagine rooting for the Yankees, but I would rather see them win than the White Sox.

        1. I'd rather see the Yankees win than the White Sox too. At least when they do it, there's a "Meh, the billionaires should win the thing"...uh, thing. When the White Sox win, their fans are insufferable. Yankee fans just look down their noses at people for a week or two and then start talking about the changes they have to make in order to do it again next year.

        2. Objectively false

          What's the opposite of saying 'suck it nibbish'?

          I have to swallow my pride a bit and hope that anyone but the yanks win. I'm not actively cheering for the sox or tigers, but I'm not going to root against them. If I had to put my eggs in a rooting basket it would have to be for the Nats.

      2. In a case like that, I don't really root for either team. If I'm watching the game, I just hope for an interesting game.

          1. I had fun watching some games from a neutral perspective last October. It was liberating in a way to focus more on analyzing the game than hoping for one side to win, while at the same time, there is a lot less tension/excitement.

            1. I normally agree with you. With games between teams like the A's and the Orioles, it's a lot easier to simply be an objective watcher. With teams like Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Cincinnati (I usually like the Reds just fine, but a friend of mine has been absolutely insufferable since they became the "best team in baseball"), I find it a lot harder to just enjoy baseball. With teams like that, I want some manner of rooting interest, even if it's only for them to lose or play poorly.

  9. First Monday Book Day was delayed by White Sox schadenfreude. It will appear eventually, if not sooner.

  10. Twins v. KCR and CLE: 23-13. v. everyone else: 43-81.

    Last year v. KCR and CLE: 17-19. v. everyone else: 46-80.

    This year's "improvement" is basically playing better against two 90 loss clubs.

    I realize that this is a little unfair, as Cleveland was 80-82 last year (also SSS), but still, this is a very bad team. Very. Bad. And that's with much better 2012 seasons from Mauer and Morneau, the enormous addition of Willingham, and Doumit taking ABs away from Drew Butera.

  11. Good news: the Minnesota Empire Builders (my OOTP team) just traded for Bert Blyleven (sending Ray Burris and Tony Bernazard away). This means my organization (as part of my goal to snag as many decent former Twins as possible) will have had: Bert, Killer, Allison, Tony O, Battey, Kaat, Steve Braun, Bernie Allen, Bill Campbell, and Al Worthington.

      1. I'll probably have to wait about 3 or 4 years in real life to find out if it's worth it. Carew is going to be tough (unless I get him at the very end of his career, like I did with Allison, Killer, and Battey), and Hrbek, Gaetti, Bruno, and Viola are all entering the league very soon so it's going to be difficult to snag more than one of them in the draft.

        My team is also getting old quickly, so a youth movement might be needed in a few years.

  14. New TV deal for MLB with Fox and TBS.

    Highlight:

    ... starting in 2014, Saturday out-of-market games will no longer be blacked out from MLB.tv and Extra Innings customers, even when Fox has a national game.

    The deal is worth $12.4 billion for 2014-2021. That's $1.55 billion a year, which means an average of $51.67 million per team per year. I don't know what the last TV deal was worth to calculate the increase. That means a team could run on a ~$25 million payroll using just this money*.

    * Caveat: I'm guessing the amount per year increases throughout the deal, so the actual amount per year will start lower than $51 million.

    1. More and more, television money drives baseball. Attendance is nice and there's money in that, but in the big markets TV is the King.

    2. I'd sure like the Twins to perhaps dip a little bit into this money so they can field an actual Major League rotation next year. It's too bad they don't have a somewhat better TV situation overall, the money that's getting spent on those deals is nutty.

        1. I probably worded that poorly, but that's kinda what I was getting at. I'd think they could go a little over budget next year (assuming the money is being spent wisely) given the large windfall they have coming over the next several years. I'd hate to see them lowball decent pitching to save a couple million with this on the horizon.

          Still. I don't expect them to do much in free agency anyway, so it's a moot point.

          1. Meh, any kind of league-wide deal isn't going to give the Twins an edge, unless it changes revenue sharing in their favor (which this won't). There are still only 2,430 wins in a season, so the new deal will just drive up the marginal cost of a win. That's good news for the players, I suppose.

    2. I didn't see a link there on Gardy and K-Love, but I did see a link to the Sparklepony Punter's rebuttal to Matt Birk on [forbidden zone topic]. Hey, wow, a respectful exchange on a political issue! From jocks!

      1. You could tell it was coming from respect by the way he didn't use words like "lustful cockmonster". Amusing as exchanges like that are, they undermine the message in terms of "I have a serious opinion that should be taken at least a little bit seriously". I mean, if he wants to get a bunch of like-minded dudebros to say "lol, PWNED", that's one thing, but if you're going to have an even remotely serious discussion, it's another thing entirely.

        1. I mean, if he wants to get a bunch of like-minded dudebros to say "lol, PWNED", that's one thing

          Isn't that the point of writing for Deadspin?

    1. I referred to the third year, while I was actually in the third year of law school, as a tuition extraction program. My view on this hasn't changed.

      1. The more I hear about, and the more you guys talk about, law school and its costs and unemployments reminds me of how very, very glad I am that I got an engineering degree.

      2. I loved the third year, but it was pure academia, and nothing that prepared me for actually being an attorney. Lots of money for that...

  18. I also enjoyed the headline on Joe C's wrap-up piece on Sept. 30: "Bilateral this: Healthy Mauer has a Mauer-like season"

  19. Tony Romo threw 5 INTs last night, and ESPN is asking 'Whats wrong with the Cowboys?' I wouldnt be surprised for them to suggest Jerry Jones trade for Tim Tebow.

  20. Lynx win! pretty gutty performance by Lindsey Whalen, playing with an injured wrist the entire second half.

      1. I don't care about the Triple Crown all that much. To me the most annoying thing about it is going to be re-memorizing trivia (Like when those two guys who played all nine positions a few years ago I can't remember and messed up the answer being "Tovar and Campaneris").

        But as you said, yes it's still possible for some HR from Hamilton.

  22. For the love of... from JerryZ at the Strib:

    "(Williams is) extremely talented," Roy said. "He makes explosive plays that nobody can guard. I'm trying to tell him to now do it every time.

    "The biggest thing now is to get his motor going. He's a good guy by nature, so he's kind of laid back. He just needs to get that mentality that he wants to dominate. He should want to be a dominate player."

    "...a dominate player"????? I can't believe Zgoda wrote that. Brain fart? Jr. copy editor "corrected" him? Or an accurate, literal quote of Roy's words? I don't like any of these choices.

    1. Questionable syntax aside, I have no problem with Roy trying to pump up his young teammate in the press. Lion could still pan out as a solid 6th/7th man for this team if everything breaks right.

      And Zgoda is not much of a reporter, IMO.

Comments are closed.