108 thoughts on “April 3, 2013: Censored”

    1. It actually hasn't been that way for me for over a year, but a new hire is bad enough that I'm considering moving on. However, his reputation is already so horrible that he might not last.

  2. I listened to the Gleeman & Geek podcast on the way up this morning. OMG. The worst ever.

    Geek: Don't tell me that 10 runs equals a win. You can pick up a win with a clutch hit in the ninth.

    It was a trainwreck of monumental proportions. I have 4 hours to kill once a week on my drive. Seriously wondering why I keep listening.

    1. I had to shut the podcast off with about 15-20 minutes left. Between Bonnes being completely obtuse (seriously, he seemed way, way out of it) and Gleeman being inflexible and irritable, I can't believe I made it as far as I did.

      Gleeman trying to not talk about the opener because it was "just one game" was strange, but Geek's "runs don't equal wins" rant was worse than his "Deduno ERA" spiel from last season.

        1. I was thinking about the same and a format that would work year-round. First, we're going to need multiple hosts to allow people to take time off.

          For the format, still undecided. Perhaps each week talk about that week's sporting news as it relates to the WGOM. For instance, for an episode recorded now, it would start off talking about the Twins and then cover the Wolves and Wild (maybe). In the offseason (for MLB), it would start with the Wolves and then cover Twins news. I suppose some Vikings stuff can be thrown in. The day before recording, a thread in the CoC would be made to collect topics to dicuss.

          1. My extended absence from the country didn't help keeping a schedule at all.

            As my work schedule stands, I have plenty of time to host things once we get a rotation sorted.

      3. I could talk for four hours on how much I love Spring Breakers though that's going to have a pretty limited audience.

        1. That's a pretty good matchup though. What's tougher to listen to, Korine film analysis or Gleeman vs. the Geek?

      4. I would pitch in on a Twins podcast, except if the last 2-3 years are any indication, I'll see about three Twins games this year.

          1. 🙂 It's more that if I can't find the time to watch more games than that, it seems a little silly to spend the time to make a podcast.

    3. I've never listened to their podcasts, but that sounds like classic Bonnes. He'll use numbers right up until they interfere with his narrative and then the narrative takes over.

      1. His favorite trick is, "I'd like to see a study that says X." In this case, there are studies about WAR. Gleeman told him to google it when he gets home. He basically asserted that all of sabrmetrics is bunk and that you can get more wins if you are clutch.

        All because Gleeman asserted that moving Dozier or someone like him from the second spot in the lineup to the eighth and then sliding everyone else up a spot, with Mauer in the two spot was worth about 10-15 runs a year, which is about 1 to 1.5 wins.

        Bonnes was shit-faced drunk and completely embarrassed himself.

        1. I really wish Aaron would do more podcasts on his own. He doesn't seem to like to, but the one he did by himself a while back was pretty good, and concise. Somebody said once, I think, that having Bonnes there might rein in Gleeman's creepy tendencies, but I'd say Bonnes tends to feed into those more than not.

          I'd take more podcasts with Parker instead of Bonnes, too, or even Nick Nelson.

          1. Probably could get Gleeman on a Twins-focused WGOM podcast. I get the feeling if someone else did the work and he just had to call in, he would do many more podcasts. I'm pretty sure we'd reign in the creepier parts well enough too.

          2. Yeah, I agree. Aaron has a lot of insightful things to say about the Twins. Some people think he's too hard on the organization and that's maybe a legitimate gripe, but at least he can back up his arguments with some data points.

            I thought he was fine by himself, too. I'd like to hear someone basically interview him every week. I listen to hear what Aaron has to say. The pointless bickering has made it all but unlistenable for me.

            1. I can't stand his writing any more, but when I chatted with him this summer he was perfectly enjoyable. He made lots of good points, and seemed very into listening to what others were saying too. Of course, we were all fairly like-minded. I'm inclined to guess that he sits down with a point to make when he's writing and that focus erodes his ability to see other points of view.

        2. 10-15 runs sounds a little rich to me, but I suppose if you are including the impact of all the 3-6 hitters to 2-5, you could get there. I generally agree with the tenet that the first rule of writing a lineup is to put your best five hitters in the first five slots, and this move accomplishes that generally. It also helps that Mauer is one of the smarter baserunners I've ever seen and doesn't have a ton of power, so it's a completely reasonable move. It seems to be largely overlooked (not here, but in general) that after the first inning, Mauer's still hitting after the same three guys.

          I can understand getting excited over small lineup changes, I suppose. I like that Mauer and Morneau are no longer hitting back-to-back (this goes back a little ways, I realize), given their platoon splits, and it makes the opposing manager's job a little harder, and probably means opposing managers will swap relief pitchers more often, giving the Twins more PAs against worse relief pitching. It's probably in the same 10ish runs per year range, but at least with an effect like that, I can convince myself that this impact happens most often in high leverage situations, so it probably is worth an extra win or so.

              1. Nah, only about $360 million, if you count a replacement level team at about 40 wins.

            2. It's not nothing, but we're also creeping in on "it's the little things that matter" territory. How confident are you that the lineup studies? Given that most lineup studies conclude "well, lineup ordering isn't really quite as important as you might expect," I guess I don't find them terribly conclusive. On his old site, I think Tom Tango has a pretty convincing argument that there are clutch hitters, but the noise is high enough that we can't say with any certainty who the clutch hitters are from the numbers alone. But if you do have a clutch hitter--through luck or astute scouting--that could be worth a win, too, but AG would probably argue that it's not worth trying to find a clutch hitter.

              1. To clarify: you should still try to optimize your batting order, but it's hard for me to get excited about it unless I'm also going to get excited by lots of other small potatoes.

      2. I feel like Gleeman has his correlation and causation mixed up with middle infielders hitting second. Middle infielders are often the quickest guys on the team, so it makes sense that if he wants speed hitting second that middle infielders are most often going to fit the bill. It's telling that Revere is the non-middle-infielder on his list.

        I have to say that I'm not aware that there are a lot of studies showing that the best hitter should hit second in the lineup, perhaps due to ignorance on my part, but that's a bit of a head-scratcher for me. In a DH league, I can see an argument for it, but without the DH, it seems like the pitcher (and subsequent crappy pinch hitters) hitting two spots ahead of the best hitter would negate some (most?) of the advantage of the extra 10-15 PAs. Pitchers are really utterly crap hitters.

        1. I'm guessing he's getting that from The Book, which says the #2 and #4 hitters should be the best on the team. If possible, you should put the one that derives more value from OBP at #2. This conveniently matches Mauer very well, but I don't think I would put Pujols at #2.

          1. I will have to look over that section again in The Book. I mainly remember that they say the first rule is to get the best five hitters hitting in the top five spots, but now that you mention it, I vaguely remember the their 2/4 conclusion. It's a lot easier for me to accept their rule that the best five hitters should hit in the first five spots. It's difficult for me to rationalize why it would be good to put your best hitter at #2 or #4, but not #3.

        2. I'm not sure that I buy the concern you are raising here, ubes. More PA for your best hitters implies more PA for your best hitters. If your best hitters are getting more PA, they are going to perform like your best hitters, which means not making outs. Not making outs leads to making runs.

          Putting a crappy hitter 2nd in the lineup so that he doesn't bat 8th or 9th most certainly does not lead to better outcomes.

          (that said, I don't know of any studies saying that the best hitter should hit 2nd either)

          1. I will try to clarify. Say we're talking about Albert Pujols, in the NL, instead of Mauer in the AL. If you have him hit 3rd in the lineup, then he gets N PA over the course of the season. After the first inning, it's 9-1-2 ahead of him, and "9" is a pitcher who doesn't even deserve to be called a hitter. If he hits 2nd in the lineup, then he gets N+18 PA, but 8-9-1 are hitting in front of him after the first inning. That means fewer men on base when he's hitting, on average, since 8 is likely worse than 2, and to boot, he's hitting closer to the pitcher, who likely ends a lot of innings, especially when you get the 8th hitter IBB'd to make the pitcher the last out of an inning. So the value of those extra 18 PA appears to me to be mitigated, perhaps eliminated when you've got someone like Al Leiter pitching (career .085/.142/.102 makes Butera look like Ruth). Not making outs is most important, but having men on base for your best hitters also matters when you get down to this level of impact.

            This is generally why I don't think Tony LaRussa (or anyone else who did the same) was completely crazy to hit the pitcher 8th every now and then. In the high leverage situations, you can pinch hit for the pitcher hitting 8th, so I don't know that the pitcher would really get an extra 18 PA like you would expect in general for moving a hitter up one spot in the order. But for the roughly 3 times a game that the #3 hitter comes up after the first time through the order, he hits in front of 3 position players instead of the pitcher and two position players.

            1. Oh, yea, I get that the value of having guys on base when your best hitters come to the plate > the value of not having guys on base when they come up. I am persuadable on the Tony LaRussa thing of having the pitcher bat 8th rather than 9th in order to increase the odds of having runners on base for the top of the order.

              My misunderstanding had to do with the implications for who should hit second. So, if I have this right, you are saying that the difference between having your best hitter hit second vs. hitting him third could very well be negligible because the 8-9-1 hitters in front of the 2-hole tend to be so much worse than the 9-1-2 hitters in front of the 3-hole. Hence, the 2-hitter's PAs after the first inning will more frequently be with the bases empty (and therefore lower-leverage PA, all else constant) than will the post-first inning PAs for the 3-hitter.

              I suppose there is a really complicated Markov chain one could write down to evaluate these things, right? The question is purely empirical, and depends on OBPs up and down the order to get one to different possible states of the game.

              1. If you talk to MGL, he will tell you to always bat the pitcher eighth.

                For the markov chain, I know Tango wrote one, but it seems to not support simulating nine separate hitters. Pity.

    5. I was listening to it just now and it was actually aggravating to listen to.

      Bonnes had obviously been drinking all day, which made his contribution worse than normal, and Gleeman has no ability to move on even after he has repeatedly stomped Bonnes' argument into the ground. This podcast is the best when it's Gleeman and someone else. Then they actually talk about the Twins the majority of the time and Bonnes isn't there to start an argument that he will lose.

      1. Better said Gleeman doesn't understand that Bonnes is having fun winding him up. Bonnes isn't invested in his arguments at all, he just wants to be argumentative and get Gleeman flustered.

      1. I had a sixer of the new Lagunitas Sucks last week. Very nice, but very dangerous, and it left me with some regrets the next morning.

      2. When Lagunitas Chicago opens this summer, it will mean more Lagunitas for everyone in the upper Midwest.

    2. I'll be at work for the duration of the game, but assuming I'm the one with the remote, I should be able to put in on one of my TVs.

  4. Spooky - Correia takes the mound today...you could always watch Gleeman with vapors for a laugh.

    1. I have nice K thumbnails for Correia, and I'll be excited to use them*

      *maybe one in his 4th appearance, and maybe another a couple appearances later.

    1. Are there really so few candidates that amateur sports have to hire these guys in the first place? How does such a person who's so unable to control his emotions become a leader? At least he's being sent out on a rail, and not deified for his "courage" or whatever, like Bobby Knight.

      1. It's not really that there are so few candidates, it's that it is relatively difficult to choose between candidates. Rice led Robert Morris to three consecutive first place finishes in the Northeast Conference and two NCAA appearances in his only three years as a head coach before arriving at Rutgers. Whatever his methods, he had achieved some success as a head coach before getting the job at Rutgers. Surely there are some assistant coaches out there who would do better than Rice as a head coach, but it's difficult to know which ones will be successful without actually giving them a head coaching job.

        Pressure can also change a person's ability to control his emotions and it seems possible, maybe even probable, that he was more level-headed when his Robert Morris teams were winning a bunch than when his Rutgers teams were losing a bunch.

        The main reason Rice is being treated differently than Knight is 111-61 vs. 662-239 and 3 national titles.

    2. The "new information" presumably was "we're not going to be able to keep the video from going public."

  7. Happy NHL trade deadline day! I personally can't wait for Fletcher to pick up Torres from the Yotes for a draft pick to add "sandpaper" to the bottom two lines.

    1. Just so long as he doesn't get overly aggressive and use Dumba or Phillips as trade bait.

                1. Wow. Sounded like the Wild was high on Larsson. Pominville is signed for next year too. I guess that means that this is the swan song for the Heater in MN.

                  1. Thought so too, but with Phillips and Granlund in the mix, I'm not too upset.

                    As for Heatley, I hope not. The -12 ain't pretty, but 20 pts (10/10) is good for 6th on the squad and he can still skate a bit.
                    About Pominville, I like the move. a +1 with 25 pts (10/25) working with not-great centers. Played 82 games 5 out of the past 6 years and averages 66 points (only 52 in his 1 injured year). First or second line just got a lot better.

                    1. I like the Pominville move too. He's a top six guy.

                      Heatley's gone because of his contract, I think. The Wild was $14 million from the cap next year for 16 players before they traded for Pominville, who's over $5 million next year. My understanding is that Heatley is paid $5 next year with a $7 cap charge, so they could pay $5 to clear the $7 and have more room for the rest of the team.

                    3. Just saw that Buffalo also got a first round pick this year and a second round pick in '14. Steeper price...still like the move; will like it more if it works.

              1. The line is also stacked with leadership in two former captains and a current captain, if you value that sort of thing.
                But do they know how to lead the team to victory?

                1. Don't know, but hopefully he can help score. That article mentions that the Wild are 14th in scoring, but that's only after putting up 31 goals over the seven-game streak. By my fancy math, that means that they have 67 goals in the other 28 games.

  9. I just noticed that free, DK, Sheenie and I will be at First Ave on its 43rd birthday tonight.

  12. Day 2 of "zomg, I am late. Honey, you are on spring break, so would you make a sandwich for me?"

    My sammich has the thickness of something that came out of a panini press, but without being pressed. Thin is in, I guess.

  13. It sounds like Rick Pitino's kid will be the next coach at Minnesota. I know nothing about him, but this seems like a better hire* than Tubby Smith was.

    *For all I know, he's the second coming of Pat Knight. Then again, he could be the second coming of Rick Pitino.

    1. You see how much they didn't want Flip if they told him he can't hire his son, and then turn around and hire somebody else's son.

      1. My opinion on Flip has long been that he was really successful when he inserted #21 into the lineup.

        1. I'm actually cautiously optimistic about this hire, despite my nepotism snark. Richard seemed to wring a lot out of very little at FIU this year, and this is probably the best possible combination of a young, energetic up-and-comer (which is what I wanted) with a name that could fire up the "boosters" who were all-Flip-all-the-time.

    1. Mags, this is a family site. No one here wants to share your paraphernalia.

  15. Ok, I just got the "raspberries" header. What's up with that? (pretty picture, but huh?)

  16. Yet another article on the damage a football career can do to your life and how hard it is to get the NFL to compensate for it. Don Majkowski this time. 11 ankle surgeries and his ankle is fused to his foot, he can't bend it at all.

    1. Despite all the physical problems that have drastically affected his life, Majkowski wouldn't do a single thing differently.

      "I don't regret it," Majkowski said. "That's the sickening part of it. Of course I'd do it all again. It was my childhood dream and I worked extremely hard to achieve that and be in the NFL. It was a privilege and a dream that only a small percentage of guys ever get to do."

    1. I suppose that they scheduled all three games of this series as day games due to concerns about weather (particularly temperature), but that's not going to be good for attendance unless the team is doing awfully well.

      1. Crazy. For those with access, FSN has wall-to-wall MN sports coverage from 2 pm - midnight tonight: Twins game, Wolves v. Bucks, Wild v. Sharks.

    2. At about 2:15, I was walking by Hennepin and a scalper was waving about fifteen tickets at me trying to get me to buy one. I bet he would have sold one to me for less than $5 by that point.

    3. Looks like someone photoshopped the red person in there a bunch of times to make the crowd look bigger.

  18. Yanks Red Sox on ESPN2 (shock!) 6:05 central start. its 7:04 and only 9 outs have been recorded. oy

  19. More on podcasts:

    As regulars at my site know, I'm pretty much up to do one anytime. I'd do one tonight - be it a roundtable or a quick "Get to Know 'Em" with someone. I'd love to be able to put something up tomorrow morning. Email me if you have the time to kill.

    1. I'm still kind of sad we missed our Survivor All-Stars podcast. I spent like an hour taking notes.

Comments are closed.