The local radio folk are asking - nay, begging - me to see Fleetwood Mac and The Eagles. I almost want to do it just to make them shut up. Almost.
141 thoughts on “May 7, 2013: Peer Pressure”
Controversy over at ESPN where the Rangers sweep the Sox last week and yet the Sox leapfrog the Rangers to take the top spot in the power rankings.
Fleetwood Mac was the Saturday night "headliner" at JazzFest. Somehow it has become ironic to see Fleetwood Mac (Sheenie's sister despises hipsters, yet is basically a hipster without realizing it), so she was bragging to us about how excited she was. Meanwhile, Frank Ocean was performing at the exact same time on another stage.
I went to see Ocean, She went to see Fleetwood. Perfect.
Unfortunately, I didn't get to see Frank Ocean; I wasn't there the second weekend. But I would have!
nice
so, Peter Green is back with Fleetwood Mac? is that what you are saying?
Judging by this: "This week's voters were Jim Bowden of ESPN Insider, Tim Kurkjian of ESPN The Magazine, David Schoenfield of the SweetSpot Blog Network/ESPN.com and Jayson Stark of ESPN.com," I'm willing to guess that last week's poll had different voters, so the change in position from week to week is probably meaningless. With only four voters, one guy's crazy opinion can really change the poll, too. It's probably Bowden's fault. I'm going with that.
I'm really doing my best to avoid all "power rankings" these days, though. In retrospect, I'm not sure why I ever bothered to check them in the first place.
I’m willing to guess that last week’s poll had different voters, so the change in position from week to week is probably meaningless.
FTFY
I only glance at the power rankings for their humor factor. They rarely disappoint.
On June 21, F1rst Wrestling returns to First Avenue. Sheenie and I went back in January and it was easily the most fun thing I have attended in a long, long, long time. We will be there again if any Citizens want to join us.
Sheenie's idea of a fun birthday?
It is! The January performance was the day before my birthday, so we joked that we would be celebrating both of ours the same way.
That's pretty neat how that ended up lining up.
i can't remember if i mentioned this here before, but i had comps to wresting at first ave once, so my then GF and i headed down there. i was over 21, and she wasn't, so she couldn't go inside. however, little kid after little kid got in because they were with their parents. i thought that was odd.
Now that I have kids playing baseball and softball, I have a complaint about a rule. The dropped third strike rule is the dumbest rule in baseball. This is especially true in youth sports. I cannot understand why the focus is on playong by the "real" rules instead of player development. At the level my kids play, the third strike is only caught one of five times. It is awful.
Might not be the dumbest rule in baseball, but I can see it as the dumbest rule in youth baseball. I can't see why it can't be suspended for the youngsters' play.
Yeah, it seems like the sort of rule that would best be omitted in a youth league. Although, I can't remember for certain when that rule was introduced as I was growing up.
In terms of professional baseball, I think the rule is fairly antiquated. The best way I've been able to rationalize the rule is that it used to be considered unsporting for the pitcher to try to trick the hitter (thinking back to the days when hitters could specify a high or low strike zone and balls/strikes weren't always 4/3), so if the pitcher threw a pitch that the catcher couldn't catch, it must have been "unsporting" in some way, so the hitter gets a chance to go to first base.
What level and league? I don't remember having that rule in Little League.
I've never understood the rule. The batter should never be rewarded for swinging and missing. Theoretically, it's possible to exploit the rule by swinging on purpose at a really wild pitch, and if the backstop is far back enough, get to first base with relative ease.
In addition to the poor ability of catchers in youth baseball, you also have to consider the poor throwing ability of first basemen. Runners on 2nd and 3rd could exploit this even further after the throw to first happens.
Don't all other recorded outs require the fielder to remain in control of the baseball? I just assumed the dropped third strike rule was an attempt to extend that to catchers without invalidating the work of the pitcher in striking out the batter. There's a bit of a special circumstance here, since the pitcher is effectively credited with the out, even though he is dependent on the catcher. The pitcher still records a strikeout, but the batter can attempt to take first base based on the catcher's defensive error.
That's an interesting way to look at it--much simpler than my attempted explanation. It's not strictly true that all other recorded outs require the fielder to control the baseball, though obviously the exceptions are rather, um, exceptional. Looking through the ways to make an out without a fielder having control of the ball:
- Interference by a baserunner on a fielder
- Fair ball hits a baserunner when he's in fair territory and not on a base
- Dropped infield fly on the infield fly rule
- Dropped third strike with fewer than two outs and a runner on first
- Foul bunt on strike three
- Batting out of order
- Hit a pitch with a foot outside the batter's box
- Altered bat
- Steps from one batter's box to the other when the pitcher is ready to pitch
- Passing the baserunner in front of you
Still, I like your explanation better than mine.
Those are pretty much penalties against the batting team for breaking rules.
That and infield fly and the dropped third strike with fewer than two outs and runner on first, which bS analogizes to the infield fly: outs to prevent deceptive shenanigans by the offense.
Good point, ubes. I also like AMR's classification of the exceptions, which seem to break down like so:
- attempts to address interference with batted balls or the defense in general
- procedural errors (batting out of order, passing runners)
- attempts to cheat (altered bat, batting outside the batter's box)
- attempts to trick the offense into making extra outs.
I feel like it forces the pitcher/catcher to worry about things they shouldn't have to worry about. You can throw nasty sliders in the dirt for strikes one and two and not have to worry. But when there's two strikes, you suddenly have to be vigilant about catching the ball on the fly? I feel if the batter swings at a ball in the dirt, why is that the pitcher's or catcher's fault?
??
You can throw nasty sliders in the dirt for strikes one and two without worry if no runners are on base.
If your point is that the catcher should be able to corral a bounced third strike and still have it count, I think I see your point. But home plate is not a "force out" situation for the batter unless the bases are loaded. And the bounced third strike is irrelevant when first base is occupied, because the dropped third strike would put the runner in jeopardy, just like a dropped infield fly.
so I think of it as more analogous to an infield fly.
If you swing and miss at a ball in the dirt, run to first, unless it is the first or second strike, or if there is a runner on first, unless the bases are loaded and there are two outs.
When rules get that complicated, I want to make them simpler.
There’s a little symmetry at work here, though:
Caught foul tips count only as strikes when a player has fewer than two strikes against him, even though they’re technically batted balls caught by an eligible fielder in foul territory.
I don't think that is true. Caught foul tips are strikes regardless of the count.
I think this quickly becomes an argument about semantics. Both foul tips and foul balls are batted balls, but a foul ball caught on the fly is an out regardless of count. A caught foul tip is always strike three, but it's also a ball batted into foul territory.
No. A caught foul tip is just a strike. You can steal a base on a caught foul tip.
[moved]
We come from different schools of thought on this, it looks like. I think that is the best part of the rule! I also think catchers should always be trying to catch the pitch.
I also think catchers should always be trying to catch the pitch.
Former HS catcher here; can confirm.
Well, of course. But there are some pitches that are impossible for a catcher to catch, like a ball that lands on the plate but the batter swings anyway. You're penalizing the catcher for not causing catcher interference!
Granted, if he corrals it well, the putout is nearly automatic. But again, you're rewarding the batter for swinging at an awful pitch by giving him a chance to reach base.
Why not look at it as punishing the pitcher for throwing a pitch that his catcher couldn't handle?
Because the strike zone is so small that pitchers need to throw the ball outside of it on occasion to succeed?
Outside it, sure, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they get the ball to the catcher without it bouncing, especially in a 2-strike count where the pitchers generally have a big edge on the hitter already.
I agree that this is the reason. The pitcher gets a strikeout, but the catcher gets the putout, assuming he catches it. If not, he can record the putout at first base.
Just because I'm curious and don't know the official scoring procedure:
Does the catcher receive credit for the putout in this case, or the first baseman (with the catcher receiving an assist)?
I think yes. Checked a gamelog looking for it happening to Mauer (no dropped third strikes, since I missed he wasn't catching) and it shows Wieters with an assist and the only Baltimore C-Foo happening is from a dropped third strike.
Right, the putout is scored 2-3.
Yeah, in Little League, at least up through Minors, kids that swing at a third strike are out regardless of if it is caught. Trey was in Pony League last year and I believe it was the same thing. Of course, he was playing with 6-7 year olds.
This discussion right here?
Yeah, this is why I love this site.
The best parts- everyone using full sentences, mostly proper grammar and the caps lock stays off.
Yikes. Some surprises there, although it probably makes little sense to measure it by school instead of department.
There's a fucking "easiness" category and more easy is considered better? Even if they don't consider that in the "overall quality" ranking for professors, what a joke.
yar. Pretty much everything about those "ratings" is a joke.
Yeah, it has little to do with quality and more to do with likeability, I'm guessing.
Dr. Chop has a severely negative easiness rating at ratemyprofessor. She has colleagues who have padded their rate with their own reviews (misspellings and bad punctuation thrown in for good measure). Dr. Chop gets excellent reviews from student evals, and is routinely up for teaching awards at the university wide level, but at ratemyprofessor she seems like a biatch. I find it hilarious.
but, does she have the all important "red chili pepper"? that's the only thing i ever paid attention to.
[insert eye roll here]
One of her female colleagues in Tejas gave herself a chili pepper.
Hey, now. Family site.
Rankings like this might be a joke... but Philosofette's experiences at Mankato are anecdotal evidence that the rankings might be independently correct. I don't mean to besmirch anyone's alma mater, so I'll just leave it at: the 3 specific departments my wife has encountered at Mankato have been tremendous disappointments.
My department there was very strong, and is known within the business. I heard a couple of other majors were solid too. Other than that, I did often feel like it was a rinkydink operation.
Yeah... she's not in your department. She's getting her masters in education and they're basically requiring her to get her undergrad degree again first. Among the classes they're saying she needs is an undergrad "performance of literature" course. Because her undergrad drama classes weren't sufficient. Oh, also? Performance of Literature is an online course only!.
Cash. Grab.
much about the picayune educational requirements for education credentials is cash-grabby. Or more properly, barriers to entry.
Aye. We'd be significantly happier just paying the money and skipping the time/stress of going through the wasted courses.
Here is one that ranks colleges by return on investment. I looked at their data and I don't see how it fits the conclusion. Maybe I am missing something.
yah. If ~500 colleges have estimated annual ROI (factoring in financial aid) north of 7 percent, it sounds to me like there are a heck of a lot of good deals out there. I'd say that the true take-home message is that, overall, a college degree is a very good financial investment. Private, for-profit schools largely excepted.
I'd also have to raise a few red flags. the ROI for UI-Champaign/Urbana is strongly positive for both in-state and out-of-state students, but the ROI for UI-Springfield is strongly negative? That doesn't really pass the hee-haw test for me.
Methinks there just may be a wee bit of a problem with their survey data.
I think the conclusion is to major in engineering for the highest ROI.
But then you might have to deal with some big, mean profs with low easiness scores.
In the interview, he says that only 150 have positive ROI but, like you mention, there are schools ranked worse than 150 with ROI over 7%. I don't get it.
1045 in 2012, 950 in 2013
My Alma is moving up!
This seems like the sort of thing where you wouldn't want to use a study's average case to dictate your individual behavior. They seem to be using room and board numbers which I have generally found to be overestimated if one is willing to live like a poor student. Grant aid is factored in (and this is often out of a student's control), but scholarships are not factored in, and a student's scholastic performance can help them there. Graduation rate is weighted based on the averages, and while it may not always be possible to get a particular degree in 4 years, it seems like most of the degrees that take 5 years are degrees with specific career fields to enter after college (chemical engineering being one that I remember from undergrad), which are probably going to have higher entry level jobs after college.
I wouldn't generally advocate for going to the lowest-cost school no matter what, but if you apply to a number of comparable institutions, then find the one that is willing to cut you the best deal. Consider your likelihood of graduating in four years in figuring out which school will give you the best deal. Minimize housing and eating expenses. Most importantly, pay attention in class and do your work. Any of those things individually can improve your ROI--an education isn't like a savings account where you can shop around for a good rate and consider your work done. (The flip side of the coin being that there are definitely situations you can get yourself into where you'll get a lower ROI than stated on the study.)
Yea, I looked at their "methodology" section. It was rather opaque.
Again, my take from this is that completing a college degree is a good investment for the large majority of graduates, even if you have to borrow significantly. Some majors pay better than others, which is not exactly news.
Why I picked Augsburg over Hamline, Mac, and UM-Morris:
Best Scholarship offer.
I think in the end it was the best fit anyways.
GW is ranked #104. Macalester is #186. From my time on both campuses, any list that says GW is better than Mac is a very flawed list.
Oh, looks like GW dropped to 150 and Mac to 330.
I just have to say I'm ridiculously excited about the return of the food trucks to downtown Minneapolis. Anyone got a favorite to recommend? I'm partial to Hola Arepa and World Street Kitchen, but there are a bunch I still haven't checked out.
Hola Arepa was my favorite last year. I thought Dandelion was overpriced and Smack Shack was decent, but also a little pricy.
I had a mini lobster roll from the Smack Shack truck at Surlyfest. The roll it was served on was the single greatest bread product I've ever ate. I've been craving it ever since.
It was expensive but I was DD that day, so my friend paid for mine.
Yes, the lobster roll was really good, but I think it was $20. For that much money, I would like to be able to sit down!
The mini was "only" $14, haha. Their website makes it seem like there's a more permanent location? I'm going to have to hit it up next time I'm down there. And I have no idea when that'll be.
Yes, they opened a brick-and-mortar restaurant in the North Loop a few months ago.
World Street Kitchen. Can't not get the yum-yum bowl or whatever that thing is called.
I want two right now.
That was my favorite until I discovered the Bangkok burrito. It's amazing. (And much to my amusement, I see it has its own entry in Urban Dictionary.)
That's pretty awesome. We brought our Mac host student to the brick'n'mortar restaurant a few weeks ago. A delicious time was had by all (I had the Korean BBQ Bangkok Burrito).
Something better?
I don't know if I could handle that. So far I'm still thankful my office isn't three blocks closer to Be'Wiched.
We don't have food trucks in Mankato. But we do have a 5 Guys!
In other news, today's lunch set me back significantly in my quest for fitness.
+5
lbs.? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Always order the "Little" burgers -- more than enough for a meal. And split the fries with someone.
Or with a small country. Soooo many fries.
This.
Leaving 5 Guys behind when we moved from DC was a pretty unhappy event. A year later one came to Mankato, so now I don't miss DC quite as much.
Rockland's is the place I miss the most. I ate there at least twice a week when I lived in Glover Park.
I've still never eaten there even though its been on my list for 5 yrs. Guess I better fix that.
Korva Coleman's name is actually a twist on an elderly relative's name, Cora. But "in some Slavic languages and possibly Hebrew," Ms. Coleman explained in an email, "my name apparently means 'slut.' Once, I was on the table during my first pregnancy being examined by a new OB/GYN. At the damnedest moment you can think of, he raised his head and remarked, 'I don't know if you know this Ms. Coleman, but your first name . . .' 'I KNOW what it means!' I shouted, scaring the poor guy half to death."
Heh, I have to admit that I have been mesmerized by some of their great names. I've always been partial to Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson and Kai Ryssdal as the two that always perplex me the most.
add lourdes garcia-navarro and neda ulaby for me.
In a post-Herb Carneal world, I think Ofeibea Quist-Arcton might be my favorite voice gracing major airwaves.
reporting from Da-Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.
The best.
sylvia poggioli has the weirdest delivery for a reporter (there are 2 more NPRers that fall in this group, but i can't recall their names).
I would nominate Neda Ulaby for most annoying delivery amongst the regular correspondents. She just sounds so smug and self-amused to my ears.
The other one of which I am no fan is one of the book reviewers for Fresh Air -- Maureen Corrigan. Something about her voice and delivery just annoys me.
I've always liked Sasha Aslanian's name.
Haha, I never put two and two together, but "kurva" in Czech is "whore", used sorta like how we would say "sh!t" if we dropped our dishes or something.
the cornerstone of science fiction and fantasy fandom is nitpicking.
Gophers are playing at TCU in 2014. Gophers will get $500K guarantee from TCU and TCU will also take 2015 S.Dak.State game off Gophers' hands and pay the Jacks $400K. TCU comes to Minnesota in 2015 and gets $0. Why does TCU make that deal?
Bill Smith is the AD at TCU?
An easy win in two seasons?
I am surprised that their schedule is virtually empty here. I don't know that much about the reputability of the site, but it comes up high on teh googles and it seems to have pretty complete info for other teams. (For instance, Minnesota's full 2014 schedule is there, K-State has 3 non-conference 2014 games listed, Iowa State has 3 non-conference 2014 games listed, etc.) If TCU really had no 2014 non-conference games going into this deal, then it could have become increasingly difficult for them to find an FBS opponent on a weekend that worked for them.
Oops. I linked to this in the game recap, but meant to put it here:
Pretty even-handed take on the game, socal. Nicely done.
Are there studies out there that show how often pinch-running actually makes a difference? It seems to me, just from observation, that it rarely does. The vast majority of the time, it seems like either the run doesn't score anyway or it would have scored regardless.
If that's true, then pinch-running should be reserved for desperation moves where you have to take any small chance you have, or for situations where you're going to make a change for defense next inning anyway so you might as well get the faster runner out there now. But I can't prove that it is true. Does anyone know?
My understanding, and I don't have studies to link to as this is second-hand reading, is that pinch-running is rarely worth it.
If I planned to steal second to set up RISP, I'd do it, but otherwise it would have to also make sense defensively before I'd do it.
the counterfactuals are pretty hard to do, aren't they? I mean, you don't pinch-run for someone who is fast, so you really can't use "average" results as your controls. You need to match on key characteristics.
Presumably you can match the pinch-run situation to similar base-and-out situations in earlier innings of games with the same players.
Still, I don't think you need a lot of deep analysis to substitute for a Jim Thome or Matt LeCroy in the 9th inning when you need a run or two and want to avoid the DP.
Miracle 3B Miguel Sano (HBP in left elbow) and 2B Eddie Rosario (sore leg) out with injuries. Sano says he'll miss at least 2 days.
Listeners may notice no changes to either station.
No kidding! They play the same stuff. If one's DJs weren't all horrible frog puns, I couldn't tell them apart.
As a tangental aside, one of my acquintances works for said paper. She posted some award they won on the Facebook the other day, proudly crowing about how "My paper is better than yours!" I will leave this anecdote with no further comment.
I think Lily Pad is the best!
I was always partial to Hop-A-Long Cassidy!
Sigh.
For reference, the Twins have a collective .506 OPS out of the leadoff spot. (Hicks' 10 games there -- yep, that's all it was -- didn't help.)
Doesn't it usually take more than a month to declare a time period a "golden age"? A better comparison would be to look at the best months that the leadoff spot has had relative to league average.
I saw this linked on that page. Personally, I am not keen on the idea. During the game, I like to watch the game, not worry about what price I can pay to move to a better seat. I decide which seat I want to pay for before the game starts. If teams have a bunch of empty seats and are worried about lost revenue, they should look at pricing them better before the game starts.
My shop used to use Adobe InDesign for page composition, and Photoshop for, well, photoshopping. We've largely moved to Scribus and GIMP because we could not afford to put the Adobe applications on enough desktops. This pricing move, if applied to corporate/government accounts, will just seal our move away from the commercial products.
Harding injured, so Wild now using their third string goalie. Is there such a thing as having an emergency goalie?
And first shot against him scores.
The Wild are certainly employing unconventional tactics in this series. Not many teams win in the playoffs with a power play that can't score and a third string goalie.
Rope-a-dope.
The emergency goalie has been identified! Some guy named Backstrom.
Wild power-play. They should really think about scoring here.
Hey, another Wild power-play. At least they threatened scoring on that last one.
They're finally at least getting pucks to Crawford.
They scored 3 goals in game 3 where Crawford committed early and they elevated the puck over him. Their power play in this game (minus a couple of exceptions) has been firing low shots from the high slot or the blue line. I don't predict success for that tactic.
EDIT: Credit to Chicago for shutting down the middle of the ice much more in this game than the previous one.
Controversy over at ESPN where the Rangers sweep the Sox last week and yet the Sox leapfrog the Rangers to take the top spot in the power rankings.
Fleetwood Mac was the Saturday night "headliner" at JazzFest. Somehow it has become ironic to see Fleetwood Mac (Sheenie's sister despises hipsters, yet is basically a hipster without realizing it), so she was bragging to us about how excited she was. Meanwhile, Frank Ocean was performing at the exact same time on another stage.
I went to see Ocean, She went to see Fleetwood. Perfect.
Unfortunately, I didn't get to see Frank Ocean; I wasn't there the second weekend. But I would have!
nice
so, Peter Green is back with Fleetwood Mac? is that what you are saying?
Judging by this: "This week's voters were Jim Bowden of ESPN Insider, Tim Kurkjian of ESPN The Magazine, David Schoenfield of the SweetSpot Blog Network/ESPN.com and Jayson Stark of ESPN.com," I'm willing to guess that last week's poll had different voters, so the change in position from week to week is probably meaningless. With only four voters, one guy's crazy opinion can really change the poll, too. It's probably Bowden's fault. I'm going with that.
I'm really doing my best to avoid all "power rankings" these days, though. In retrospect, I'm not sure why I ever bothered to check them in the first place.
I’m willing to guessthatlast week’s poll had different voters, so the change in position from week to weekisprobablymeaningless.FTFY
I only glance at the power rankings for their humor factor. They rarely disappoint.
On June 21, F1rst Wrestling returns to First Avenue. Sheenie and I went back in January and it was easily the most fun thing I have attended in a long, long, long time. We will be there again if any Citizens want to join us.
Sheenie's idea of a fun birthday?
It is! The January performance was the day before my birthday, so we joked that we would be celebrating both of ours the same way.
That's pretty neat how that ended up lining up.
i can't remember if i mentioned this here before, but i had comps to wresting at first ave once, so my then GF and i headed down there. i was over 21, and she wasn't, so she couldn't go inside. however, little kid after little kid got in because they were with their parents. i thought that was odd.
Now that I have kids playing baseball and softball, I have a complaint about a rule. The dropped third strike rule is the dumbest rule in baseball. This is especially true in youth sports. I cannot understand why the focus is on playong by the "real" rules instead of player development. At the level my kids play, the third strike is only caught one of five times. It is awful.
Might not be the dumbest rule in baseball, but I can see it as the dumbest rule in youth baseball. I can't see why it can't be suspended for the youngsters' play.
Yeah, it seems like the sort of rule that would best be omitted in a youth league. Although, I can't remember for certain when that rule was introduced as I was growing up.
In terms of professional baseball, I think the rule is fairly antiquated. The best way I've been able to rationalize the rule is that it used to be considered unsporting for the pitcher to try to trick the hitter (thinking back to the days when hitters could specify a high or low strike zone and balls/strikes weren't always 4/3), so if the pitcher threw a pitch that the catcher couldn't catch, it must have been "unsporting" in some way, so the hitter gets a chance to go to first base.
What level and league? I don't remember having that rule in Little League.
I've never understood the rule. The batter should never be rewarded for swinging and missing. Theoretically, it's possible to exploit the rule by swinging on purpose at a really wild pitch, and if the backstop is far back enough, get to first base with relative ease.
In addition to the poor ability of catchers in youth baseball, you also have to consider the poor throwing ability of first basemen. Runners on 2nd and 3rd could exploit this even further after the throw to first happens.
Don't all other recorded outs require the fielder to remain in control of the baseball? I just assumed the dropped third strike rule was an attempt to extend that to catchers without invalidating the work of the pitcher in striking out the batter. There's a bit of a special circumstance here, since the pitcher is effectively credited with the out, even though he is dependent on the catcher. The pitcher still records a strikeout, but the batter can attempt to take first base based on the catcher's defensive error.
That's an interesting way to look at it--much simpler than my attempted explanation. It's not strictly true that all other recorded outs require the fielder to control the baseball, though obviously the exceptions are rather, um, exceptional. Looking through the ways to make an out without a fielder having control of the ball:
- Interference by a baserunner on a fielder
- Fair ball hits a baserunner when he's in fair territory and not on a base
- Dropped infield fly on the infield fly rule
- Dropped third strike with fewer than two outs and a runner on first
- Foul bunt on strike three
- Batting out of order
- Hit a pitch with a foot outside the batter's box
- Altered bat
- Steps from one batter's box to the other when the pitcher is ready to pitch
- Passing the baserunner in front of you
Still, I like your explanation better than mine.
Those are pretty much penalties against the batting team for breaking rules.
That and infield fly and the dropped third strike with fewer than two outs and runner on first, which bS analogizes to the infield fly: outs to prevent deceptive shenanigans by the offense.
Good point, ubes. I also like AMR's classification of the exceptions, which seem to break down like so:
- attempts to address interference with batted balls or the defense in general
- procedural errors (batting out of order, passing runners)
- attempts to cheat (altered bat, batting outside the batter's box)
- attempts to trick the offense into making extra outs.
I feel like it forces the pitcher/catcher to worry about things they shouldn't have to worry about. You can throw nasty sliders in the dirt for strikes one and two and not have to worry. But when there's two strikes, you suddenly have to be vigilant about catching the ball on the fly? I feel if the batter swings at a ball in the dirt, why is that the pitcher's or catcher's fault?
??
You can throw nasty sliders in the dirt for strikes one and two without worry if no runners are on base.
If your point is that the catcher should be able to corral a bounced third strike and still have it count, I think I see your point. But home plate is not a "force out" situation for the batter unless the bases are loaded. And the bounced third strike is irrelevant when first base is occupied, because the dropped third strike would put the runner in jeopardy, just like a dropped infield fly.
so I think of it as more analogous to an infield fly.
If you swing and miss at a ball in the dirt, run to first, unless it is the first or second strike, or if there is a runner on first, unless the bases are loaded and there are two outs.
When rules get that complicated, I want to make them simpler.
There’s a little symmetry at work here, though:
Caught foul tips count only as strikes when a player has fewer than two strikes against him, even though they’re technically batted balls caught by an eligible fielder in foul territory.
I don't think that is true. Caught foul tips are strikes regardless of the count.
I think this quickly becomes an argument about semantics. Both foul tips and foul balls are batted balls, but a foul ball caught on the fly is an out regardless of count. A caught foul tip is always strike three, but it's also a ball batted into foul territory.
No. A caught foul tip is just a strike. You can steal a base on a caught foul tip.
[moved]
We come from different schools of thought on this, it looks like. I think that is the best part of the rule! I also think catchers should always be trying to catch the pitch.
Former HS catcher here; can confirm.
Well, of course. But there are some pitches that are impossible for a catcher to catch, like a ball that lands on the plate but the batter swings anyway. You're penalizing the catcher for not causing catcher interference!
Granted, if he corrals it well, the putout is nearly automatic. But again, you're rewarding the batter for swinging at an awful pitch by giving him a chance to reach base.
Why not look at it as punishing the pitcher for throwing a pitch that his catcher couldn't handle?
Because the strike zone is so small that pitchers need to throw the ball outside of it on occasion to succeed?
Outside it, sure, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they get the ball to the catcher without it bouncing, especially in a 2-strike count where the pitchers generally have a big edge on the hitter already.
I agree that this is the reason. The pitcher gets a strikeout, but the catcher gets the putout, assuming he catches it. If not, he can record the putout at first base.
Just because I'm curious and don't know the official scoring procedure:
Does the catcher receive credit for the putout in this case, or the first baseman (with the catcher receiving an assist)?
I think yes. Checked a gamelog looking for it happening to Mauer (no dropped third strikes, since I missed he wasn't catching) and it shows Wieters with an assist and the only Baltimore C-Foo happening is from a dropped third strike.
Right, the putout is scored 2-3.
Yeah, in Little League, at least up through Minors, kids that swing at a third strike are out regardless of if it is caught. Trey was in Pony League last year and I believe it was the same thing. Of course, he was playing with 6-7 year olds.
This discussion right here?
Yeah, this is why I love this site.
The best parts- everyone using full sentences, mostly proper grammar and the caps lock stays off.
YOR FACE!!
Yup.
Mankato State and St Cloud State are top 20 schools!!!
Yikes. Some surprises there, although it probably makes little sense to measure it by school instead of department.
There's a fucking "easiness" category and more easy is considered better? Even if they don't consider that in the "overall quality" ranking for professors, what a joke.
yar. Pretty much everything about those "ratings" is a joke.
Yeah, it has little to do with quality and more to do with likeability, I'm guessing.
Dr. Chop has a severely negative easiness rating at ratemyprofessor. She has colleagues who have padded their rate with their own reviews (misspellings and bad punctuation thrown in for good measure). Dr. Chop gets excellent reviews from student evals, and is routinely up for teaching awards at the university wide level, but at ratemyprofessor she seems like a biatch. I find it hilarious.
but, does she have the all important "red chili pepper"? that's the only thing i ever paid attention to.
[insert eye roll here]
One of her female colleagues in Tejas gave herself a chili pepper.
Hey, now. Family site.
Rankings like this might be a joke... but Philosofette's experiences at Mankato are anecdotal evidence that the rankings might be independently correct. I don't mean to besmirch anyone's alma mater, so I'll just leave it at: the 3 specific departments my wife has encountered at Mankato have been tremendous disappointments.
My department there was very strong, and is known within the business. I heard a couple of other majors were solid too. Other than that, I did often feel like it was a rinkydink operation.
Yeah... she's not in your department. She's getting her masters in education and they're basically requiring her to get her undergrad degree again first. Among the classes they're saying she needs is an undergrad "performance of literature" course. Because her undergrad drama classes weren't sufficient. Oh, also? Performance of Literature is an online course only!.
Cash. Grab.
much about the picayune educational requirements for education credentials is cash-grabby. Or more properly, barriers to entry.
Aye. We'd be significantly happier just paying the money and skipping the time/stress of going through the wasted courses.
Here is one that ranks colleges by return on investment. I looked at their data and I don't see how it fits the conclusion. Maybe I am missing something.
yah. If ~500 colleges have estimated annual ROI (factoring in financial aid) north of 7 percent, it sounds to me like there are a heck of a lot of good deals out there. I'd say that the true take-home message is that, overall, a college degree is a very good financial investment. Private, for-profit schools largely excepted.
I'd also have to raise a few red flags. the ROI for UI-Champaign/Urbana is strongly positive for both in-state and out-of-state students, but the ROI for UI-Springfield is strongly negative? That doesn't really pass the hee-haw test for me.
Methinks there just may be a wee bit of a problem with their survey data.
I think the conclusion is to major in engineering for the highest ROI.
But then you might have to deal with some big, mean profs with low easiness scores.
In the interview, he says that only 150 have positive ROI but, like you mention, there are schools ranked worse than 150 with ROI over 7%. I don't get it.
1045 in 2012, 950 in 2013
My Alma is moving up!
This seems like the sort of thing where you wouldn't want to use a study's average case to dictate your individual behavior. They seem to be using room and board numbers which I have generally found to be overestimated if one is willing to live like a poor student. Grant aid is factored in (and this is often out of a student's control), but scholarships are not factored in, and a student's scholastic performance can help them there. Graduation rate is weighted based on the averages, and while it may not always be possible to get a particular degree in 4 years, it seems like most of the degrees that take 5 years are degrees with specific career fields to enter after college (chemical engineering being one that I remember from undergrad), which are probably going to have higher entry level jobs after college.
I wouldn't generally advocate for going to the lowest-cost school no matter what, but if you apply to a number of comparable institutions, then find the one that is willing to cut you the best deal. Consider your likelihood of graduating in four years in figuring out which school will give you the best deal. Minimize housing and eating expenses. Most importantly, pay attention in class and do your work. Any of those things individually can improve your ROI--an education isn't like a savings account where you can shop around for a good rate and consider your work done. (The flip side of the coin being that there are definitely situations you can get yourself into where you'll get a lower ROI than stated on the study.)
Yea, I looked at their "methodology" section. It was rather opaque.
Again, my take from this is that completing a college degree is a good investment for the large majority of graduates, even if you have to borrow significantly. Some majors pay better than others, which is not exactly news.
Why I picked Augsburg over Hamline, Mac, and UM-Morris:
Best Scholarship offer.
I think in the end it was the best fit anyways.
GW is ranked #104. Macalester is #186. From my time on both campuses, any list that says GW is better than Mac is a very flawed list.
Oh, looks like GW dropped to 150 and Mac to 330.
I just have to say I'm ridiculously excited about the return of the food trucks to downtown Minneapolis. Anyone got a favorite to recommend? I'm partial to Hola Arepa and World Street Kitchen, but there are a bunch I still haven't checked out.
Hola Arepa was my favorite last year. I thought Dandelion was overpriced and Smack Shack was decent, but also a little pricy.
I had a mini lobster roll from the Smack Shack truck at Surlyfest. The roll it was served on was the single greatest bread product I've ever ate. I've been craving it ever since.
It was expensive but I was DD that day, so my friend paid for mine.
Yes, the lobster roll was really good, but I think it was $20. For that much money, I would like to be able to sit down!
The mini was "only" $14, haha. Their website makes it seem like there's a more permanent location? I'm going to have to hit it up next time I'm down there. And I have no idea when that'll be.
Yes, they opened a brick-and-mortar restaurant in the North Loop a few months ago.
World Street Kitchen. Can't not get the yum-yum bowl or whatever that thing is called.
I want two right now.
That was my favorite until I discovered the Bangkok burrito. It's amazing. (And much to my amusement, I see it has its own entry in Urban Dictionary.)
That's pretty awesome. We brought our Mac host student to the brick'n'mortar restaurant a few weeks ago. A delicious time was had by all (I had the Korean BBQ Bangkok Burrito).
Something better?
I don't know if I could handle that. So far I'm still thankful my office isn't three blocks closer to Be'Wiched.
We don't have food trucks in Mankato. But we do have a 5 Guys!
In other news, today's lunch set me back significantly in my quest for fitness.
+5
lbs.? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Always order the "Little" burgers -- more than enough for a meal. And split the fries with someone.
Or with a small country. Soooo many fries.
This.
Leaving 5 Guys behind when we moved from DC was a pretty unhappy event. A year later one came to Mankato, so now I don't miss DC quite as much.
Rockland's is the place I miss the most. I ate there at least twice a week when I lived in Glover Park.
I've still never eaten there even though its been on my list for 5 yrs. Guess I better fix that.
Never ate there either.
public radio fun:
Heh, I have to admit that I have been mesmerized by some of their great names. I've always been partial to Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson and Kai Ryssdal as the two that always perplex me the most.
add lourdes garcia-navarro and neda ulaby for me.
In a post-Herb Carneal world, I think Ofeibea Quist-Arcton might be my favorite voice gracing major airwaves.
reporting from Da-Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.
The best.
sylvia poggioli has the weirdest delivery for a reporter (there are 2 more NPRers that fall in this group, but i can't recall their names).
I would nominate Neda Ulaby for most annoying delivery amongst the regular correspondents. She just sounds so smug and self-amused to my ears.
The other one of which I am no fan is one of the book reviewers for Fresh Air -- Maureen Corrigan. Something about her voice and delivery just annoys me.
I've always liked Sasha Aslanian's name.
Haha, I never put two and two together, but "kurva" in Czech is "whore", used sorta like how we would say "sh!t" if we dropped our dishes or something.
This.
Have I ever mentioned that I hate the Knicks?
Gophers are playing at TCU in 2014. Gophers will get $500K guarantee from TCU and TCU will also take 2015 S.Dak.State game off Gophers' hands and pay the Jacks $400K. TCU comes to Minnesota in 2015 and gets $0. Why does TCU make that deal?
Bill Smith is the AD at TCU?
An easy win in two seasons?
I am surprised that their schedule is virtually empty here. I don't know that much about the reputability of the site, but it comes up high on teh googles and it seems to have pretty complete info for other teams. (For instance, Minnesota's full 2014 schedule is there, K-State has 3 non-conference 2014 games listed, Iowa State has 3 non-conference 2014 games listed, etc.) If TCU really had no 2014 non-conference games going into this deal, then it could have become increasingly difficult for them to find an FBS opponent on a weekend that worked for them.
Oops. I linked to this in the game recap, but meant to put it here:
Gardy’s decisions prove costly for Twins
Pretty even-handed take on the game, socal. Nicely done.
Are there studies out there that show how often pinch-running actually makes a difference? It seems to me, just from observation, that it rarely does. The vast majority of the time, it seems like either the run doesn't score anyway or it would have scored regardless.
If that's true, then pinch-running should be reserved for desperation moves where you have to take any small chance you have, or for situations where you're going to make a change for defense next inning anyway so you might as well get the faster runner out there now. But I can't prove that it is true. Does anyone know?
My understanding, and I don't have studies to link to as this is second-hand reading, is that pinch-running is rarely worth it.
If I planned to steal second to set up RISP, I'd do it, but otherwise it would have to also make sense defensively before I'd do it.
the counterfactuals are pretty hard to do, aren't they? I mean, you don't pinch-run for someone who is fast, so you really can't use "average" results as your controls. You need to match on key characteristics.
Presumably you can match the pinch-run situation to similar base-and-out situations in earlier innings of games with the same players.
Still, I don't think you need a lot of deep analysis to substitute for a Jim Thome or Matt LeCroy in the 9th inning when you need a run or two and want to avoid the DP.
Elbow? Crap. Just give 'im the TJ now.
Oops.
UND sucks.
This encouraged me, against my better judgment, to go check out the front page to see if anything interesting was happening.
BREAKING NEWS ALERT: Country music stations Froggy and Bob to switch owners in latest FM radio shakeup.
Oh. From the article:
No kidding! They play the same stuff. If one's DJs weren't all horrible frog puns, I couldn't tell them apart.
As a tangental aside, one of my acquintances works for said paper. She posted some award they won on the Facebook the other day, proudly crowing about how "My paper is better than yours!" I will leave this anecdote with no further comment.
I think Lily Pad is the best!
I was always partial to Hop-A-Long Cassidy!
Sigh.
For reference, the Twins have a collective .506 OPS out of the leadoff spot. (Hicks' 10 games there -- yep, that's all it was -- didn't help.)
Doesn't it usually take more than a month to declare a time period a "golden age"? A better comparison would be to look at the best months that the leadoff spot has had relative to league average.
A bolt from the gubnor of Cali.
Minnesota with a severe deficit of sin.
ND is blue. Weird.
data may not have caught up with the drilling boom yet.
Well I guess they'll have to count on a state of domicile statistic of sin
One more today: How to win baseball fans in Miami by Jeffrey Loria.
I saw this linked on that page. Personally, I am not keen on the idea. During the game, I like to watch the game, not worry about what price I can pay to move to a better seat. I decide which seat I want to pay for before the game starts. If teams have a bunch of empty seats and are worried about lost revenue, they should look at pricing them better before the game starts.
Ok, I lied. another one. What the hell is Adobe thinking?
My shop used to use Adobe InDesign for page composition, and Photoshop for, well, photoshopping. We've largely moved to Scribus and GIMP because we could not afford to put the Adobe applications on enough desktops. This pricing move, if applied to corporate/government accounts, will just seal our move away from the commercial products.
Vin Scully on the best catch he ever saw.
Harding injured, so Wild now using their third string goalie. Is there such a thing as having an emergency goalie?
And first shot against him scores.
The Wild are certainly employing unconventional tactics in this series. Not many teams win in the playoffs with a power play that can't score and a third string goalie.
Rope-a-dope.
The emergency goalie has been identified! Some guy named Backstrom.
Wild power-play. They should really think about scoring here.
Hey, another Wild power-play. At least they threatened scoring on that last one.
They're finally at least getting pucks to Crawford.
They scored 3 goals in game 3 where Crawford committed early and they elevated the puck over him. Their power play in this game (minus a couple of exceptions) has been firing low shots from the high slot or the blue line. I don't predict success for that tactic.
EDIT: Credit to Chicago for shutting down the middle of the ice much more in this game than the previous one.
Well, there's that.