87 thoughts on “January 22, 2014: Listless”

        1. Sorry, forgot the ":)" to make it lighthearted rib-poking. Can't tell if you're doing the same back to me or not.

  2. On my quarterly trip to GA. Damn, it's cold here. I realize not MPLS cold, but 14 degrees? That's pretty chilly. When I'm here in July and it's 105, I'll remember that I got little to no respite in January.

  3. Here's something interesting:

    1. There are the same number of even integers as there are integers.
    2. There are the same number of rational numbers as there are integers.
    3. There are the same number of books that could ever be written in English, German, French, Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic as there are integers.
    4. There are more real numbers than there are integers!

    http://www.math.brown.edu/~res/MFS/handout8.pdf

    2. Tell me something I don't know.
      (Like: which class did I learn that stuff in? Or was it just from hanging around the math dept offices?)

  4. Will Leitch, discussing the floated end of NFL PATs, touches on what I fear about baseball instant replay challenges:

    [W]e're also replacing an action with a decision. Rather than the precision of an extra point -- and remember how many different people must be doing all their different things at the exact right time to make a point after work -- and all the skills that come with that, Goodell has decided it would be more fun to watch a coach think. ... The act of decision-making -- the very opposite of "excitement," as Goodell calls it -- is seen as more valuable a commodity than a physical act carried out by 11 people working in unison.

    1. Not exactly the same, but "it would be more fun to watch a coach think", or to set up (small-c) controversy about coaches decision making rather than actually enjoy the play on the field.
    2. Wow, Leitch uses as many emdashes as I do (before editing).

    1. Doesn't ANY play in the NFL require different people doing all the different things at the exact right time, and all the skills that come with that? Whatever.

      1. Well, not ball-spikes or kneel-downs. Maybe those could be automatic.
        Or burning a down to reposition a ball before a FG attempt.

        I could have removed the parenthetical (offset by the dashes), but then I couldn't have made my point #2.

    2. My personal reservations about replay are slightly different than what you state here. I mainly just don't like that when official replay is used, I can't trust what I see. Whereas growing up, I could immediately be happy when the ref put both his hands in the air to signal touchdown--now that excitement is tempered by the possibility that the call will be overturned.

      I guess I just don't buy into the cult of "getting it right." No, I don't want it to be wrong, but do what you can to get the call right in the first place and then move on.

      Further, I hate how so much of a sports broadcast now centers around critiquing officiating decisions. I feel like color commentators used to focus more time on explaining the play on the field--what type of pitch was thrown, where it was thrown, how a pitcher set up a hitter, how a defense was shifted, what package a football defense was running, how an offense created space for a receiver, etc. Now all of the close plays are replayed endlessly, but important plays without tight officiating decisions seem to barely warrant a second glance.

      In terms of the proposed new extra point rules, it's still essentially the same thinking that a coach has to go through now--do we take the automatic point or go for two. No one ever really worries about the possibility of missing the extra point when they send an NFL kicking unit out there to execute it. I'd rather just see them change the spot of the kick to make the conversion percentage lower. 11 kickers were perfect from 30-39 yards last season. Right now, extra points are about 19-20 yards out, I say spot the ball at the 20 and make the pros kick 38-yard extra points. If they elect to go for 2 points, the ball can still be spotted on the 2, but they forfeit their chance to kick for the extra point.

      Don't make the extra point automatic, make it harder to convert.

      1. I definitely feel you on football. I feel like replay has reduced some of the excitement around scoring. Hockey is lucky in that there's really nothing worth reviewing other than goals, and those are rarely in doubt anyway.

        As for baseball, I'm hesitant. I like replay on home runs, as the ball is pretty far away from the umpire's eyes, and it can be such an obvious game-changing play. But on close plays at bases, I think replays won't be conclusive 100% of the time and it could definitely remove some of the thrill. We'll see how it goes.

      2. I guess I just don't buy into the cult of "getting it right." No, I don't want it to be wrong, but do what you can to get the call right in the first place and then move on.

        This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the replay issue.

        1. When I see a particularly egregious call (the Mauer double foul ball springs to mind), I immediately think "they should have a mechanism in place to get that right".

          When I watch a crazy shoestring catch get ruled a TD, only to have to wait for five minutes to get excited -- because, maybe it's nothing -- I wonder if it's really worth it.

          I still think it's something that should happen, but when I think of sports' actual intent (entertainment -- the ephemeral rush is pretty key to that), I'm quite torn on the whole thing.

          1. There could be a mechanism to get that Mauer call right, right away. I think tennis has the answer to that.

          2. This. I know I expressed the "get it right" idea fairly strongly yesterday, but one of the upsides, I think, to a 5th-ump booth review is that they decide what needs to be reviewed. Only things that are obviously wrong would get reviewed. Bang-bang plays at first? No. No matter how critical the juncture of the game. Doubles down the line called foul, that on replay are obviously fair? Yes, a quick overturn.

            The call for replay doesn't come from getting the close ones wrong, it comes from getting the not-close ones wrong. That's what I want from a replay system - and why I hate team involvement - then it's about calculating what is most important to your team and what is worth passing up, and you can choose a close play that is more important than an obvious wrong that is less important.

            1. Yea, this. If you have to look at sixty-eleven different camera angles, repeatedly, and still aren't sure what the right call is, you shouldn't be wasting our time.

            2. The problem is there still is a decision to make in deciding what is close and what is not close. I mean, there are certainly calls that are obvious to everyone, but at what point does it become not obvious? Who decides that? In the end, it will revert back to whether it is correct or not and if the replay evidence is totally conclusive, which means the original call will still have more influence. My fear would be that umps would start to rely on replay in that they would call a ball close to the line fair so the play could play itself out because it is easier to just review it and call everyone back because it was foul than to overturn a foul call and then determine where the runners should be after the play.

              1. Who decides that? The 5th ump who isn't on the field. I'm not really concerned with your fear, as I think umps will still try their best to get the call right.

                Better to right all the obvious wrongs than not. Doing so in the most minimally invasive way is better than having a way of doing so that puts strategy into the mix of when to review.

                1. I'm not sure the 5th ump is actually watching every game live to make those recall decisions. I think they are available to review if they are requested to, via some signal.

                  1. As it currently is, yes. I'm proposing an on-site, watching live 5th ump for every game.

                    3. That's fine too. I think crew chiefs being overridden on replay is just fine, and I doubt it would have too many issues that would last beyond the first year or two of transition.

      3. I guess I just don't buy into the cult of "getting it right." No, I don't want it to be wrong, but do what you can to get the call right in the first place and then move on.

        What the NFL needs is laser-precise measurements of whether a first down has been obtained relative to the eyeballed placement of down markers that may or may not actually be ten yards apart.

        On extra points, I think they should eliminate place kicking in favor of drop kicking.

        1. On extra points, I think they should eliminate place kicking in favor of drop kicking football.

          FTFY.

        2. I don't think you can factor the posting fee into it at all; that's the price any team has to pay to negotiate. The flexibility they gain from A-Rod's suspension is in the money the can offer this year, which is the most important. They have over $50 million in payroll (Soriano, Kuroda, Jeter, Ichiro, Gardner...) coming off the books next season.

          1. Yeah, I'm aware. On the plus side, Rodriguez will make up part of it when he hits six homers in 2015 (he'll reach 660 and get $6 million) and maybe another $6 million in 2017 for reaching 714.

  7. I believe the Twins are announcing who their next member of the Twins HOF will be on Friday. Will they take the guy with by par the best resume (Knoblauch) but a PR nightmare or will they take someone with a terrible resume (Gladden) but good for PR? Or will they split the difference and take a Tovar or a Bruno or a Koskie?

    2. Viola left in a similar fashion as Knoblauch, and he was elected in 2005, so I don't see it as a big obstacle. Also, when looking up the Twins HoF, I noticed Jim Perry was listed for the class of 2010 and 2011. Does anyone remember what that is about?

        1. I guess he never demanded a trade, but fans weren't happy with things said during his contract negotiations. He came out looking greedy and was traded the same season he had signed a three-year deal.

          1. I know the clubhouse dynamic is overplayed at times, but if what the Baseball Library has in its Viola bio is the case, I wonder if Viola hadn't misjudged how his contract demand would play with his teammates:

            Viola's humble and enthusiastic approach to the game earned him tremendous popularity in Minnesota. However, Twins fans were greatly offended when his agent wrote a "trade-me-or-pay-me" letter to Twins management in 1989. Local hero Kent Hrbek attacked Viola in the press and third baseman Gary Gaetti chimed in with his negative feelings regarding Viola's contract demands.

            Gaetti had his born-again religious conversion around the same time, and his relationship with Hrbek, his best friend, was strained as a result. Those '87-'88 clubs seemed exceptionally tight. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the struggles the Twins had in '89-'90 was sorting out the team's new dynamic after a rift between two of the team's star veterans, resentment from Viola's contract rhetoric, and (of course) holes in the roster.

        2. He might not have demanded a trade, but his contract negotiations were very public and very contentious. After he left Minnesota, he all but shook the dust from his sandals. It was not a pretty exit.

          Edit: what socal said, basically.

            2. I just read a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article from right after the trade:

              Although Viola is just 29 years old and coming off the best season of his career, MacPhail believes the left-hander might be past his peak.

              "Any time you deal a guy who has done all Frankie has done for us, it's tough," MacPhail told the St Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch. "But the velocity of his fastball was diminishing. It seemed like they were catching up with him."

              ...

              Twins officials have said Viola's fastball was clocked between 88 and 90 miles per hour last year but in the low 80s this season.

              "Certainly part of it," MacPhail said of trading Viola before his ability diminished significantly. "The other part has to do with the guys we get. We're a better club with this trade than without it."

              Interesting. You can read that as a classic sell-high for a savvy GM, or you can read that as relief from a GM worried he'd just made a huge mistake with a costly extension.

              1. But more innings, fewer unearned runs, and better K-BB rate. I think I would consider the two seasons equal, but might lean toward '88 being better. In fWAR, Viola's '88 is a win better (6.8 v 5.8). FanGraphs' RA9-WAR summarizes it well: 8.4 wins in '87 and 8.5 wins in '88.

        1. Yes, but he wasn't as good for them as he was with the Twins, plus the trade brought in key players that helped turn the franchise around. Plus, I think Yankees fans remember the "Chuck-EEE" and the "Knoblauch-head" headlines more than anything else, even though they won three WS titles and four AL titles. FWIW, Knoblauch's teams went 13-1 in postseason series, although he wasn't very good for the most part in the postseason for the Yankees.

      3. I assume the Jim Perry bit is just wrong. Last 4 years of guys (that had their ceremony at targetfield) I think are Pascual, Guardado, Perry, Gagne. Is one of them missing from the place you are looking?

    3. It should be Knoblauch. He's got his demons, but when he played for the Twins, he was on an HOF trajectory. And by that, I mean Cooperstown, and not the Twins HOF. But, I'm preaching to the choir mostly on that.

      1. Yep. During his time with the Twins Knoblauch was better than Roberto Alomar by a wide margin.

        1991-1997
        Knobby: 37.8 rWAR, 5.4 rWAR/year
        Alomar: 30.9 rWAR, 4.4 rWAR/year

        Pretty impressive when you consider Alomar was the same age as Knoblauch and already very well established – he'd averaged 4.1 rWAR/year between 1988-1990.

  8. From Cory Provus:

    Exciting news regarding @twins spring training broadcast schedule. All 16 home games televised live on @fsnorth via simulcast w/@TwinsRadio.

            1. There's a stadium sound feature? That means someone finally found my many requests for such a thing!

          2. You couldn't as of last year, socal. This might be possible on PS4, though, as one can listen to Music Unlimited while using other applications. I guess we'll see when it comes.

  11. I'm supposed to be supervising a chem lab right now, but I just have to tell you guys that twitter is a bad way to follow a soccer match.

    #Wembley #SAFC #wow

    1. It depends on how long Andre Hollins is out. They got a career game from Mo Walker tonight to help them survive without him, but I doubt they can have much success if he's out for more than a handful of games. One thing's for sure, Lil' Pitino is making Tubby look real bad.

      1. Right. Luckily, the schedule eases up a bit (although Nebrasketball is sneaky tough), so if there is a 'right time' to get injured this might be it (assuming its only a sprain). I appreciate what Tubby did because the Monson years were pretty brutal and Tubby got the program back to respectable. I just wonder if the players tuned him out the last few years.

Comments are closed.