Cup of Coffee

March 14, 2018: Dinner Party

59 Comments

Stephen Hawking once invited people to a dinner party at a date that had already passed, as he wanted to see if anyone could travel time back to when the party was meant to happen. Weird geniuses, man. Love them.

59 thoughts on “March 14, 2018: Dinner Party”

    1. A little bummed the local brewery didn't make back to back appearances. I am a little leery of these types of contests. They are basically a cash grab by the paper to get more views and pump up their readership stats. Typically, winners are whoever email out to their data bases the best and get votes. When I see "best of" contests in our local paper, I tend to scratch my head over who wins. I know a certain business "chain" that emails out to all employees to go to the website and vote for whichever branch is in a contest. So, people who have never been to the town in question are voting. I always thought they should require a home address to be typed in and any votes from more than 40 miles away should be tossed out.
      I do have 4-5 favorite breweries in this contest that I voted for. I won't announce them as that would be not smart to do in my business.

  2. Gah! They haven't even gotten to the floor sanding yet, and there's a layer of dust on everything. Oh, wait, that's just the normal everyday layer of dust

    1. Before we moved in to this house, we had wood floors installed everywhere and existing floors refinished. I should have picked the dustless people instead. It was absolutely everywhere. Still is in various nooks.

  3. Had a late dinner at Burgers, Taps, and Shakes last night, if that means anything to certain Citizens.

    Burger o' the day was lamb with feta, arugula, pickled red onions and a mustard and black olives aioli. It was awesome. Sweet potato fries were ordinary. Washed down with a very tasty, local Saison. Finished with a shake. Mmmmm.

  6. Whoa. @DWolfsonKSTP just said on @1500ESPN that Wiggins has “whispered to teammates” that he’s unhappy being a third option behind Butler and Towns.— Derek James (@DerekJamesNBA) March 14, 2018

    Probably should have traded him when he didn't have an albatross contract.

  8. Anyone here been on an Alaskan cruise? Seems I may be doing that this summer, but the options and the options and the options and the options... etc. thoughts?

    2. I went on one back in August 2009 just before starting the SBG College of Law. Happy to answer any questions

  10. All levels of MiLB to start extra innings with a runner on 2nd.

    2. I find this to be the worst idea. It just means every extra inning will start with some combination of a bunt and a walk.

      1. Look at Tom Tango’s run exectancy numbers. Putting a runner on second to start the inning increases the chance of at least one run scoring from about 27% to about 61%. The fans have voted in the stands by vacating the stands for super long extra innings games—increasing the chance of scoring will decrease the length of games, which will be good for fans.

        1. I don't object to putting a runner on base. I object to putting the last runner to make an out at second base.

          Put any runner you want on first base. Make speed matter. Put runners on first and second. Far more interesting outcomes in those situations. A runner on second with no one out is among the most worst options available as it necessitates certain responses. Look at what happened in the WBC.

          I'm having a heck of a time finding the article Trueblood wrote on the topic, but the short version is what I said: this is the most boring option available from a strategic standpoint, and it is likely to lead to 1 run innings, not multiple run innings, which are even more exciting (and less likely to continue the tie). This article is a substitute, I suppose.

          1. it is likely to lead to 1 run innings, not multiple run innings

            I don't know. If the next batter up is anyone from 2-5/6, they aren't going to bunt. Walks to start innings could skyrocket, especially for the home team.

            1. In actual practice, teams almost always bunt, except for the absolute best hitters. I don't see why that would change, with games on the line and one-run being the potential difference. Even if it's 2-5/6 who swing away, we're talking about 50% of the time a bunt is what happens. Too much for my tastes.

              From the article I linked to, on the section proposing loading the bases to start instead of just a runner on 2nd:

              With the bases loaded and nobody out, a bit more than two runs are expected to score, on average, and at least one run will score almost 90 percent of the time. (With just a runner on second, it's 1.1 runs on average and at least one run scoring 60 percent of the time.) The chances of a game going scoreless for even one inning under these rules is about 1 in 50, and even that would be the most exciting thing imaginable.

              That 1.1 runs suggests, yes, we're going to get lots of 1 run innings, and the process for getting there is bunting. No thank you.

          2. I’m not that against bunting. It’s a skill. It’s not as fun a skill as the long ball, but I love seeing a bunt laid down just where the infielders can’t make a play on it. A decent bunter forces the infield to play good defense. And I think that teams that allow their best hitters to swing away will be rewarded.

            1. I'm not necessarily opposed to bunting per se. What I'm opposed to is an artificial situation that all-but demands a specific set of strategic moves, such that we'd get exceedingly little variation. If the goal is to ensure that the winning team wins by better executing a bunt-then-walk-then sacrifice fly than the other team, this is the best way to do it. But if the goal is to speed up the game, there are better ways of doing it. And if the goal is to make a game more interesting, there are far better ways to do it.

              1. The current situation is just as monotonous—the leaf-off hitter swings away with the bases empty practically every damn time. Most of the time he is retired.

                1. I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. The current situation is just the game of baseball, wherein players try to get a hit. Then what the second batter does, and what the pitcher does, might change based on what happens to the first guy. And so on and so forth. It tends not to be that way when you're giving up outs to move runners over and then walking batters to create a double-play option. We've already decided what our first two batters will probably look like, unlike the current situation.

                  If we're going to make a change to limit extra innings we might as well make that change something that is more entertaining than less entertaining. So what's more entertaining? A runner on 2nd that regularly leads to a single run being scored via a single strategy, or some other approach (I personally like the bases loaded approach) that has more strategic variance?

                  Why the investment in this particular approach? What is better about just a runner on second base that other options miss?

                  1. This approach has been used elsewhere and it’s essentially the smallest change that gets you higher scoring innings. Bases loaded could be fun, but you will really have to fight the purists on that one.

                    I could be wrong but I think there will be more variation than you presume.

        2. Does anyone care how long the fans stay? They've already paid for their tickets. The beer sales have been cut off.

        1. one caveat would be playoff games and end of season games to determine League championships.

      2. I don’t see what is so objectionable about it. You still have to execute to get runs across, it’s the same situation for each team, and all the other rules stay in place. It’s not like settling hockey or soccer games with a shootout, which is completely different than normal gameplay.

        One thing I like about it is that with modern bullpen management, relief pitchers effectively have a much easier job than they used to have—only pitching to a couple of batters, getting put in favorable match-ups, etc. This makes their job harder and I like that.

        1. I think it's more like in football giving each team a possession in field goal range. Yes, it should result in at least a field goal on each side, but it isn't guaranteed and teams shouldn't be happy with a field goal because the other team will most likely get one as well and could win with a touchdown. In baseball, I think the smart road teams will know not to bunt and will be going for more than 1 run. Plus, the home teams won't want to intentionally walk batters because that would give the road team a better shot at multiple runs. The home team strategy on offense of course will depend on whether the road team had scored.

          1. This rule was used in Men's fastpitch softball when I played. I loved it. It did shorten games.

            It will create tension in each inning half. Which is much better than some games I have been to in which you see 4 extra innings with no baserunners.

            This is a good decision if it does truly shorten games (which it will).

            I get that some baseball purists wont like it, but I feel there is definitely some overreaction at play here.

            1. I agree that it will shorten games--I don't think there's any question about that. And I agree there's been some overreaction. People who say "I'll never watch another minor league game again", which I've seen, are probably not being truthful, even if they think they are now.

              I still don't like it, though. Basically, I'm against any sport saying, "We couldn't decide a winner using our regular rules, so we're going to decide a winner under different rules." If we can't continue under the regular rules, I would prefer to just declare the game a tie.

            2. I'm hardly being a purist if I'd rather see ties (or even a move to seven-inning games) than phantom runners. I just don't think it has enough of an impact on speed to be worth the trouble. Ties would have a more demonstrable effect on game length, yes?

              Additionally, baseball's game length problem isn't really related to the odd fifteen-inning marathon; the problem is the average length of nine-inning games.

              1. The extra-inning problem is different. If you randomly happen to get locked in an 18-inning marathon the day before playing a new opponent, you are at a significant bullpen disadvantage for the next series for no particularly good reason. And then your pitchers are likely to be at higher risk for injury.

                Personally, I think it matters that 75% of the crowd has left when a game is hanging in the balance and it should be really exciting, but the injury risk and competitive imbalance of the marathon games are enough to invoke some kind of change.

                Ties would be fine, but this tiebreak has been around forever in softball (where a lot of the games are tournament play and need a result) and I think it’s a reasonable way to avoid exceedingly long games, while providing good entertainment and still rewarding the team which plays the best on that day.

                1. I'll admit I wasn't considering the next-day, next-series issues. Though I would prefer a tie to the tiebreak system offered and never subscribed to the kissing-your-sister stigma, I do loathe being at a disadvantage for an entire series due to bullpen stress.

    5. Having observed this rule in the low minors and in some winter leagues, I really dislike it. I would prefer the game simply be declared a tie than to have a winner decided in an artificial and gimmicky way.

Comments are closed.