40 thoughts on “January 11, 2022: Fear-Based”

  1. The Timberwolves have played 40 games so far, winning 20 of them. The next game will be the halfway point of the season, their 33rd in the NBA. In seven of the previous 32, they have had 20 or fewer wins for an entire season. They've had a total of 8 seasons with a record above .500. It's not like they are contending for a title or anything, but this has been a pretty good season so far, relatively speaking.

    1. I usually don't sit down at night until the games are on the 4th quarter. It's been nice to not watch 4th quarter collapses constantly like we've had these past few years. All I ask is competitive basketball and we've gotten that for the most part this season.

  2. My entire Twitter timeline seems to suddenly playing Wordle, so I jumped on the bandwagon today. It's quick and surprisingly fun. I would guess a good number of people here would get a kick out of it as well.

    1. Ooh, that's a fun game! Thanks for sharing! (Got it, but it took me the whole 6. I suspect it usually will...)

      Do they ever have words that repeat letters?

      1. I'm resisting reading the strategy, since this feels like the kind of thing that can be "hacked" and would be less fun as a result.

        1. There isn't much strategy from that post. It's an analysis of letter frequency only but doesn't translate that into useful early guesses. If you already know, or kind of know, the most popular letters then there isn't much change. Now, they did link to another post that analyzed what are the best first guesses so avoid that one.

    1. This also reminds me that I have an extra ticket to the Patty Griffin show at Pantages on Tuesday January 25. It's a great seat: Row J Right side. I'm going but got an even better seat in the center, Row C.

      Tix were $65 with fees but I'd be willing to negotiate with citizens. Any interest? Painter? You've lauded Ms. Griffin in the past.

      1. I love Patty Griffin. I’ve also never seen her. Unfortunately, even though I’m vaxxed and boosted, I’m still kind of paranoid about crowds at this stage. Know of at least two good friends who got pretty sick even after all three shots. So it is with regret that I decline. I might also add I’m not a big fan of going to concerts solo.

  3. I admit the musical knowledge and taste around here intimidates a little sometimes, so for me to have two videos in the highest rated widget on the videos page shocks me.

    1. In that case, you having two and I having two is astounding. But I think I benefitted from hitting the nostalgia button with my 70s hits.

  4. Today's Baseball Reference trivia question turned out to be Ryan Howard, and one commenter registered his surprise when he found that his career WAR is 14.7, while Max Kepler's is currently 14.8

    1. Somewhat unfair comparison considering Howard had four -1.0 rWAR or worse seasons. He lost a bit over 5 wins in those four seasons. I often wish for a positive-WAR-only measurement that would zero-rate the negative seasons.

      1. Why? I mean, if you are worse than replacement level, that raises pretty serious questions about your Manager's life choices.

        1. But then shouldn’t those negative WAR should be assigned to the manager, not the player?

          If a major league manager offered me a spot in their line up, I’d absolutely take it. My subsequent complete failure should be considered the manager’s fault, not mine.

            1. I really want positive-WAA*. I don't want them instead of overall WAR but as a method of evaluating players' careers for the Hall. Some players refuse to hang up their cleats, and have a GM that also refuses to force them to, but I don't think that should count against their overall career. Ryan Howard's career rWAR is 14.7 and that's fine. But before he tore his Achilles at the end of 2011, he had 19.5 rWAR. Basically I want more stats.

              * The WAA vs WAR part is because I prefer WAA for Hall voting. Compiling a bunch of 1.5-2.5 WAR seasons at the end of a career all gets added to WAR but is largely zero for WAA.

              1. Yes. I'm not a big fan of compilers. I'll take a guy like Johan that was the best in the game over a period of years than a workhorse that was above average for a long time (Jack).

              2. I can see the argument for & against here. On the one hand, it seems unfair to penalize Howard or Pujols for their front office/ownership’s job performance while negotiating their contracts. In cases like that, I think it would be unfair to assign the negative value a manager — what is a manager supposed to do with a negative-WAR franchise icon whose salary is a significant percentage of the payroll?

                On the other hand, simply waiving poor performance in the decline phase of a career (particularly for NL 1st basemen) seems unfair to non-DH, non-HoF stars — like Kenny Lofton, Steve Finley, Moises Alou, Graig Nettles, Dwight Evans, Gary Gaetti, and Davey Lopes — who remained productive late into their careers.

                1. My guess is many voters already ignore the decline phase when it hurts the player. As Rhu_Ru mentioned, I bet JAWS is how most voters think of the Hall with a "positive WAR/WAA" including most of others.

        1. I usually do when evaluating a player for the Hall but I'm also lazy and computers are quicker with math.

          1. …I'm also lazy and computers are quicker with math.

            All-time great understated statement.

Comments are closed.