Scheduling has been suboptimal for days of the calendar since they went to computers. Not every team plays on holidays (labor, memorial, 4th) or days like today are a total failure
It looks like my A's have 2 sundays off this season, which is mind boggling.
A side note on jackie robinson day, can they get names on the back of the jersey's?
Except you don't use yesterday's starer, you use the long man if you are the home team. If you get 9 deep by the end of the 1st or 2nd you probably are ahead so you're ready for the switch anyway.
I know that to some degree the no-hitter is a statistical fluke, not an indicator of much besides one pitcher having a good night and one team having a bad night. But I still love them. Even if the next start, the pitcher who tossed the no-no is likely to be a lot more mortal, as Mr. Musgrove showed.
Mets still just barely doing much with the bats, outside of Nimmo and Dom Smith, but I always prefer starting pitching doing its thing. Today we have a scheduled day game, but it's going to rain again.
At the end of the day, I can't really say I care much about the Wilpons being conned by Madoff. Unlike many, they didn't lose everything, and I don't know how much sympathy I have when rich people lose money but are still rich. Madoff's biggest crime wasn't making the Mets mediocre. It was taking the endowment of my alma mater, Yeshiva University, and swallowing it whole in his ponzi scheme. A lot of Jewish and NYC nonprofits were harmed badly by his deeds, and unlike the Wilpons, there is no way to sell your charity to recoup your loses. He was the worst.
I read LA Confidential at some point and didn't care much for it. I suspect that many of the flaws you point to weighed on me at some level. I haven't read any more Ellroy. But some years later, I saw the movie, having forgotten I read the book, and loved it. The seeds of a great story were in place, but needed to be edited in some way. And maybe also handed to a stellar cast (his crimes aside, I rarely like Kevin Spacey but liked him here, God help me, and I still don't know why Guy Pearce isn't as big as star as Russell Crowe).
I found the L.A. Confidential book to be good, but I agree, the movie is a deft edit, and makes it stronger. A filmed version of the book, which would have to be a mini-series, would not be nearly as good. The material needs to be taut and it needs to be a story, not an epic, which was what the book aspired to be.
This is very astute but the trouble is, if it's not an epic I'm not nearly as interested. Therefore I prefer the book, which works perfectly well. Clandestine and The Big Nowhere are the two great Ellroy numbers nobody ever talks about. His staccato style sure did become annoying though.
The Cold Six Thousand and Blood's A Rover can be tough reads just because of how much he leans into the staccato style. It seems like he went back to a more "normal" writing style for Perfida and The Storm.
Elloy is an interesting cat. I always wonder how much of his problematic personality is actually him and how much is a schtick.
Titanic winning Best Picture over LA Confidential is something I knew was gonna happen for months before it did, but still pisses me off 23 years later.
I've become convinced that the ego dwells in one of the lower glands, because if it were a property of the brain James Cameron's skull would have exploded long ago.
I was horrified to read in one of the obits that Elie Wiesel was one of those conned by Madoff. And then was even more horrified that I hadn't known that previously.
There's no reason to be chagrined at liking Kevin Spacey in a role, any role. You don't need to respect the way he behaves offscreen - nor should you - but he is a superlative actor. There wasn't one single role in which he appeared before becoming toxic he didn't light up with intensity and originality. Even the first time I saw him, in a minor role in "Outbreak," I thought he brought his character to vivid life and figured he would become a star.
I would point out that he also invested a lot of time and energy in bringing young, aspiring screenwriters to the attention of agents and studios via his web site "Trigger Street." He asked and received nothing for that; I don't believe his name even ever appeared on the site.
Anyway, I might not particularly want him over for dinner, but I refuse to negate his brilliant performances because he behaved like a cloaca in private. He will probably be back eventually; he's just too good at what he does not to be, and we don't even sentence many murderers to life terms anymore. We have far too many cookie cutter actors out there these days.
He was a superlative actor in The Usual Suspects. Then he inexplicably won an Oscar for American Beauty and that convinced him he was a leading man and maybe no one could have redeemed that role, but it really didn’t work.
I’m not sure what happened with House of Cards. On paper it should have been perfect for him, in practice he chewed the scenery like a beaver on meth. Maybe it was the dinner theatre accent? I don’t know. He’s a good host, though.
I gotta disagree with you about American Beauty; I thought Anette Benning was the scenery chewer in that one (though I don't think the screenplay really gave her much choice) and he was terrific, and even understated, as the husband fed up with being an upper middle class sheep with an uncomprehending, unfaithful wife. But "chewing the scenery like a beaver on meth" is definitely a keeper. Let's see how cur responds to it.
PS - Guy Pearce is one of those actors who likes to take chances on offbeat scripts and roles, like his knockout turn in "Memento," whereas Russell Crowe strikes me as mainly guided by his agents and financial managers. In Australia and Europe, Pearce is very much appreciated for his impressive talent.
1. The Twins continue to free fall. Local press is on Sano, and sure, he's an easy and legit target. But it looks more like a roster problem. Eddie Rosario has hit more-than-OK for Cleveland so far, including 2 HRs. Maybe the team shouldn't have cheaped out and cut him.
2. "Wet my beak" is one of the greatest sleaze phrases ever written. Conveys everything in 3 words. Genius.
Lifelong Cleveland fan here relishing in the irony of 2021 Cleveland cheapening out so very much that it allowed us to cause one instance of someone else cheapening out.
I think this is the year the Twins cut bait and admit that the Sano issue wasn't his weight or injuries but is simply that he can't swing the bat where the ball is. He's got a slow-to-start swing, so he cheats and starts early causing a zillion checked swings. He's a sucker for a well-disguised curve or changeup because already committed to the fastball. This isn't a fixable thing.
Just as we all expected, the Nats win the series behind the pitching of stalwarts Erick Fedde and Joe Ross and drop the start of unproven journeyman Stephen Strasburg.
Moreover, while that was a valid complaint about Strasburg in his early days, he's really evolved past it and become much more of a battler. Even on Tuesday night, when he was clearly not right and struggling, he kept trying to adjust and didn't give off that "get me out of here" body language he used to have in situations like this.
And Tony Kornheiser, IDMCjHO, is a jackass who should have stuck to writing columns instead of trying to out-TV-hot-take his jackass friend, Michael Wilbon.
I think it's great MLB is testing a mound move. But wouldn't it be easier if the pitcher just threw from second base? That way if the DH strikes out, all foul balls can count as fair until the seventh inning.
Seriously, isn't MLB/Manfred messing with the "action/reaction" elements of the game? Isn't there a larger and longer process here in which batters will be forced to hone their mechanics, improve reaction time and increase swing speeds? It seems to me these changes disturb the natural evolution of the game in the name of instant gratification. I'm a fan of leaving well enough alone, I guess.
All I want is a) for the the Phils to finish above .500 and b) to remember to put the coffee pot in the coffee maker when brewing coffee. Why are the Mets doing this? Could they try a little less hard to win?
PS I would also like the lipstick I ordered to arrive. And maybe world peace and an end to voter suppression.
The invention of the insulated coffee pot has got to be one of humanity's greatest leaps forward. Fresh coffee for a few hours after it is brewed.
But ...
Forgetting to empty any remnants from yesterday's pot before brewing today's has got to be one of humanity's greatest tragedies. Genocide, leaded gasoline, the existence of the New York Yankees, and an overflowing coffee pot spilling all over the countertop early in the morning.
I had to go into work yesterday and was greeted at home with a missed delivery slip because my kids can't be bothered to answer the door. SO infuriating.
Yeah but that was in the pre-wristband days so if your 21 year-old friend licked his hand stamp, it was wet enough to copy onto the back of your hand. Sure it was backwards, but the vendors never looked too close.
Gambling in sports seems to really get under your skin, Craig. But it seems inevitable that it will become a more prominent feature of sports consumption. You know this but you can't help but fight back and attack it every chance.
Idk. You know how baseball ancillary stuff has become more and more how baseball makes money? Merch, luxury boxes, stadiums becoming restaurants and malls? Gambling will dwarf all those tiny revenue streams.
I think you're probably wrong about that. It has traditionally not been that easy to gamble on sports in most places, and online gambling has been handled through offshore accounts with hidden transactions that credit card companies have tried to block. Making it more accessible and simple (and advertising it more) will likely entice many people to try it who otherwise would avoid the hassle or find easier legal games of chance.
Remember when Captain America tightened the straps on his shield and limped forward to take on Thanos' whole army alone near the end of "Endgame?" That's me, except I am fully aware that there will be no one to say "on your left" to come help me out.
Seriously, though: I don't care if people want to bet on sports. I take great issue with the league's themselves and the media which broadcast and cover it getting into the gambling business themselves. It's a totally different deal and will, inevitably, change the sport I love in an effort to make it more attractive to gambling interests. I don't care if that whole process itself is inevitable. I don't have to go along with it and act like it's fine.
And yet you offered your own betting tips in today’s newsletter!
“I’m willing to bet that many millions of their dollars are going to go directly to the people who are actively attempting to suppress the vote. And I bet nothing of actual substance will be done by, basically, anyone outside of issuing press releases and public statements about what they stand for while they make no actual stand at all.”
Completely disagree with your take on the Double-Hook. How often do relievers currently bat in the NL? Once or twice a week, if that? This is what you’d be adding to the AL, while completely eliminating starting pitchers batting in the NL. I feel like you were hunting for a reason to dislike this rule change, and ended up with something that didn’t really exist.
In fact, you made an argument in favor of the Double-Hook while discussing the mound move. Some AL teams are currently carrying 12 batters and 14 pitchers, since there’s almost no need for a bench. (And one of those batters is the backup catcher!) By needing a bench to deal with all the late-game pinch-hitting & double-switching, you’d be cutting down on the number of available relievers, which in theory would make relievers work more often and pace themselves more.
Yeah, I’m a fan of the double-hook, for a lot of the reasons you mention. It’s possible it will turn into a shit-show, but I think it’s a more worthy effort than the automatic runner in extras/7-inning doubleheader.
Social activists and Democrats are using controversial political issues to subvert and manipulate corporations and it seems to be working to some degree. But corporations are adept at assimilating culture fads and events, making them mainstream and neutralizing them. Americans are wholly dependent on big business for everyday life and ultimately accept whatever corporations give them.
This may be nothing more than a slight rewording of Craig's point about looking at rule changes through the dual lens of (a) what problem are we addressing and (b) will this work ... but my approach is that nearly any change must start from "what level of scoring do we want?" before moving to "what style of scoring do we want?"
Moving the mound back, without any other changes, will almost certainly increase scoring. We can get someone like Alan Nathan to give a precise formula, but pitches will be slower and less well targeted if they are thrown farther. Do we really want more runs per game? Some data:
Scoring per team:
This year: 4.43
Last 10 years: 4.42
Last 20 years: 4.55
Peak Selig era ('95-'00): 4.95
1980s: 4.29
1970s: 4.15
1960s: 4.05
1950s: 4.45
Jackie-Today: 4.40
Personally, I would like to see us stay at the present level of scoring, a level that is almost exactly what has been the norm for the lifetime of nearly anyone reading this.
I don't like the style of scoring, but the changes other than Ks, aren't nearly as dramatic as the chattering class would have us believe. Truncated version of similar data
I don’t think “Post Jackie” really tells you anything because there such huge differences in scoring & style from 40s/50s vs 60s/70s/80s vs 90s/00s vs 10s/20s. Just lumping all of that together, you naturally end up with something right in the middle
The post was getting too long and the data is easily available, but what the heck. The more granular data shows a greater degree of stability of everything except Ks that I would have expected:
Wow, this is great. But I really think you buried the lede with “other than Ks”. That increase in strikeouts is enormous, and I assume it’s over 8 if you look at the past 2-3 years. There’s only 27 outs in a game, and we went from 16% via K in the 1950s to 30%+ in today’s game.
In terms of aesthetics, I loved 80's style baseball, though I doubt that's ever coming back. I would trade in homers and K's for a few 100-SB guys in a millisecond.
As someone who turned 13 in 1980, I believe that I am legally required to say that the best era for baseball was the 1980s.
The artificial turf of those years was really ugly. So too were the multi-purpose stadiums with deep OF gaps and large foul ground. But it encouraged line drive hitting and fast outfielders.
And at the same time, you had the dramatic contrast with the slugging Orioles, Red Sox, and Harvey's Wallbanger Brewers. More than any one style, I enjoyed to multitude of styles available during my youth. It was perhaps best exemplified in the Big Red Machine, that had guys who could fly (Griffey), guys who could slug (Bench, Perez), guys who slapped singles (Rose), and guys who did it all (Morgan).
I know I’m in the minority of all the baseball takes people but I prefer the game today to the game in the 80’s. And I started watching baseball in 1979 at the age of 7 so I’m trying to give the 80’s all the nostalgia feels. I think the running game actually slows the game down. More pick offs etc. Plus aesthetically I don’t want to go back to at least 3 spots in a lineup (4 in the NL) with ops under .700. I don’t know if the cure to today’s baseball problem is bringing back a fleet of .240 hitting middle infielders and catchers with no power. But as I said I’m in the minority and I accept that.
If you want something to happen while you've got the game on, do what I do: get up and go to the bathroom. (or go make yourself a sandwich, get a beverage or whatnot)
Maybe it's recency bias, and I don't have the data handy, but I feel that there are more pickoff attempts now. Game pace in the 80's was quicker than today, though there are lots of reasons for that.
For balance, things I like about the modern game. Batters with extremely quick bats who stalk their pitch like it is prey. Bonds and Sheffield were the pioneers in my mind, and I love how modern stars do that. I also like *angry* pitchers like Scherzer who seem to be channeling the dark side to get batters out.
The legislation to have MLB reimburse Georgia is one more data point showing that the leagues simply use better lawyers than do cities and states. If there was a contract for MLB to hold the ASG in Cobb County, the tax payers could be reimbursed for a breach. But if I hear an announcement that Acme Dynamite is going to build a new Roadrunner destroying plant next door and I spruce up my Coyote Emergency Vet Clinic in anticipation, I don't get to sue Acme if they decide to relocate to the desert.
We saw a small example of this when Cobb County was shocked - shocked I tell you! - that they were obligated to provide security and police protection at the new stadium, a cost that wasn't included in county budgets as they didn't read the documents closely enough.
“American Tabloid” is a goddam masterpiece. I went on a similar journey as you with Ellroy in the mid-90’s, but I tapped out on him about 50% into “The Cold Six Thousand.” I’ve always suspected that the progression of his novels reflects the degree to which he was actually being edited. Ellroy isn’t alone in this, there are plenty of established writers, filmmakers (cough-Tarantino-cough), etc, who, in the later stages of their successful careers, would greatly benefit from actual editing. Ellroy is probably the most racist, though.
I actually like The Cold Six Thousand, but agree with most everything that Craig said about Ellroy's progression/regression and convoluted plots. What I like about The Cold Six Thousand is the gimmick -- I think there is no sentence longer than eight words. The rat-a-tat pace managed to make it interesting for me and I thought he pulled it off as well as anyone could. That being said, he has a lot of great work. His memoir, My Dark Places, is worthwhile too.
Exactly. It was fresh and cool in White Jazz, which had the benefit of being much shorter and more thoroughly being in the mind/voice of the protagonist, who was at wit's end and probably thinking in that sort of syntax.
Was happy to see it gone with Pefidia, but he also took out a plot and interesting characters too, so
I would certainly not argue with anyone who thought using the technique over a long novel was way too much. It was kind of like the literary equivalent of Krautrock and its sustained repetition.
I land the same way, thought The Cold Six Thousand worked pretty well, could not get into Blood's a Rover. Glad to know I shouldn't even bother with Perfidia.
Scheduling has been suboptimal for days of the calendar since they went to computers. Not every team plays on holidays (labor, memorial, 4th) or days like today are a total failure
It looks like my A's have 2 sundays off this season, which is mind boggling.
A side note on jackie robinson day, can they get names on the back of the jersey's?
I agree and that is kinda how it started. I think that is how regular retired numbers should work too, though
edit to delete the apostrophe
Tying the Starter Pitcher to the DH seems designed to kill the concept of the opener. You could lose the DH before he even bats.
Unless, of course, you bat the DH 8th or 9th and use yesterday's starting pitcher...
Except you don't use yesterday's starer, you use the long man if you are the home team. If you get 9 deep by the end of the 1st or 2nd you probably are ahead so you're ready for the switch anyway.
I know that to some degree the no-hitter is a statistical fluke, not an indicator of much besides one pitcher having a good night and one team having a bad night. But I still love them. Even if the next start, the pitcher who tossed the no-no is likely to be a lot more mortal, as Mr. Musgrove showed.
Mets still just barely doing much with the bats, outside of Nimmo and Dom Smith, but I always prefer starting pitching doing its thing. Today we have a scheduled day game, but it's going to rain again.
At the end of the day, I can't really say I care much about the Wilpons being conned by Madoff. Unlike many, they didn't lose everything, and I don't know how much sympathy I have when rich people lose money but are still rich. Madoff's biggest crime wasn't making the Mets mediocre. It was taking the endowment of my alma mater, Yeshiva University, and swallowing it whole in his ponzi scheme. A lot of Jewish and NYC nonprofits were harmed badly by his deeds, and unlike the Wilpons, there is no way to sell your charity to recoup your loses. He was the worst.
I read LA Confidential at some point and didn't care much for it. I suspect that many of the flaws you point to weighed on me at some level. I haven't read any more Ellroy. But some years later, I saw the movie, having forgotten I read the book, and loved it. The seeds of a great story were in place, but needed to be edited in some way. And maybe also handed to a stellar cast (his crimes aside, I rarely like Kevin Spacey but liked him here, God help me, and I still don't know why Guy Pearce isn't as big as star as Russell Crowe).
I found the L.A. Confidential book to be good, but I agree, the movie is a deft edit, and makes it stronger. A filmed version of the book, which would have to be a mini-series, would not be nearly as good. The material needs to be taut and it needs to be a story, not an epic, which was what the book aspired to be.
This is very astute but the trouble is, if it's not an epic I'm not nearly as interested. Therefore I prefer the book, which works perfectly well. Clandestine and The Big Nowhere are the two great Ellroy numbers nobody ever talks about. His staccato style sure did become annoying though.
The Cold Six Thousand and Blood's A Rover can be tough reads just because of how much he leans into the staccato style. It seems like he went back to a more "normal" writing style for Perfida and The Storm.
Elloy is an interesting cat. I always wonder how much of his problematic personality is actually him and how much is a schtick.
Titanic winning Best Picture over LA Confidential is something I knew was gonna happen for months before it did, but still pisses me off 23 years later.
I've become convinced that the ego dwells in one of the lower glands, because if it were a property of the brain James Cameron's skull would have exploded long ago.
Yes on no hitters. Has to be the best single-game accomplishment in sports that doesn't involve breaking a record.
I was horrified to read in one of the obits that Elie Wiesel was one of those conned by Madoff. And then was even more horrified that I hadn't known that previously.
I didn't know either. Well, that piece of shit had been a Chairman of NADAQ, so who was going to doubt him?
There's no reason to be chagrined at liking Kevin Spacey in a role, any role. You don't need to respect the way he behaves offscreen - nor should you - but he is a superlative actor. There wasn't one single role in which he appeared before becoming toxic he didn't light up with intensity and originality. Even the first time I saw him, in a minor role in "Outbreak," I thought he brought his character to vivid life and figured he would become a star.
I would point out that he also invested a lot of time and energy in bringing young, aspiring screenwriters to the attention of agents and studios via his web site "Trigger Street." He asked and received nothing for that; I don't believe his name even ever appeared on the site.
Anyway, I might not particularly want him over for dinner, but I refuse to negate his brilliant performances because he behaved like a cloaca in private. He will probably be back eventually; he's just too good at what he does not to be, and we don't even sentence many murderers to life terms anymore. We have far too many cookie cutter actors out there these days.
He was a superlative actor in The Usual Suspects. Then he inexplicably won an Oscar for American Beauty and that convinced him he was a leading man and maybe no one could have redeemed that role, but it really didn’t work.
I’m not sure what happened with House of Cards. On paper it should have been perfect for him, in practice he chewed the scenery like a beaver on meth. Maybe it was the dinner theatre accent? I don’t know. He’s a good host, though.
I gotta disagree with you about American Beauty; I thought Anette Benning was the scenery chewer in that one (though I don't think the screenplay really gave her much choice) and he was terrific, and even understated, as the husband fed up with being an upper middle class sheep with an uncomprehending, unfaithful wife. But "chewing the scenery like a beaver on meth" is definitely a keeper. Let's see how cur responds to it.
PS - Guy Pearce is one of those actors who likes to take chances on offbeat scripts and roles, like his knockout turn in "Memento," whereas Russell Crowe strikes me as mainly guided by his agents and financial managers. In Australia and Europe, Pearce is very much appreciated for his impressive talent.
1. The Twins continue to free fall. Local press is on Sano, and sure, he's an easy and legit target. But it looks more like a roster problem. Eddie Rosario has hit more-than-OK for Cleveland so far, including 2 HRs. Maybe the team shouldn't have cheaped out and cut him.
2. "Wet my beak" is one of the greatest sleaze phrases ever written. Conveys everything in 3 words. Genius.
Lifelong Cleveland fan here relishing in the irony of 2021 Cleveland cheapening out so very much that it allowed us to cause one instance of someone else cheapening out.
Hear, hear.
I think this is the year the Twins cut bait and admit that the Sano issue wasn't his weight or injuries but is simply that he can't swing the bat where the ball is. He's got a slow-to-start swing, so he cheats and starts early causing a zillion checked swings. He's a sucker for a well-disguised curve or changeup because already committed to the fastball. This isn't a fixable thing.
Someone had to motivate him. He just turned on a fastball - 2nd deck.
Just as we all expected, the Nats win the series behind the pitching of stalwarts Erick Fedde and Joe Ross and drop the start of unproven journeyman Stephen Strasburg.
(Can’t predict ball, man.)
That's World Series MVP Orchid to you, pal.
Moreover, while that was a valid complaint about Strasburg in his early days, he's really evolved past it and become much more of a battler. Even on Tuesday night, when he was clearly not right and struggling, he kept trying to adjust and didn't give off that "get me out of here" body language he used to have in situations like this.
And Tony Kornheiser, IDMCjHO, is a jackass who should have stuck to writing columns instead of trying to out-TV-hot-take his jackass friend, Michael Wilbon.
Fair enough - I can just relate to Strasburg's evolution as person and pitcher more than I do Max's admirable but inimitable bulldog attitude.
A chacun son starter, non?
I think it's great MLB is testing a mound move. But wouldn't it be easier if the pitcher just threw from second base? That way if the DH strikes out, all foul balls can count as fair until the seventh inning.
Seriously, isn't MLB/Manfred messing with the "action/reaction" elements of the game? Isn't there a larger and longer process here in which batters will be forced to hone their mechanics, improve reaction time and increase swing speeds? It seems to me these changes disturb the natural evolution of the game in the name of instant gratification. I'm a fan of leaving well enough alone, I guess.
All I want is a) for the the Phils to finish above .500 and b) to remember to put the coffee pot in the coffee maker when brewing coffee. Why are the Mets doing this? Could they try a little less hard to win?
PS I would also like the lipstick I ordered to arrive. And maybe world peace and an end to voter suppression.
The invention of the insulated coffee pot has got to be one of humanity's greatest leaps forward. Fresh coffee for a few hours after it is brewed.
But ...
Forgetting to empty any remnants from yesterday's pot before brewing today's has got to be one of humanity's greatest tragedies. Genocide, leaded gasoline, the existence of the New York Yankees, and an overflowing coffee pot spilling all over the countertop early in the morning.
The Yankees are a tragedy on par with coffee pot mishaps.
Alonso and Lindor are barely hitting, so you could argue the Mets aren't trying that hard yet.
The Mets really shouldn't make coffee anymore.
Clearly! Or play baseball!!!
they said it couldn't be done
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42410754-they-said-it-couldn-t-be-done
I had to go into work yesterday and was greeted at home with a missed delivery slip because my kids can't be bothered to answer the door. SO infuriating.
I saw jerking off to hate crimes open for Industrial Shithouse at Wembley.
18 to enter, 21 to drink?
Yeah but that was in the pre-wristband days so if your 21 year-old friend licked his hand stamp, it was wet enough to copy onto the back of your hand. Sure it was backwards, but the vendors never looked too close.
I’m not sure you should be licking anything in sight if you’re watching jerking off to hate crimes
The alcohol will help kill that.
... nor did they notice your black tongue.
I saw the Grateful Dead at Wembly twice. You can keep your ambient noise bands.
Gambling in sports seems to really get under your skin, Craig. But it seems inevitable that it will become a more prominent feature of sports consumption. You know this but you can't help but fight back and attack it every chance.
Idk. You know how baseball ancillary stuff has become more and more how baseball makes money? Merch, luxury boxes, stadiums becoming restaurants and malls? Gambling will dwarf all those tiny revenue streams.
I think you're probably wrong about that. It has traditionally not been that easy to gamble on sports in most places, and online gambling has been handled through offshore accounts with hidden transactions that credit card companies have tried to block. Making it more accessible and simple (and advertising it more) will likely entice many people to try it who otherwise would avoid the hassle or find easier legal games of chance.
Cinder Guard. He admitted in 2019 that he was going to bet on himself in free agency (https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/02/20/noah-syndergaard-i-feel-like-im-going-to-bet-on-myself-in-free-agency/).
Remember when Captain America tightened the straps on his shield and limped forward to take on Thanos' whole army alone near the end of "Endgame?" That's me, except I am fully aware that there will be no one to say "on your left" to come help me out.
Seriously, though: I don't care if people want to bet on sports. I take great issue with the league's themselves and the media which broadcast and cover it getting into the gambling business themselves. It's a totally different deal and will, inevitably, change the sport I love in an effort to make it more attractive to gambling interests. I don't care if that whole process itself is inevitable. I don't have to go along with it and act like it's fine.
And yet you offered your own betting tips in today’s newsletter!
“I’m willing to bet that many millions of their dollars are going to go directly to the people who are actively attempting to suppress the vote. And I bet nothing of actual substance will be done by, basically, anyone outside of issuing press releases and public statements about what they stand for while they make no actual stand at all.”
Circles will appear in the air behind you, Cap. You are not alone!
I don't feel so good, Mr. Calcaterra ... ::dissolves into a pile of betting slips::
Completely disagree with your take on the Double-Hook. How often do relievers currently bat in the NL? Once or twice a week, if that? This is what you’d be adding to the AL, while completely eliminating starting pitchers batting in the NL. I feel like you were hunting for a reason to dislike this rule change, and ended up with something that didn’t really exist.
In fact, you made an argument in favor of the Double-Hook while discussing the mound move. Some AL teams are currently carrying 12 batters and 14 pitchers, since there’s almost no need for a bench. (And one of those batters is the backup catcher!) By needing a bench to deal with all the late-game pinch-hitting & double-switching, you’d be cutting down on the number of available relievers, which in theory would make relievers work more often and pace themselves more.
Yeah, I’m a fan of the double-hook, for a lot of the reasons you mention. It’s possible it will turn into a shit-show, but I think it’s a more worthy effort than the automatic runner in extras/7-inning doubleheader.
Social activists and Democrats are using controversial political issues to subvert and manipulate corporations and it seems to be working to some degree. But corporations are adept at assimilating culture fads and events, making them mainstream and neutralizing them. Americans are wholly dependent on big business for everyday life and ultimately accept whatever corporations give them.
This may be nothing more than a slight rewording of Craig's point about looking at rule changes through the dual lens of (a) what problem are we addressing and (b) will this work ... but my approach is that nearly any change must start from "what level of scoring do we want?" before moving to "what style of scoring do we want?"
Moving the mound back, without any other changes, will almost certainly increase scoring. We can get someone like Alan Nathan to give a precise formula, but pitches will be slower and less well targeted if they are thrown farther. Do we really want more runs per game? Some data:
Scoring per team:
This year: 4.43
Last 10 years: 4.42
Last 20 years: 4.55
Peak Selig era ('95-'00): 4.95
1980s: 4.29
1970s: 4.15
1960s: 4.05
1950s: 4.45
Jackie-Today: 4.40
Personally, I would like to see us stay at the present level of scoring, a level that is almost exactly what has been the norm for the lifetime of nearly anyone reading this.
I don't like the style of scoring, but the changes other than Ks, aren't nearly as dramatic as the chattering class would have us believe. Truncated version of similar data
Batting Average
Last 10 .252
Last 20 .258
Post Jackie .258
Walk per game per team
Last 10 3.1
Last 20 3.2
Post Jackie 3.3
K/9/team
Last 10 8.0
Last 20 7.3
Post Jackie 5.8
HR/9/team
Last 10 1.1
Last 20 1.1
Post Jackie 0.9
SB/9/team
Last 10 0.6
Last 20 0.6
Post Jackie 0.6
I don’t think “Post Jackie” really tells you anything because there such huge differences in scoring & style from 40s/50s vs 60s/70s/80s vs 90s/00s vs 10s/20s. Just lumping all of that together, you naturally end up with something right in the middle
The post was getting too long and the data is easily available, but what the heck. The more granular data shows a greater degree of stability of everything except Ks that I would have expected:
BA
2010s .254
2000s .265
1990s .265
1980s .259
1970s .256
1960s .249
1950s .260
2B&3B/G
2010s 1.9
2000s 2.0
1990s 1.9
1980s 1.7
1970s 1.6
1960s 1.5
1950s 1.7
HR/G
2010s 1.1
2000s 1.1
1990s 1.0
1980s 0.8
1970s 0.7
1960s 0.8
1950s 0.8
SB/G
2010s 0.6
2000s 0.6
1990s 0.7
1980s 0.8
1970s 0.6
1960s 0.4
1950s 0.3
BB/G
2010s 3.1
2000s 3.3
1990s 3.4
1980s 3.2
1970s 3.3
1960s 3.1
1950s 3.6
SO/G
2010s 7.8
2000s 6.6
1990s 6.1
1980s 5.3
1970s 5.1
1960s 5.7
1950s 4.4
Wow, this is great. But I really think you buried the lede with “other than Ks”. That increase in strikeouts is enormous, and I assume it’s over 8 if you look at the past 2-3 years. There’s only 27 outs in a game, and we went from 16% via K in the 1950s to 30%+ in today’s game.
The obvious way to reduce strikeouts is to make MLB use a softball instead of a baseball.
Man with three balls should walk proudly.
You want greater granularity?!?! Well, you've got it: K/9 by year:
2021 9.3
2020 8.7
2019 8.8
2018 8.5
2017 8.3
2016 8.0
2015 7.7
2014 7.7
2013 7.6
2012 7.5
2011 7.1
2010 7.1
Just an FYI: All this and more is available via bb-ref. All hail Sean!
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/pitch.shtml
Wow. 9.3? I realize it’s early in the year, but holy crap that’s bad. Just going from 7.1 to 8.7 over 10 years is pretty nuts.
In terms of aesthetics, I loved 80's style baseball, though I doubt that's ever coming back. I would trade in homers and K's for a few 100-SB guys in a millisecond.
As someone who turned 13 in 1980, I believe that I am legally required to say that the best era for baseball was the 1980s.
The artificial turf of those years was really ugly. So too were the multi-purpose stadiums with deep OF gaps and large foul ground. But it encouraged line drive hitting and fast outfielders.
The turf was ugly and a knee-killer, but boy were those teams with speedy outfielders like the Cards and Royals fun.
And at the same time, you had the dramatic contrast with the slugging Orioles, Red Sox, and Harvey's Wallbanger Brewers. More than any one style, I enjoyed to multitude of styles available during my youth. It was perhaps best exemplified in the Big Red Machine, that had guys who could fly (Griffey), guys who could slug (Bench, Perez), guys who slapped singles (Rose), and guys who did it all (Morgan).
I know I’m in the minority of all the baseball takes people but I prefer the game today to the game in the 80’s. And I started watching baseball in 1979 at the age of 7 so I’m trying to give the 80’s all the nostalgia feels. I think the running game actually slows the game down. More pick offs etc. Plus aesthetically I don’t want to go back to at least 3 spots in a lineup (4 in the NL) with ops under .700. I don’t know if the cure to today’s baseball problem is bringing back a fleet of .240 hitting middle infielders and catchers with no power. But as I said I’m in the minority and I accept that.
If you think nothing ever happens in baseball, you should try working as a transmissions monitor at SETI.
If you want something to happen while you've got the game on, do what I do: get up and go to the bathroom. (or go make yourself a sandwich, get a beverage or whatnot)
Works for me every time.
Maybe it's recency bias, and I don't have the data handy, but I feel that there are more pickoff attempts now. Game pace in the 80's was quicker than today, though there are lots of reasons for that.
For balance, things I like about the modern game. Batters with extremely quick bats who stalk their pitch like it is prey. Bonds and Sheffield were the pioneers in my mind, and I love how modern stars do that. I also like *angry* pitchers like Scherzer who seem to be channeling the dark side to get batters out.
Does your post break off and wiggle, giving you time to reach the dense underbrush?
The legislation to have MLB reimburse Georgia is one more data point showing that the leagues simply use better lawyers than do cities and states. If there was a contract for MLB to hold the ASG in Cobb County, the tax payers could be reimbursed for a breach. But if I hear an announcement that Acme Dynamite is going to build a new Roadrunner destroying plant next door and I spruce up my Coyote Emergency Vet Clinic in anticipation, I don't get to sue Acme if they decide to relocate to the desert.
We saw a small example of this when Cobb County was shocked - shocked I tell you! - that they were obligated to provide security and police protection at the new stadium, a cost that wasn't included in county budgets as they didn't read the documents closely enough.
"Coyote Emergency Vet Clinic" - chef's kiss.
"Acme Roadrunner Destroying Factory" - when you aim at the prey, you always hit the predator.
My wife and I watch LA Confidential on Christmas night every year. It's a Christmas movie
“American Tabloid” is a goddam masterpiece. I went on a similar journey as you with Ellroy in the mid-90’s, but I tapped out on him about 50% into “The Cold Six Thousand.” I’ve always suspected that the progression of his novels reflects the degree to which he was actually being edited. Ellroy isn’t alone in this, there are plenty of established writers, filmmakers (cough-Tarantino-cough), etc, who, in the later stages of their successful careers, would greatly benefit from actual editing. Ellroy is probably the most racist, though.
I actually like The Cold Six Thousand, but agree with most everything that Craig said about Ellroy's progression/regression and convoluted plots. What I like about The Cold Six Thousand is the gimmick -- I think there is no sentence longer than eight words. The rat-a-tat pace managed to make it interesting for me and I thought he pulled it off as well as anyone could. That being said, he has a lot of great work. His memoir, My Dark Places, is worthwhile too.
I liked My Dark Places. His other memoir, about his love life, was woof, terrible.
I peeped it. It vibed sour. Felt stinko. Sweat blood. Needed all the reefer in the basin to make it feature.
I thought the rat-a-tat worked better in White Jazz. I also think that employing the gimmick for >700 pages ultimately negates the intended effect.
And yes, My Dark Places is definitely worth the read.
Exactly. It was fresh and cool in White Jazz, which had the benefit of being much shorter and more thoroughly being in the mind/voice of the protagonist, who was at wit's end and probably thinking in that sort of syntax.
Was happy to see it gone with Pefidia, but he also took out a plot and interesting characters too, so
Felt like Perfida turned Dudley from a crooked cop into a Dr No level supervillain.
I'm strugling my way through This Storm, mostly out of a sense of duty, I think, and Dudley in this is just...... ridiculous.
I would certainly not argue with anyone who thought using the technique over a long novel was way too much. It was kind of like the literary equivalent of Krautrock and its sustained repetition.
I land the same way, thought The Cold Six Thousand worked pretty well, could not get into Blood's a Rover. Glad to know I shouldn't even bother with Perfidia.
Okay, Craig, noted: if you start wearing Hawaiian shirts and riding motorcycles, we can crowd-fund the intervention.