I was going to include some streaming vid here, but, alas, I ran out of bandwith.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Netflix Is For Rubes
I was going to include some streaming vid here, but, alas, I ran out of bandwith.
Three Things Less Believable Than Chad Durbin's 12th
Not to dwell on Chad's improbably inflammable appearance, but I would rank it fourth over the past week in bizarre MLB occurrences. In case you've been stoned the entire time, it has been quite a week. Here is the reprise.
#3) ManRam retires. So Manny's dumb; we know that. After a second positive test for a prohibited substance, Ramirez chose to call it quits rather than face a 100 game suspension. Even the decision boggles my mind; either way he sits on his rump. Either way he gets a deluge of scorn from the press and the fans. Why make such a rash move? Just Manny bein' Manny. Check out his timeline of ignominy here.
#2) Josh Hamilton breaks arm while trying to score on a pop foul to the third baseman. I have never seen anything like this. Josh blames the third base coach, kind of. Regardless, he will miss 6-8 weeks. And isn't allowed anything for the pain. ;-j.
#1) Adrian Gonzalez and David Ortiz triple in the same game. Amidst Daisuke Matsuzaka's extended BP to the Rays on Monday, two unlike Sox both ended up on third thanks to the unique dimensions of Fenway and some overly aggressive outfield play by Tampa. While Big Papi holds an unlikely distinction as the only AL player to triple in each of the past 12 seasons, the probability of of the daily double (triple?) was astronomical. Given their performances over the past five seasons, the odds of Gonzalez (7 3B in 799 G) and Ortiz (6 in 704) tripling in the same contest were approximately 1 in 13,000. If you prefer a percentage, there was a 0.0075% or three quarters of a hundredth of a percent chance of that outcome. Factor in the probability of both hits being viewed live by me and the % drops straight to zero.
So, Chad, you've got all that going for you.
Cheers.
P.S. Thanks again, Joe Smith activated and Frank Herrmann to Columbus. For now.
#3) ManRam retires. So Manny's dumb; we know that. After a second positive test for a prohibited substance, Ramirez chose to call it quits rather than face a 100 game suspension. Even the decision boggles my mind; either way he sits on his rump. Either way he gets a deluge of scorn from the press and the fans. Why make such a rash move? Just Manny bein' Manny. Check out his timeline of ignominy here.
#2) Josh Hamilton breaks arm while trying to score on a pop foul to the third baseman. I have never seen anything like this. Josh blames the third base coach, kind of. Regardless, he will miss 6-8 weeks. And isn't allowed anything for the pain. ;-j.
#1) Adrian Gonzalez and David Ortiz triple in the same game. Amidst Daisuke Matsuzaka's extended BP to the Rays on Monday, two unlike Sox both ended up on third thanks to the unique dimensions of Fenway and some overly aggressive outfield play by Tampa. While Big Papi holds an unlikely distinction as the only AL player to triple in each of the past 12 seasons, the probability of of the daily double (triple?) was astronomical. Given their performances over the past five seasons, the odds of Gonzalez (7 3B in 799 G) and Ortiz (6 in 704) tripling in the same contest were approximately 1 in 13,000. If you prefer a percentage, there was a 0.0075% or three quarters of a hundredth of a percent chance of that outcome. Factor in the probability of both hits being viewed live by me and the % drops straight to zero.
So, Chad, you've got all that going for you.
Cheers.
P.S. Thanks again, Joe Smith activated and Frank Herrmann to Columbus. For now.
Oh, I Forgot, The Terrorists Won
Is this just PC BS to avoid the appearance of profiling? The day a little girl like that is truly a threat is the day I defect to Canada without stopping to look back.
Well, That's Embarrassing
#3) Progressive Field, Summer 2010. I got some wicked sweet seats right behind home plate. Even though I do not prefer to stare through the screen, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to sit so close. Round about the 7th inning, there was a foul tip. The screen at the Jake does not feature the horizontal cover, just the vertical bit behind the plate. The tip screamed a touch over the top of the screen and headed to my right. The seat to that side was open, so I shuffled and leaned into my closest neighbor. Alas, the ball glanced off of my fingertips (it stung) and rattled away to another. Sorry Dad, touched it, couldn't catch it. The most upsetting part was the ruse perpetrated by the buddy I was at the game with. A wry grin on his face, he convinced me, with the help of another friend that was watching on tv, that I has been front and center on STO's coverage and looked quite the hands of stone. I have to stop believing what that dude says.
#2) Jacobs Field, Summer 2005. I am sitting on the third base side in decent seats, just past the dugout, just under the overhang. With me are the same jackass from above and a second dude, who's just hangin' out, doesn't give a flying fish about baseball. Attendance was sorta sparse and the 3 rows in front of us were completely empty. A foul comes looping towards us, but dies two rows too soon. Jackass and I lunge for it, but we both miss. There's a rattle and a clatter and before I know what's going on dude #3 has plucked the prize from its resting spot within a cup holder. Jeez oh man. Worst of all? He offered it to me. Nice thing for a friend to do, but salt in the cosmic wound.
#1) Canal Park, Summer 2004. This one is bad. Really bad. I'm watching the Aeros with a couple of college buddies and there is a set of pretty girls in the row in front of us. We're just off to the first base side, about 3 or 4 rows behind the plate. This one is pop foul. This time I'm wearing my oversized high school outfielder's mitt. The ball goes up and I turn to the guy on my right, the more athletic of the two, and I box him out. Literally. Just like goin' for a board, I drive my backside into him and push him out of the way. I'm tracking the ball the whole time and my heart is a pumpa-thumpin'. In the last moment, I realize that, like most pop-ups, this thing is coming straight down. Instead the ball is slicing back towards the plate. I make a feeble attempt to swipe it out of the air, but, of course, I miss. The ball ka-thunks right off the middle back of the chick in front of me. Ouch. Not enough beer in the world.
Ob la di. I got mine.
These guys understand. ;-j
Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
Cheers.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
A Quest Called Tribe
Durbin's folly bites the hardest perhaps because it was the proximate cause of defeat, perhaps because he has done exactly nothing to help the Indians win. Hang on, this is nearly unbelievable. In a single horrific inning, Durbin gave up a single to a guy who was 4-for-48 (and 0-for-his last 16), walked a man on four pitches, threw a wild pitch (seconds after Carlos Santana saved one) that led to an intentional walk and couldn't keep the ball on the ground to extend the contest. My tune may change on this, but, as of this moment, Chad Durbin blows.
All of this overshadows another quality start from the Indians' rotation. Carlos Carrasco tinkered with his wind-up and was lights out for the first three innings (H, BB, 3 K). Cabrera's gaff came in the 4th, quickly followed by Carrasco's biggest mistake and a two-run Torii Hunter long ball. That's it though. Carlos went seven, allowing five hits and two walks, striking out five. Similar to Fausto Carmona yesterday, I will take that kind of start any day of the week.
The bullpen was equally effective in getting to the 12th. Have I mentioned that Vinnie Pestano is nasty? Then... Chad Durbin. The Tribe announced that two of their rehabbers will join the Clippers
Down on the farm Grady Sizemore got the day off. No surprise.
Jason Donald led off for the Aeros and played third. Donald (.273) was 2-for-4 with a run scored and a stolen base. He is rehab eligible until the 30th. Expect him to use all of that time.
Nick Hagadone threw his third consecutive scoreless pair of innings. Over those six frames Hagadone has surrendered just 2 hits without a walk, while striking out six. The opposition is hitting .105 against him.
Drew Pomeranz made his second start for Kinston and was nearly as impressive as in outing #1. Pomeranz did allow a run this time (unearned) on a single hit, two walks and 8 Ks. Over 11 innings thus far, Drew has allowed five baserunners and struck out 17. If this trend continues, he'll be in Akron by June and Cleveland by September.
I grumble now, but it's only going to get better. ;-j
Cheers.
Rights and Responsibilites
I've ranted on the social contract before. Still the nature of modern existence weighs upon me. The supposition is that an enlightened culture needs a set commonalities to facilitate interactions. That is, we need to know what to expect from our fellows, we need some common ground. This is all well and good, but its success is based upon a grandiose assumption: we have the ability to recognize what we are doing. I never signed the GD contract, have no need for boiler plate expectations. I have come to a point in life where I recognize that my opinions on social mores and folkways are fairly irrelevant. Still, like the brash child that I am, I ceaselessly attempt to cram the square peg of myself into the slender, round hole of the wider world. Doomed, doomed to failure.
**The true issue lies in subjectivity. While the social contract may guide (read "dictate") our behavior, nothing can alter the way in which each individual parses his interactions. It renders irrelevant every considered action because the responses to and from carry different connotations. "Hypothetical" example -- One person has found himself without many to care about or respect. Thus when this person has contact with the relative few that count, his words are designed to communicate the worth that he sees. Unfortunately, these compliments are seen as improper, as too intense, they fall as colors outside of the lines. Does this mean that we should not tell others that they are meaningful to us? Is it necessary to wrap such soliloquies within the brightly papered wrappings of subtle actions? Is this all just some game? Frankly Scarlett, I have no freakin' idea. As much as anyone might explain the "shoulds" of the world to us, it remains unlikely that these suggestions will become habitual without an innate faith in their worth.**
Let me use smaller words. I do not like being told what to do. Recently, I was blessed with the recognition to find a word definitive of myself: pragmatic. In this context, pragmatism means that I don't give a damn about social graces, especially those now antiquated. Let's examine a few that are, pragmatically, similar. Up until around 60 years ago, most assumed that women should stay in the home with the children. No attention was paid to the any abilities such women might have to do other works, no credence given to the contributions they might have made to the world. The masses were given a standard to apply and apply it they did. 30 years ago, the concept of openly gay couples prospering in the world would have been laughable, if not disgusting, to most. Today, not only are such dyads generally sanctioned, but perception has shifted to the point that such pairs can adopt children, hold places in popular culture and often step through life as fearless as any. The assumption is shifting. Now, we come to thorn in my side: the ideal of marriage. Just as there was legality surrounding the acquisition of women's rights and the court battles over gay unions continue, there is a thick legal syrup poured over the breakfast of marriage (it's a contract, yo). More importantly is the issue of stereotype. 100 years ago no one evaluated a woman based on the content of her character of the sum of her skills; she was just a woman. Nothing she could say or do could change that. 50 years ago the same was true of any gay couple, with even more stigma attached. The key is that the beholders, the great unwashed masses of America, cannot be bothered to critically observe those around them. They rely on the simplistic definitions of the current social contract (or the their own more colloquial version, see any extremist). This is the agony that I endure today based within the concept of marriage. For so many the institution represents a utopia rather than a panacea. Regardless of the the divorce statistics, many still see the nirvana of having a partner, any partner, as so wondrous as to ignore any specifics. Just like each woman, each set of homosexual partners, each person is different; each marriage is different. The end result of profiling is to frustrate and agitate those being profiled. As a white male, I suppose that I have felt less of this than many in my life, but now I am subject to full scrutiny. The aggregate expectation of marriage is a noose and a coffin. For all the hard work that everyone says that the relationship itself is, the impossibility is to fulfill others' expectation. I cannot be held to the standard of each individual's perfect marriage. Not that I give a shit what others think, but, rather, I am pretty fucking sick of missing out on the beauty of life because I'm goddamn married.
Given all of this, maybe the assumption has it all wrong. Maybe none of us has any idea at all.
** Probably irrelevant to my argument, but it's rant and this is how it came out.
Fuck it, here's the Mountain Goats.
Better audio, slightly less fun.
**The true issue lies in subjectivity. While the social contract may guide (read "dictate") our behavior, nothing can alter the way in which each individual parses his interactions. It renders irrelevant every considered action because the responses to and from carry different connotations. "Hypothetical" example -- One person has found himself without many to care about or respect. Thus when this person has contact with the relative few that count, his words are designed to communicate the worth that he sees. Unfortunately, these compliments are seen as improper, as too intense, they fall as colors outside of the lines. Does this mean that we should not tell others that they are meaningful to us? Is it necessary to wrap such soliloquies within the brightly papered wrappings of subtle actions? Is this all just some game? Frankly Scarlett, I have no freakin' idea. As much as anyone might explain the "shoulds" of the world to us, it remains unlikely that these suggestions will become habitual without an innate faith in their worth.**
Let me use smaller words. I do not like being told what to do. Recently, I was blessed with the recognition to find a word definitive of myself: pragmatic. In this context, pragmatism means that I don't give a damn about social graces, especially those now antiquated. Let's examine a few that are, pragmatically, similar. Up until around 60 years ago, most assumed that women should stay in the home with the children. No attention was paid to the any abilities such women might have to do other works, no credence given to the contributions they might have made to the world. The masses were given a standard to apply and apply it they did. 30 years ago, the concept of openly gay couples prospering in the world would have been laughable, if not disgusting, to most. Today, not only are such dyads generally sanctioned, but perception has shifted to the point that such pairs can adopt children, hold places in popular culture and often step through life as fearless as any. The assumption is shifting. Now, we come to thorn in my side: the ideal of marriage. Just as there was legality surrounding the acquisition of women's rights and the court battles over gay unions continue, there is a thick legal syrup poured over the breakfast of marriage (it's a contract, yo). More importantly is the issue of stereotype. 100 years ago no one evaluated a woman based on the content of her character of the sum of her skills; she was just a woman. Nothing she could say or do could change that. 50 years ago the same was true of any gay couple, with even more stigma attached. The key is that the beholders, the great unwashed masses of America, cannot be bothered to critically observe those around them. They rely on the simplistic definitions of the current social contract (or the their own more colloquial version, see any extremist). This is the agony that I endure today based within the concept of marriage. For so many the institution represents a utopia rather than a panacea. Regardless of the the divorce statistics, many still see the nirvana of having a partner, any partner, as so wondrous as to ignore any specifics. Just like each woman, each set of homosexual partners, each person is different; each marriage is different. The end result of profiling is to frustrate and agitate those being profiled. As a white male, I suppose that I have felt less of this than many in my life, but now I am subject to full scrutiny. The aggregate expectation of marriage is a noose and a coffin. For all the hard work that everyone says that the relationship itself is, the impossibility is to fulfill others' expectation. I cannot be held to the standard of each individual's perfect marriage. Not that I give a shit what others think, but, rather, I am pretty fucking sick of missing out on the beauty of life because I'm goddamn married.
Given all of this, maybe the assumption has it all wrong. Maybe none of us has any idea at all.
** Probably irrelevant to my argument, but it's rant and this is how it came out.
Fuck it, here's the Mountain Goats.
Better audio, slightly less fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)