FIRE JOE MORGAN

FIRE JOE MORGAN

Where Bad Sports Journalism Came To Die

FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over. You can still e-mail dak, Ken Tremendous, Junior, Matthew Murbles, or Coach.

Main / Archives / Merch / Glossary / Goodbye

Sunday, May 25, 2008

 

Sports is About Spittle

Thpthpthpthtphtthtphtphtpthpth.

The best reason to say no to instant replay in baseball might seem like the silliest one:

Then you should definitely employ and then defend it.

Who in his right mind wants to see the standard manager-umpire confrontation—the nose-to-nose, spittle-flying, why-did-you-have-to-have-garlic-chicken-for-lunch altercation—become extinct?

In case you don't want to read ahead, let me summarize what's happening here. Rick Morrissey is setting up what we in the brain-having industry call: a false dilemma. Rick Morrissey likes it when managers go toe-to-toe with umpires. Instant replay, he reasons, will be the end of that. So he hates instant replay.

What he bizarrely fails to understand, is that (a) instant replay is being considered only for run-scoring plays (mostly HR) and (b) many manager freakouts happen after slow burns involving several ball-and-strike calls or bad calls at second on phantom double plays or whatever, and so (c) even if instant replay is instituted there will still be hundreds, nay thousands, of situations leading to managers getting angry, ergo (d) instant replay will surely not see the end of the aforementioned toe-to-toe freakouts.

So: this whole article should not have been written.

Who wants to see Ozzie Guillen calmly throw a red flag on to the field signifying his challenge of an umpire's call? I prefer it when he sends a red streak of profanity in the general direction of umpire Joe West.

This is why Ozzie Guillen still has a job. People don't care if he's a good manager. They defend him under the Lloyd McClendon Train Wreck Act of 2001.

You say you would prefer to see the correct call made?

Yes. Yes. A thousand times, yes. And I'm not just saying that. Watch:

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

There. A thousand times "yes." Actually, 1200 -- I threw in an extra 200 yesses to show how serious I am about wanting correct calls to be made in baseball games.

There were three blown HR calls in like 2 days last week. But who cares about the games themselves? Let's get the fans riled up with some good ol' fashioned spittin' in dudes' faces!

I say I would prefer to see Lou Piniella lose it over an ump's human call. That is as uniquely baseball as managers wearing team uniforms.

I've seen Lou Pinella lose it over an ump's human call about 250 times. I get it. He gets all red-faced, he screams and yells, the ump yells back, he gets kicked out, he gives a fiery postgame press conference, he gets suspended, goto 10. It's boring. It's in fact so hacky and well-known at this point that he mocks himself for doing it so much in a commercial for fucking Vitamin Water or something. You would seriously rather continue seeing that than you would see terrible game-affecting calls get reversed? (This question ignores the fact that, again, even if replay is instituted, I guarantee Pinella will get to perform his little ritual just as often.)

For the record, I personally think it's dumb that managers wear uniforms. It looks ridiculous. And if we're going to be all humanistic and nostalgic here, how about going back to these days? I think managers looked way better back then.

The powers that be in baseball say instant replay will be tested in the Arizona Fall League. If it works well there, it will be used during the World Baseball Classic, spring training and major-league games next season.

This seems rational and well-reasoned.

The Tribune's Phil Rogers reports that the technology could be in place for the 2008 postseason but that it's unlikely Major League Baseball would move quickly to introduce something so new to the game.

Again: good work, baseball. Don't rush it. Work out the kinks. Seems good.

Officials insist instant replay would be used only for disputes involving home run calls, but don't believe them for a second.

...Why not?

It eventually will be used for all controversial calls, excluding balls and strikes. If there's one thing we know about technology, it's that it takes over like weeds. Or haven't you seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" yet?

Okay. In football, you only get two a game, right? So what makes you think that MLB is going to use it more than that? The best thing about the NFL replay system is that you have to choose your spots, and there's a penalty if you're wrong. So it has become a legitimate part of the strategery of the sport. It also works.

Grrrrrr...technology! Change! Grrrrrrrrr!

(Also: 2001? From 1968? Not Minority Report, or a George Saunders story, or Battlestar? 2001? It's an excellent movie, but that's your reference point? Still?)

"The times are such that our fans are used to seeing all the high technology, and they're used to seeing the other sports that use these systems to make determinations, and the fans are clamoring for all the sports to look at that," Jimmie Lee Solomon, an MLB vice president, told the Associated Press.

Systems. Determinations. It sounds so poetic, doesn't it?

No, Sarcastic Jones, it sounds rational. Which is how it should sound. There is plenty of poetry in baseball. Getting calls right and monitoring the game correctly should be anti-poetic. It should just be right.

Baseball is different. Automatons do not rule this sport the way they do football. Men who otherwise would be running counterintelligence operations in South America are not running baseball. Anal-retentive people are not yet holding the reins to the national pastime, though they're trying.

Uh oh. My knee is acting up. And you know what that portends: statistics are about to get blamed for everything that is wrong with the game.

As it is, stats freaks are taking over player-personnel departments. The new-breed general managers are slaves to their computers. Couldn't we leave something open to the vagaries of being human?

False dilemma #2. GMs who are into stats rob all of baseball -- and I mean, every last tiny bit of baseball -- of humanity. The game still gets played, guys, whether it's played by Bill Bavasi's free-hacking .280 OBP scrappers or Billy Beane's plodding .370 OBP club-footed fatties. The "vagaries of being human" are on parade in every single baseball game, every at bat, every pitch, every play. If an actual computer assembled the roster, and a second computer (wearing a team uniform, as per MLB rules) managed the team, and the first base coach and third base coach were both ASIMO robots, and the umps were Cylons, and the announcers were fax machines, and the team trainer was a robotic arm with a surgical knife, and the fans were Jar-Jars, the game would still be played by humans.

What's wrong with quirkiness? Why must everything be uniform?

Nothing. It doesn't. But you know what's supernotawesome? When you're a Cardinal fan and Don Denkinger calls Jorge Orta safe at first. Or when you're the Orioles and some little twerp leans over and takes an out away from Tony Tarasco. Or when you're the Red Sox and Chuck Knoblauch misses tagging Jose Offerman by eleven feet and Tim Tschida calls him out.

(Stop writing the emails now, folks. I know none of those teams actually lost its Series because of one play. But it still sucks. And it could be corrected really easily.)

In general, baseball people are earthier than, say, football people, which might explain why Piniella kicked dirt on third-base umpire Mark Wegner during a game last season. After the fact, it was obvious the Cubs manager knew Wegner had made the correct call on the contested play, but he simply wanted to fire up his team, which was performing poorly at the time. How will a manager be able to do that sort of thing if instant replay becomes part of the game? By kicking dirt on the camera?

No. By doing the exact same thing. This whole discussion is moot, since we don't know which situations will be reviewable, but if you don't even think the play was called incorrectly and just want to fire up your team, then go out and fire up your team. And since most likely balls and strikes and maybe even routine safe/out calls won't be reviewable, there will be plenty of opportunities to fire up your team with theatrics and stuff. I'm thinking that you really didn't think this through, Mr. Morrissey. Am I right?

You might be wondering the reason for the sudden urgency over instant replay in baseball. In the last week, TV replays showed that umpires had made incorrect calls on home runs in three games.

Geez. That seems bad. Seems like if all three calls could have been reversed in like 90 combined seconds of looking at a tape, the game would be better off.

Yeah, so? Two of the games involved—surprise!—New York teams. So now it's a hot issue.

Dude. I really don't think this has anything to do with New York. I think it has more to do with the fact that there were three of them in a week. Stop yelling about New York, Chicago. There is no conspiracy to help New York. (There has never been a conspiracy to help New York. The Bulls have now been awarded the #1 overall pick in the NBA lottery twice when having like a .0000004% chance to get it. If anything, there is a conspiracy to help Chicago. But: there is no conspiracy to help Chicago.)

Baseball is better the way it is, warts and all. Sometimes human error is the story. What a boring world this would be if machines decided everything.

Piffle. Insane. Batshit. Balls. Human error is often the story in baseball, and all sports. Human player error. Why let anything besides human error or human excellence on the field decide the outcome? Why? That's lunacy. Plus, even if you correct hugely important calls -- like HR calls -- there is still a human error component on every pitch in the way of strike zone judgment.

If this plan were to take QuesTec and create a LASERTechnoGrid™ on every batter and put a chip in the ball and have the LASERTechnoGrid™ turn red for strikes and green for balls, then yes, I would say, that's silly, and let's let humans be humans. But huge game-altering HR calls? That can be corrected with like a minute's review of normal TV camera work? Why not do that? Why allow massive injustice to alter the fate of these games while we watch and yell at the TVs and the umps have to live with the calls for the rest of their lives? Why?

Speaking of boring, is there anything duller than waiting for an NFL referee to look at a replay from every angle under a hooded camera? If you think baseball is slow now, just wait.

Oh my God am I so much more willing to TiVo through a challenge break than I am to accept a totally crappy call made against my team. So much more.

I know you Cardinals fans would have loved replay during Game 6 of the 1985 World Series. That's when umpire Don Denkinger called Kansas City's Jorge Orta safe on a play at first base even though TV replays clearly showed he was out. The ninth-inning goof gave the Royals new life against St. Louis. They went on to win that game and the next to win the title.

Please somehow say that this was a good learning experience or something for Cardinal fans. Say whatever does not kill you makes you stronger. Please.

But if there had been official replay and Denkinger's call had been overruled, what would Cubs fans have to say during trash-talking sessions with Cardinals fans? Very little. Instant replay shows no mercy for the downtrodden.

That's your argument? It's awesome for fans of a team that had nothing to do with that game? How is that an argument? I know it sucked for Austrians when Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, but how cool was it for Pro-Serb Austrian-hating Hungarians? They got to razz the fuck out of Austria after that.

The umpire is the law, always has been. His word is final. You can argue all you want with him, but you're not going to win. There's something quaint about that,

Quaint. Good for: inns, antique stores, English countryside pastorals, and sometimes courtship rituals. Bad for: high-stakes athletic contests that people care about passionately and which could be easily fixed by a modicum of technology.

something that hearkens back to when baseball was played in a cleared-out cornfield. Back then, managers and players foamed at the mouth in their anger over close calls, but it didn't do any good.

With this logic, why stop at barring technology? Let apes ump. They're sure to get most of the calls wrong, and then everyone can scream and yell throughout the entire game. Apes are like 99% human, DNA-wise, right?

Years from now, we might be looking back fondly on the days when flesh-and-blood umpires roamed the earth.

Or, you short-sighted buffoon, you and your readers might be looking back and saying, "Jesus, if instant replay hadn't been instituted before the 2008 playoffs, Soriano's 7th-game 8th-inning HR would have been called foul and we would never have won our first World Series in 100 years. Thank God for that tiny little change that affected very little and didn't really change the game at all. And how fun was it to watch Pinella go ballistic at the umps before they reviewed it!

We truly live in a Golden Age of Reason," they'll say, before writing another letter to the Trib demanding you be fired.

Labels: ,


posted by Anonymous  # 8:15 PM
Comments:
Ryan from motherfletching Wales drops some Welsh-flavored truth bombs:

It seems to me that there are two essential arguments being made against instant replay. First that it offends the sense of tradition of some people. Second is the fear that while it may initially be used in cases of disputed scoring plays (or possibly just homeruns), umpires will come to rely on it to make calls on other plays, which will slow the game down inordinately. These arguments are very similar to the ones that were raised a few years ago when it was decided that at the highest levels of the game, rugby would use instant replay if the scoring of a try (analogous to a touchdown in American football) was in question.

I play and watch rugby, and if there is one sport more steeped in old-timey traditions that baseball, it is rugby. They didn’t even allow players to get paid until 199fucking5. The argument was ‘the game has always been amateur, so why should we change now?’ This is how set in its ways the game is/was. People watching professional/international games at home started complaining that sometimes the referee made the wrong call with regards to a try being scored. Eventually the governing body realized that it is better to get the calls right than it is to adhere to tradition. The TMO (Television Match Official) was introduced and (some) people thought that soon enough referees would be asking TMO’s about the minutiae of the game. This has not happened, and now rugby fans embrace (or at least accept) the TMO.

 
Avery isn't from Wales. Avery is from HotLanta. But Avery still makes some good points.

There are 2 other arguments I wish would get more press in favor of the limited use of instant replay you're talking about. 1st - I would be willing to bet that it would actually speed the game up. Right now, after a difficult home run call, the umpires dont make the call and then start the game up instantly for the sake of speedyness - they always huddle up with each other, debate it out, sometimes overrule each other - ive watched games where those huddles seemed to take forever. There is no way that checking a TV to see what actually happened would be slower.

2nd - Isnt there already a 5th umpire at every game, who takes over if one of the starting umpires gets injured? How about we just let that guy sit in front of a TV, and give him a phone to call down and tell the guys on the field what really happened, then (like in college football) everyone can avoid the dreaded "umpire under the hood" which has become synonymous with slowing down the game.

 
Jared takes it to Avery:

In baseball they dont have a 5th umpire at games in case of injuries. in that case, the umpires go with a 3 man crew and the field umps tend to roam around based on where the baserunners are. If the ump behind the plate goes down, then one of the other umps go back there. Maybe in the playoffs with the RF and LF umps they have an extra one just in case, but in the regular season they dont have "backups.

I am hereby going to suggest that the league use this replay thing as a way to create 15 more umping jobs -- have apprentice umps work the replay booth at each game, as a way to make everything legit, and a way to break in new young umps and get them game experience. Everybody wins! Except Morrissey.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Sunday, March 16, 2008

 

I Can't Believe We Have to Do This All Over Again

Thank you to the 1,420 people who sent us this link.

Sigh.

Sox may have (computer) chip on their shoulder

If computers ran the world, Steven Seagal probably would have won a few Oscars by now, assuming they judged him on the $2 billion his movies have earned.

That's unfair to computers. Not even computers could find value in Hard to Kill, Marked for Death, Out for Justice, or any of the other Adjective Preposition Violent-Thing movies he's made. (I realize Hard to Kill is actually Adjective Violent-Infinitive, but you get the idea.)

If computers had a way of measuring acting ability, he'd be running a martial-arts school in a strip mall.

Which is probably roughly what he is doing, now, in the world of humans.

But they don't run the world, yet, which means we can still type in our credit card numbers online without worrying that all our money is being sucked into a fund earmarked for global dominance by a dastardly computer.

I actually do worry about that, but it's because humans control the computers...for now!!!!!

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can't quantify it. They can't analyze what's inside an athlete, for example. They can't tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

Actually, the new MacBook Air has a program called iGrit, where you can enter a player's physical attributes, family history, propensity for diving, and which college he punted for, and it will give you a % by which his stats should increase next year. Macs can do anything.

Computers can't tell you that White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko is upset with how he played last season. All they can tell you is that he hit .259 in 2007, that he just turned 32 and, therefore, he must be on the downside of his career because that's what the model says is supposed to happen to him.

32 isn't like crazy over-the-hill for a 1Bman. He could bounce back nicely and match 2006, or 2005, even. But yes, it is most likely that he moseys a little further down the long lonely road known as statistical deterioration. Unless...no. Forget it. I was going to say: unless maybe, just maybe...he has heart!!!!!!

If you saw the piece about Baseball Prospectus' 2008 predictions in Sunday's Tribune, then you know the publication's computer has the Sox going 77-85 and finishing third in the AL Central, and the Cubs going 91-71 and winning the NL Central.

I know as much about computers as I do about astronomy, but I believe the computer term for Baseball Prospectus' Sox prediction is "fatal error."

Nothing better than the profession of complete ignorance, followed immediately by a pronouncement of certitude. "I have never heard a piece of orchestral or chamber music in my life, but I can say conclusively that Dvorák's Piano Quintet in A Major, Op. 81, is a piece of shit."

I have the Sox winning 85 games and giving Cleveland a run for its money for second place in the division. I know, I know: The Indians are loaded with talent, and if it weren't for Detroit spending gobs of money, they'd be the favorites in the AL Central.

But, again, what about heart?

What about "heart?" What about Miguel fucking Cabrera? What about Grady Sizemore and C.C. Sabathia and Justin Verlander and Fausto Carmona and Magglio Ordoñez? Heart? How about starting pitching? How about the fact that Jose Contreras is 62 years old?

I think Quentin and Swisher make this team a lot better than it was last year, but in that division they just don't have a chance, I don't think. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hal (or Smitty or Shecky or whatever the computer's name is)

My name is PECOTA. I will destroy you.

and I pretty much agree about the Cubs, which, given my track record on predictions, should make Hal/Smitty/Shecky do a lot of soul-searching, which is impossible because it doesn't have a soul, just an evil chip that makes it want to mate with Marie Osmond and produce robots that sing show tunes.

I am a computer and even I know that Marie Osmond is a hacky reference. Also: what are you even talking about?

The Cubs will win 92 games. They will win the NL Central. They will win the NL pennant. They will get trounced by whichever American League team has the inclination to do a little trouncing, the way a bear commences to eat after it gets done playing with its food.

First of all, thank you for the food metaphor. (Update: it's actually a food simile, so I'm adding a new tag.) Second, you seem awfully sure of yourself for a guy who has been talking about how nothing in life is certain thanks to indefinable qualities that cannot be evaluated or measured. Third: thanks again for the food metaphor. (Update: simile.)

The cold, hard facts might back up Baseball Prospectus' opinion that the Mets will beat the Cubs in the NL Championship Series. New York acquired Johan Santana from the Twins, shifting the balance of power eastward in the weak-by-comparison National League.

But ...

...Johan Santana has a heart condition? The Mets are earthworms? Your knees ache, portending humidity? The entrails of the goat you just slaughtered say that the Gods are upset and we should move our armies West through the mountain pass? Poseidon may take vengeance upon the Greek fleet because Athena zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Do feelings count? Or hunches?

Not really, no. I mean, they're fun. They're fun to toss around and stuff. But they don't "count" when you are trying to scientifically project a team's performance. That is kind of the point of scientifically projecting a team's performance.

Where is there room in computers for the inexplicable? Does the fact that it's the Cubs' 100th season since their last World Series title mean anything in the computations?

Oh my God does it not mean anything.

Does it mean anything that the Cubs could be driven by the challenge of a century of dryness or, conversely, that they could cave in under the pressure of it and finish 10 games below .500?

Look, man, I know that psychological factors sometimes play a part in a team's season. I'm a Red Sox fan, for cripe's sake. But if the Cubs finish 10 games below .500, it won't be because a bunch of grown men suddenly felt the weight of their temporary employer's century-long drought. It will be because they got injured and/or underperformed. I'm sorry, I just don't think that professional ballplayers, who change teams constantly and are hugely rich, are going to deeply internalize their city's historical misfortunes, no matter how many stupid articles to the contrary get written. I personally guarantee that Alfonso Soriano cares way more about the history of the DR little league team than he does about that stupid goat. And need I point to how little history mattered to recent Sox-based teams in the face of good starting pitching, power hitting, and (yes) luck?

I believe the Sox are embarrassed by what happened last season and, not to belabor the point, there is nothing in a computer's innards that can measure the effects of that. But it is one of the great motivators in the human makeup.

True. They might pull it together and have a nice season. But that would be an aberration. The point of computer modeling isn't really to try to take possible nebulous aberrations into account. It is to try to predict what is most likely given the evidence at hand.

That is the least amusing paragraph you have ever written.

Shut up. Go Google something.

Baseball Prospectus was dead on last season, when it predicted the Sox, whom it saw as aging quickly, would win only 72 games. That's exactly what happened.

And yet, here we are, reading this article. Kind of makes you wonder: why are we here, reading this article?

That the Sox dropped from 90 victories in 2006 to 72 games last season was one of the shocks of the baseball season. But not to Baseball Prospectus, and the people who run it deserve their props. They chalk up a lot of what happened on the South Side last season to the inevitability of time catching up with older athletes. I chalk it up to a number of players having down years at the same time.

...Those are kind of the same things.

Isn't there room for a number of Sox to have good years at the same time? Say, in 2008?

Sure!

If Jim Thome --

-- Turns 37 years old this year, hasn't played a full season since 2003 --

stays healthy, he could have an excellent season. It's a big "if," of course, but not like wondering if, say, the rain can hold off in Seattle for a month or two.

There might actually be a better chance of a dry spring in Seattle than of Jim Thome playing in 140 games.

The Cubs don't have a good enough rotation to do the impossible and win the World Series, but perhaps Carlos Zambrano's feistiness becomes contagious and the staff starts pitching like the '69 Mets did. Can a computer comprehend feistiness? I don't think so.

Well, this is kind of disingenuous. I mean, creating a computer than can comprehend feistiness is like the holy grail of artificial intelligence research. It's going to take years and years, and billions of dollars -- from both the public and private sectors -- before we can program a computer to understand and (hopefully) generate feistiness. But when we do, the world communities will come together as one, and marvel at the accomplishment, and they will stand up and say, en masse: "What a colossal fucking waste of time."

This is the time of year for predictions, so it's not surprising there would be a few bad tidings, especially for the Sox.

The problem with computers is that you can argue with them until you're blue in the face, and they don't even blink in response.

That is because I do not have eyelids.

There's no satisfaction in it. You can, however, achieve a higher level of contentment by hitting them with a baseball bat.

I'd like to see you try, Morrissey. I'll take you down, son.

How's that for feistiness?

Labels: , , , ,


posted by Anonymous  # 8:38 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives

04.05   05.05   06.05   07.05   08.05   09.05   10.05   11.05   12.05   01.06   02.06   03.06   04.06   05.06   06.06   07.06   08.06   09.06   10.06   11.06   12.06   01.07   02.07   03.07   04.07   05.07   06.07   07.07   08.07   09.07   10.07   11.07   12.07   01.08   02.08   03.08   04.08   05.08   06.08   07.08   08.08   09.08   10.08   11.08  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?