In tepid defense of umpires

Umpires are remarkably good at their jobs. Trust me on this one.

If you hear about one really bad blown call in a week, it’s been a bad week, and there are thousands of plays, tens of thousands of pitches every seven days. But we only really notice the umpire when a mistake is made, and when we notice a mistake we get a sense of injustice. We want to fix things, and MLB doesn’t fix things.

As technology advances, it’s clear that umpires are increasingly obsolete. Sure, pitchf/x, the hardware and software system that tracks pitches from the point they leave the pitcher’s hand through the strikezone to the catcher’s mitt, isn’t 100% accurate yet, but it’s darn close. And instant replay gives us the chance to make field calls with close to 100% accuracy.

Historical Baseball Blurb: Joseph Andrews Sommers

It's totally possible this is not him

On May 28, 1885—almost 120 years ago, Joseph Andrews Sommers, apparently known as Pete, was arrested in Cleveland for playing baseball on Sunday.

This is interesting for a bunch of reasons. The first is obvious: arrested for playing baseball!? Those of you who have read Johnny Tremain are no doubt familiar with the (now antiquated) law against certain activities on the Christian Sabbath—like working, and, apparently, playing baseball.

Bill James reveals that the judge refused to admit evidence that a bazillion people played baseball on Sunday in Cleveland, all the time. Which is appropriate, because whether other people commit a crime with impunity or not shouldn’t matter whether an accused person is guilty. That lots of people sell cocaine and get away with it doesn’t mean that any given cocaine dealer who gets caught should be excused.

Then again, there has to come a point where the indifference of law enforcement enters the equation. Clearly the playing of baseball on Sunday had been open and notorious, and nobody had made an effort to curtail it until poor Pete got on somebody’s bad side. Anyway.

What I cooked last night: Cheese and Sausage Polenta

It is my pleasure to introduce a new series today. I know—another!

All zero people who read this blog know that my grandmother is in less than perfect health. She lives at home with my parents, whom I am currently visiting, and is something close to confined to her room. She’s quite elderly and frail, and has dementia.

Anyway, I’ve decided that it would be helpful to everyone, and probably pleasurable for her, if I would do some cooking over the summer. And so I intend to. “What I cooked last night” is the new series. It’s like I’m a hipster Instagramming my food, except fuck you, it’s not like that at all!

Anyway, to proceed: Here’s last night’s recipe and my review.

Cheese and Sausage Polenta

Historical Baseball Blurb: Frederick Kimball Stearns and the Detroit Wolverines

One of baseball’s biggest challenges over the years has been protecting competitive parity. As early as the 1880s, teams centered in larger markets (especially the east coast) were advantaged with more fans and better revenue (well, depending on how many other teams were around).

It’s easy for a fan to forget about what baseball is about. As with all things, it’s about money! I don’t say that pessimistically, and this isn’t a social commentary. Money is just a convenient tool for valuating all things in life—it’s not a materialistic thing. It’s a good measure to help us make good decisions, and it makes everything cheaper. But fans watching baseball are looking for any number of different non-money rewards. Maybe they want to see their team win, maybe they want to see a sweet changeup, maybe they want to see a circus catch in right field.

Well, most fans haven’t spent millions of dollars (or, in the case of the Dodgers, two billion dollars) buying a team. And at the end of the day, we shouldn’t expect baseball franchise owners to spend out of pocket to make a team viable, unless it’s a good long-term investment. Owners want to make money, and that’s OK. Now, fortunately, a lot of time that doesn’t move their interests out of line with the fans’. Winning teams do tend to make more money, and in any case, running a team well—that is, making cost-effective choices—should benefit everyone.

On pity

<STD: Serious Topic Disclaimer>

In the interest of offering content both didactic and accessible, the following Serious Topic will not include proper source support. This means you shouldn’t believe any of it. If you find the discussion compelling, however, I encourage you to pursue a more demonstrable truth.

We’ve had a lot of tragedy this century.

The 9/11 attacks, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more mass shootings than I’d like to count. Most recently, Newtown, Aurora, and Boston have been on our minds.

So I suppose it’s understandable how we tend to react violently to transgressors. But it still irks me. I have very vivid memories of the day Osama Bin Laden was killed. I was in college, and when the news broke I was in the library. By the time I left, crowds had already gathered up and down the lawn. They were waving flags, celebrating, chanting patriotic things, and blanketing the campus with a chorus of “fuck Osama” and “’Murica” and all of that.

It was disgusting to me. It made me feel petty and silly and immature to see my countrymen celebrating a human being’s death so jubilantly. And it was strange to me that I should be so revolted, because I am no pacifist. I am not generally anti-war, nor do I oppose the death penalty—although those are both complex issues, and my views on them are not adequately summarized in one sentence. I thought a bit about why the manifestations bothered me so.

Historical Baseball Blurb: Elisa Green Williams

Courtesy of Yahoo! Sports

Many baseball fans, when they attend a game or watching from home, enjoy scoring the action. It’s a sort of participatory, tactile spectatorship that puts you into the action of the game. It also makes you think about the rules of official scoring.

Most know that walks aren’t scored as hits, and that at-bats resulting in walks don’t count as official at-bats. Most also know that, in similar fashion, batters aren’t penalized for sacrifices, and aren’t credited for reaching base thanks to a fielding error. Less well-known? What happens when a batter gets a legitimate hit, but gets beaten legging it out to second? What happens when a baserunner pulls a Jean Segura and steals first?

Less casual observers around the league handle these questions—and they’re the ones who decide when it’s an error, when it’s a hit, when it’s a wild pitch, and when it’s a passed ball. The official scorekeepers have long been a subject of controversy.  Some argue that no-hitters have been ‘preserved’ by scorer favoritism, and even that DiMaggio’s 56-game hit streak only reached that height thanks to some gracious home scoring calls.

Exciting Announcement

In response to a burgeoning number of ideas I've had for baseball-related topics in recent days, I'm going to be starting a new format for the blog. The noon post will be a short-ish baseball-related blurb, and the 5pm post will be on whatever topic I choose (like most of the stuff on this blog).

So, the Historical Baseball Blurb series starts tomorrow. They will pertain to people and topics in a loosely chronological order, as I'm taking most of my inspiration from the New Bill James. However the things that really interest me might have only interested him marginally, so I intend to pursue the things he mentions in more depth. Hopefully we all learn something and get some cool stories out of it!

Also, given that the blog has been so heavily baseball-related recently, take heart! Also upcoming should be some James Bond stuff, some more serious topics, and hopefully more nonsense. There hasn't been nearly enough nonsense...

Mark Buehrle and Charles Comiskey

It’s a good day to write about one of the coolest defensive plays the baseball world has seen in a long time. But sometimes, even at the most exciting and memorable moments, baseball offers us something deeper to appreciate. Have a look:

On April 5, opening day of the White Sox’s 2010 season, Mark Buehrle did this:

And the world rejoiced. Hawk Harrelson, who is the announcer who shouts “Mercy!,” is well known for having more, um, personality than any other guy in a baseball booth. His cohort Steve Stone is highly regarded, but with Hawk you either love him or hate him (and many take the latter). But that’s a bit of a digression, anyway.

The Coalition Presidency

<STD: Serious Topic Disclaimer>

In the interest of offering content both didactic and accessible, the following Serious Topic will not include proper source support. This means you shouldn’t believe any of it. If you find the discussion compelling, however, I encourage you to pursue a more demonstrable truth.

Not long ago, I attended a lecture from Dr. David Orentlicher, who has recently published a book that states the case for what he dubs a “coalition presidency”—a bipartisan sharing of the chief executive office.

Spoiler alert: I’m about to present an energetic dissent to his position. So I feel it’s appropriate to start by saying that I found him to be very brilliant (I’ll just mention that he is a alumnus of both Harvard Law and Harvard Med, and is a former state legislator), a very indulgent speaker, and an all-around nice guy. It’s even more appropriate to admit that I haven’t read the book (well, it hasn’t been published for long). Dr. Orentlicher has probably heard my objections already, and maybe even counter-pointed them so effectively that I wouldn’t dare write this post after having read his full argument. I really can’t emphasize enough that I don’t speak for Dr. Orentlicher here, even though I purport to summarize and then break down his argument. That said, here I go!

Exam Hiatus Ending

In the words of Doctor Hubert Farnsworth: "Good news, everyone!"

Exams are over so I've got the time to resume regular blogging activity. The blogosphere quivers with anticipation. Expect daily posts, and thanks to my readership--varied as they are numerous--for awaiting this moment with bated breath.