The miracle of Hal Lanier

Once again courtesy of baseball-reference.com's Play Index:

There are 143 player seasons in baseball history in which a player has had OPS+ of 60 or less and played in 140 games or more.  Five of those belong to Hal Lanier, and they are consecutive:

1965 - 159 games, OPS+ 52
1966 - 149 games, OPS+ 49
1967 - 151 games, OPS+ 42
1968 - 151 games, OPS+ 38
1969 - 150 games, OPS+ 46

For this stretch, he put up .221/.247/.265 numbers in 760 games, with offensive WAR in the period of -6.2.  Now, that said, his defensive WAR in the same period was +11.4.  His San Francisco Giants were second every one of these seasons, but never won fewer than 88 games (and won 90 or more four of the five years).

Expos All-Time Roster

Introduction and Warning

Look, I really, really don't want to talk about the Washington Nationals, understand?  I wanted to make an attempt at selecting an all-time 25-man roster for the Expos, but only in the 1969-2004 period of purity (sometimes pure joy, often pure anguish) when they were in Montreal.

For this exercise I had to set some ground rules.  I am only considering performance of players while they were Expos - not before or after.  I'm looking only at players who played at least 100 games as Expos. Some of the similar efforts of others in the past (see "Other lists", below) consider players' entire careers - sensible, but not what I'm doing.  Statistical references are, as usual, to baseball-reference.com. 

The Starters

Tim Raines, LF

He needs to be in the HoF.  Probably the best player in Expos history.  Leads off for me - .391 OBP and 635 SB as an Expo.  Not much more to be said.

Jose Vidro, 2B

For me, one of the more underrated of the Expos greats.  Good 2B (and best Expos 2B by a large margin) who could do it all.  In particular, I would bat him second on this team for a number of reasons: great bat handler, .367 OBP, and surprisingly the third best SLG on this squad after Guerrero and Dawson.  Batting behind Raines would set up two switch-hitters at the top of the lineup - it is to dream.

Vladimir Guerrero, RF

Impossible to keep him out of this lineup.  He played for the Expos during his prime (ages 21-28) and compiled .323/.390/.588 numbers.  In addition, cannon for an arm.

Al Oliver, 1B

Only an Expo for two years (1982-1983) but one of the franchise's best hitters in history during that short time.  .315/.370/.462, 105 walks to 103 strikeouts during the period.  I would bat him cleanup against right-handers... maybe drop him down a bit against lefties, but he probably still plays.  (In 1982 his splits were nearly as good against lefties as righties - not so much in 1983, or for his career overall.)

Andre Dawson, CF

The Hawk (and my brother's favourite player).  225 HR as an Expo and good speed, if we get him before the turf got to his knees.

Gary Carter, C

Hall of Famer, great defensive catcher, great handler of pitchers, and good power throughout his career.

Hubie Brooks, SS

Surprisingly good hitting and power but so-so defence.  However, the offensive margin over his rivals is too great to keep him down.

Tim Wallach, 3B

Steady defensive 3B and consistent bat with occasional power.  Not great in the OBP department (.317) which is why I bat him eighth, but he'll pop one occasionally and anchors the team.  New member of the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame in 2014.

The Bench

Larry Walker, OF

Walker really did have amazing stats as an Expo even before heading to the thin air of Colorado.  Looking even at neutralized numbers for his 1989-1994 period, he was creating runs at a clip of 104 per 162 games. Not at all bad.  I would consider platooning him with Guerrero if Vlad got a bit run down.

Rusty Staub, OF

All the talk about le grand orange was justified - he had a slugging average of almost .500 (.497) for his three seasons plus in Montreal, and was nearly six wins over replacement (5.9 oWAR per 650 PA). Another good left-handed bat to have.

Outfield really was the deepest position for the Expos. Raines, Guerrero, Dawson, Walker and Staub all richly deserve to make the team but I looked hard at Warren Cromartie, Ellis Valentine, Rondell White, Moises Alou and Ken Singleton (who showed flashes of his later excellence in Baltimore).

Bob Bailey, 3B-OF

This one surprised me.  I expected this to be between Wallach and Larry Parrish, but Bailey's numbers from 1969-75 compare very favourably with both - highest SLG of the three and OBP that is more than 50 points higher than either of them at .368.  I still have to have Wallach start looking at defence and the overall picture, but Bailey is clearly better offensively than Parrish and more or less even defensively.

Ron Fairly, 1B-OF

Another mild surprise.  After Al Oliver, I looked at Andres Gallaraga and Tony Perez and expected one of them to outshine Fairly - but while Perez's pure offensive numbers are better, they're not that much better, and Fairly was the better fielder and all-round player.  Gallaraga's best offensive years were ahead of him when he was in Montreal.

Mike Lansing, 2B

Ron Hunt and his legendary HBP gave him a gaudy .390 OBP, but his near-total lack of power and underwhelming defence make him less appealing to me than either Lansing or Delino DeShields.  It was a close call between the two of them - both had excellent times in Montreal.  DeShields had a better OBP but Lansing slightly better power and markedly better defence.

Orlando Cabrera, SS

I looked at a lot of shortstops: in addition to Brooks and Cabrera, Chris Speier, Wil Cordero, Spike Owen and Mark Grudzielanek.  Brooks is demonstrably better as a hitter but had less than stellar defence.  Chris Speier (a personal favourite of mine) was probably the best of the defenders, but unfortunately his offensive is so anemic (.245/.323/.332) that it's impossible to choose him.  Cabrera provides not quite as much defence but a lot more offence, and played steady shortstop for seven years in Montreal, so is a worthy choice for backup shortstop.

Darrin Fletcher, C

After Gary Carter, the rest of the Expos' catchers are a collection of steady but unspectacular guys (but comparisons with a Hall of Famer are difficult anyway). Fletcher put in a lot of time at catcher (more than 500 games between 1992 and 1997) and held his own with the bat (.266 / .322 / .422).

The Starting Pitchers

Pedro Martinez, RHP

Only with the Expos at the very beginning of his career (ages 22-25) but dominant then.  ERA+ of 139, more than three strikeouts per walk, and more strikeouts (843) than IP (797.1).

Steve Rogers, RHP

Expos all-time leader in wins (and losses), and a reliable workhorse pitcher who spent his whole career with the team, including some pretty bad years.  Every time I remember Blue Monday I try to remember that he had a career playoff ERA of 0.98.  Look it up.

Dennis Martinez, RHP

El Presidente deserves to be remembered for more than his perfect game - .581 winning percentage with the Expos between 1986 and 1993.  Didn't get to the 'Spos until he was 32 and led the league in ERA at age 37.  Exactly 100 wins as an Expo with only Rogers having more.

Jeff Fassero, LHP

Like most people, I forget how good he was when he started his career with the Expos (at the advanced age of 28).  Average WAR of 3.5 / 162 games and ERA+ of 130 in a swing role (100 starts but 162 relief appearances).

Dustin Hermanson, RHP

It's narrow, but I think he beats out contenders like Bill Stoneman, Steve Renko and Javier Vazquez - in four years with the Expos he had 122 starts and compiled an ERA+ of 112 (better than any of the above) in a period when the team wasn't very good (four consecutive fourth-place finishes). 

The Bullpen

John Wetteland, RHP

A dominant closer in his three years with the Expos - ERA+ of 170 and opposition OPS+ of only 60 (opponents got on base at a .280 clip and slugged only .297).  189 games, finished 159 of them and compiled 105 saves.

Jeff Reardon, RHP

Career Expo saves leader with 152 and a 2.84 ERA while he was there.  Intimidating closer in his day.

Tim Burke, RHP

Another pitcher who always seemed to be there but whose numbers are surprisingly good on close inspection.  Expos all-time leader in games pitched and ate a lot of innings, but was much more than a fill-in - gave up fewer than 8 hits per 9 innings during his time with the team and ended up with an ERA+ of 136. Interesting that in almost exactly 600 innings (600.1), he walked 189 batters but fully 65 of those were intentional - Buck Rodgers, qu'est-ce que c'est?

Mel Rojas, RHP

Continues the theme above.  It didn't hurt to have connections to the Alous (nephew of Felipe, Jesus and Matty and cousin of Moises) but the performance was excellent too.  ERA+ of 129 with the Expos (who got the best of him, because it was only 107 for his career), and had almost as many strikeouts as hits allowed (419 to 428, in 512.1 innings).

Bryn Smith, RHP

Another big, quiet righty who did good things.  Started his career with the Expos as a reliever but became a reliable starter - WHIP of 1.179 for his time in Montreal and ERA+ of 111.

Honourable Mentions

While the early-franchise heroes Boots Day, Coco Laboy and John Boccabella won't get on many all-star teams, aren't they fun to list?  Most people of a certain age will hear "Bocc--abella" on stadium announcements in their dreams forever.  Ron LeFlore's 1980 season was so exciting with the 97 stolen bases, but he moved on (and not to better things).  I really liked watching Rodney Scott and Doug Flynn at 2B, but looking now at their nearly non-existent offensive contribution it's amazing they could take the field as often as they did.  Mike Marshall and Claude Raymond, from the early days, were a ton of fun to watch and consummate professionals too. Bill ("No-hitter") Stoneman wasn't the most consistent pitcher but had flashes of brilliance and went on to a great front-office career with the Angels.

Other lists

A number of other writers have made similar lists.  A few are linked below.

Jonah Keri, 2008

Bleacher Report - Joel Kirstein, 2008

Sports Illustrated / CNN ran a poll which got about 12,000 responses - results are here.

Pitchers' walks and strikeouts

Fun fact: considering the 20 highest single-season totals for BB by a pitcher, the most recent occurred in 1977.  But looking at the top 20 season totals for strikeouts, 10 occurred in 1977 or later.  Better pitcher control or hitters striking out more?

The best pitching streak of all time?

In the three months between June 2 and and September 2, 1968, here is all that Hall of Famer Bob Gibson did:

• Started 19 games
• Completed 18 of them (and went at least 9 innings in all of them)
• Threw 12 shutouts
• Went 17-1
• Struck out 161 and walked 32 (in 174 innings)
• Compiled an ERA of 0.72.

Some other interesting things about this streak:

• Gibson entered it with an ERA of 1.52.  After the first game (a win over the Mets in the first game of a doubleheader on June 2, in which he gave up three whole earned runs) it "rocketed" up to 1.66.  By the time he finished the last game (a win over the Reds on September 2) it was down to 0.99.  He finished the season at 1.12.  Imagine shaving a half a run off an ERA that started at a buck and a half.
• He threw at least 9 innings in every game and twice more than that.  His "worst" start in the streak was on August 4 against the Cubs, in which game he went 11 innings to a no-decision, allowing 12 hits and five runs (four earned) including two home runs, half of the four he allowed in the entire streak. After giving up a run in the top of the 11th to the Cubs to put them ahead 5-4, he left the game for a pinch hitter in the bottom of the inning.  The Cardinals scored in that inning, but went on to lose 6-5 in 13 innings.  Bob's opposing starter in that game, interestingly, was fellow Hall of Famer Fergie Jenkins, who only lasted four innings before getting pulled for a pinch hitter himself.  The other extra-inning game was the win over the Reds on September 2 mentioned above, which was merely a 10-inning 1-0 shutout win in which he gave up four hits to a team with members including Pete Rose (0-4), Tony Perez (1-4, 2 strikeouts) and Johnny Bench (0-3).
• The only loss was August 24, to Pittsburgh.  In that game, he went the distance in a 6-4 loss at home, but gave up only six hits and struck out 15 (walking two).  Three of the six runs were unearned. Gibson took a 4-0 lead into the top of the 7th.  The leadoff hitter, Matty Alou, reached on an error by first baseman Orlando Cepeda, and Gibson then gave up a single to Roberto Clemente and a three-run homer to Willie Stargell.  He then proceeded to strike out the next three batters, but gave up a run on a sacrifice fly in the 8th and two unearned runs in the 9th to take the loss.
• The All-Star Game for 1968 was played during this streak, on July 9.  Bob did not appear!  He was selected but did not play.

Fun with baseball-reference.com and JPA

Only five catchers in baseball history have played more than 100 games in a season, hit 20 or more HR and slugged .400 or less.  Here they are:

Roy Campanella (1956) - 124 games, 20 HR, .219/.333/.394 (BA/OBP/SLG)
Jeff Newman (1979) - 143 games, 22 HR, .231/.267/.399
Gary Carter (1987) - 139 games, 20 HR, .235/.290/.392
Brian McCann (2012) - 121 games, 20 HR, .230/.300/.399
J.P. Arencibia (2013) - 138 games, 21 HR, .194/.227/.365

So I think we can definitively say that JPA had the worst offensive season ever for a catcher with 20 or more home runs.

But we can say more.  There are only four players in history who have seasons in which they have played at least 130 games and ended up with BA .200 or below, OBP .230 or below and SLG .370 or below.  Every one except JPA is a shortstop (Bob Lillis 1963, Rob Picciolo 1977, Mario Mendoza 1979).

And there are only three players who have had seasons in which they've hit 20 or more HR but slugged .370 or under. Two of those seasons occurred this year.  Dale Murphy "did it" in 1989, a season in which he hit .228, was on-base .306, hit 20 HR and slugged .361.  JPA's companion this year was Dan "Not on the Playoff Roster" Uggla, who hit 22 HR and slugged only .362, but hit .179 and was on-base .309.  However, there is not much doubt that JPA's season was even worse than Uggla's - that 82-point difference in OBP was caused by the fact that JPA walked 18 times (with 148 strikeouts) while Uggla walked 77 times (with 171 strikeouts).

Most worryingly, perhaps, for those of us who really want to be JPA fans - he's 27, and both Murphy and Uggla were 33 when they scaled these heights.

JPA is the only player in baseball history to have 20 or fewer walks and 145 or more strikeouts in a season.

(All statistics courtesy of baseball-reference.com and its magical Play Index tool.)

Jays - how I'd bat 'em (2013 early edition)

Well, this is a much different exercise than last year, isn't it?  This is the pre-spring-training edition - despite the comments about most positions being locked down, there are still some important things to see in spring training.  Second base is a big one, but so is the Bautista wrist situation, how Melky will look in the post-suspension period, and whether the left side of the infield with Reyes and Lawrie is as interesting as it looks on paper.  Hope those two can cooperate!  It will also be interesting defensively to see if the shift experiments continue.  But let's focus on offence for a bit.
This year, I would be a bit more keen to platoon, at least to a limited extent.  We'll save that for the bottom part of the lineup, though....

The top 4 (vs. R and vs. L):
Reyes, SS
Cabrera, LF
Bautista, RF
Encarnacion, 1B

Can't resist those two switch-hitters at the top of the lineup.  Great OBPs throughout - with 400 SBs at the top of the order, and a 74% base-stealing success rate batting second.  Lots depends on how Cabrera handles this year and whether he keeps the blistering pace of last year - if he does, this is exciting.  If those two perform and only one of Bautista and Encarnacion performs to expectations (and stays uninjured), there are a lot of runs to be had here.  Close watch in spring and the early part of the season at Bautista vs. lefties.  He has to hit better than .200 (.306 OBP), his 2012 numbers, to keep batting third.  This would be a big (seismic) move for Gibbons, but you've gotta move him down in the order unless those numbers come up.  How much of that was the wrist?  We'll see.  Edwin just needs to keep the power numbers up to stay fourth.

The bottom 5 (vs. R):
Lind, DH
Lawrie, 3B
Rasmus, CF
Bonifacio, 2B
Arencibia, C

For all the debate about Lind, his numbers against right-handers are surprisingly good.  His career slugging against them is the best on the current team (.502; Bautista is .480 and Encarnacion .457).  His OBP against them, while not Bautisa-esque, is comparable to the best guys on the current team (career he's .335 - compare to Encarnacion .332, Cabrera .337, and Reyes .338).  I like him as a five-hitter.

This is a big year for Arencibia both as a handler of pitchers and as a batter.  The franchise has clearly put the chips on him and he needs to step up, but he has lots of ways to do it.  Decent power and good handling of that expensive starting staff will do it - but anything more could get him an All-Star spot.  Pending seeing how that turns out, for me he bats ninth against righties.

The 2B spot is a hot one but I like the idea, at least pending what happens this spring, of platooning Bonifacio and Izturis.  Might be some healthy competition for the spot, but one might grab the job, or the defence could suffer - so careful watching will be required.  I take Bonifacio vs. righties based on his 2012 - but Izturis is better for career numbers.

One thing I like about this set-up is that after the two right-handed bats in the third and fourth spot, this gets me a L-R-L-switch-R progression, with the middle three guys being baserunning threats.  It could work out really effectively.

The bottom 5 (vs. L):
Lawrie, 3B
Davis, DH
Arencibia, C
Izturis, 2B
Rasmus, CF

Lind has to hit the bench vs. lefties.  (No surprise here, but the .264 OBP career (.250 last year) against lefties is too bad to keep him playing.)  This creates more trouble than first appears.  Ideally, I would sit Rasmus as well, but there is not an obvious DH against lefties and I think there's a value to keeping Encarnacion and Rasmus in their defensive positions both ways.  If there were a clear DH candidate, I'd put Davis in CF and sit Rasmus in favour of that chimera... but I don't see it.  So I bat Rasmus ninth and hope his baserunning limits the damage (if he can get on).

Nobody here is a weak link except Rasmus (and maybe Izturis for power, but in the eighth spot that's OK).  Lawrie and Arencibia both take good jumps vs. lefties.  The one pitfall from this proposal is that there's some vulnerability in the later innings once the bullpen gets involved because we have righthanded bats from the third spot through the seventh - but Lind's bat is still on the bench this way and hopefully that gives some pause to the opposing manager.

All told, this exercise heightens the excitement for the new season.  I hope I'm not believing the hype, but this looks like a well-crafted team.  Of course, as we should all be reminding ourselves, they still have to play the games!

Getting ready for Gibbons Redux

Spending Christmas Day very productively (and celebrating my receipt from Santa of the 2013 Bill James Handbook), I wondered what we could expect in terms of managerial behaviour from the return of John Gibbons to the Blue Jays.

My approach was to look at the data from 2004 - 2012. This takes in:

• the First Gibbons Era (50 games in 2004, full seasons 2005 - 2007, and 74 games in 2008)
• the Gaston Restoration (88 games in 2008 and all of 2009 and 2010)
• the Farrell Interregnum (full seasons in 2011 and 2012).

I used the managers' statistics from the 2013 Handbook (except for Gibbons, who appears only in the 2012 Handbook).  For the counting statistics, I normalized the partial seasons in 2004 and 2008 to 162-game equivalents.  I also took a look at win-loss statistics compared with MLB.com's expected win-loss numbers for each of the relevant years.

Some interesting, and slightly scary, trends and patterns appear.

• Gibbons underperformed the expected win-loss figures for four of his five years with the team - every year except 2006, when his team went 87-75 against an expected 86-76.  He actually managed to be sub-.500 in three of his five years when the expected figures would have had the team over .500 four of the five years.  By contrast, Cito slightly overperformed in 2008 and 2010 (but managed in 2009 to take a team that "should have" been 84-78 to a 75-87 record).  Farrell was pretty much where the expected win-loss predicted in his two years with the team - 81-81 in 2011 with a team expected to be 79-83, but 73-89 last year with a team that was expected to be 74-88.
• In terms of numbers of different lineups used, Gibbons and Farrell are surprisingly similar.  On a normalized basis, Gibbons used 131 different lineups in each of 2007 and 2008 - exactly the same number as Farrell used in each of 2011 and 2012.  Both of them used a lot more different lineups than Cito - normalized, Cito used 120 different lineups in 2008, 105 in 2009 and 103 in 2010 - the three lowest figures in the period since 2004.  [Gaston's 120 in 2008 is tied with Gibbons in 2006 for third lowest.]
• Gibbons used way more pinch-hitters than either Gaston or Farrell.  In his five years, the lowest number he used was 112 in 2006 - by contrast, Cito's high-water mark was 66 in 2008 (normalized) and Farrell used 64 and 94 respectively in his two years.  The three managers were reasonably comparable in their use of pinch-runners.
• Gibbons likes the defensive substitution - he averaged 31 substitutions a year in his five years, as against 19 for Farrell (22 in 2011 and 16 in 2012).  Cito averaged 29 but that number is biased way up from his normalized 55 in 2008 - he used 18 and 13 respectively in 2009 and 2010.  
• A bit surprisingly, the three managers were reasonably comparable in their handling of pitchers.  Gibbons had a quick hook his first three years with the Jays (the three highest figures of the period) but moderated a lot in 2007 and 2008. Cito was less likely to bring out the hook in 2008 and 2009 but his 51 quick hooks in 2010 were more than either of the Farrell years (40 and 49).  Gibbons was slightly less likely to be slow with the hook than Farrell, and more likely to let his relievers go on consecutive days (average 82 times a year in the five years, as opposed to Farrell's 73, albeit made up of one year of 62 and one of 84).
• Gibbons was less likely to go with the stolen base attempt than Farrell (but more likely than Cito), and much less likely to put runners on the move.  Farrell had the runners moving 181 times in 2011 and 211 times in 2012 - Gibbons never sent the runners more than 152 times in any of his five years (and that was normalized 2004, far above his average).
• Gibbons pitched out a lot more than Farrell - he averaged 42 pitchouts in each of the five years, while Farrell only called 22 in 2011 and 15 in 2012.  Gibbons also loved the intentional walk, averaging 42 of those a year too against Farrell's 24.

Of course, a lot of this sort of comparison depends on the type of team a manager is dealing with, so we'll see how Gibbons chooses to use the big-ticket horses that AA has given him - but overall we should expect more managerial intervention and maybe a less go-go style.  I'm looking forward to the Brett Lawrie fireworks on that subject.

Jays - how I'd bat 'em

In honour of the first spring training game, here's how I would bat the Jays' current lineup, and some reasons why.

1. Yunel Escobar, SS
2. Kelly Johnson, 2B
3. Jose Bautista, RF
4. Adam Lind, 1B
5. Brett Lawrie, 3B
6. Edwin Encarnacion, DH
7. Colby Rasmus, CF
8. Eric Thames, LF
9. J.P. Arencibia, C

Escobar bats leadoff by default - apart from Lawrie and Bautista, he's the only legit OBP threat on the team. It really deprives the Jays of a SB threat at the top of the order, which is OK if Johnson can step up. Johnson and Lind are both players who need to show good things early this year. Johnson would be a good second hitter if he can get on base and show he can hit strategically - without a lot of power, he drops way down the order if he can't do that. Lind bats behind Bautista to get that righty/lefty sequence working, but he has to at least show enough power early on to merit that - if both he and Lawrie repeat last year, there's no way not to move Lawrie to fourth and Lind's job has to be in question overall.

Encarnacion is a hard call. I like him behind Lawrie because of Lawrie's speed, but he needs to hit like the end of 2011 consistently to stay up in sixth. Right now, Encarnacion, Thames and Rasmus could bat in any order depending on situation and how the spring looks. JPA has to bat ninth as things sit, but hopefully continues to develop as a hitter and starts to challenge that - the flashes have definitely been there.

Overall, this exercise creates some good excitement going into the spring - this could be a very good lineup. It's a nice balance of players, and lots of them could do well. As always, there will be surprises good and bad! Go Jays.

Koufax vs.... Hudson??

A tweet from Jonah Keri today made me look this up to be sure, but it's true: as of this moment the career W/L records of Sandy Koufax and Tim Hudson are identical (165-87). A quick trip to Baseball-Reference.com gives you some additional interesting comparison points:

- both have exactly 12 years of MLB time in. [Of course, Hudson's stats are more consistent.]

- Koufax has 52 more games pitched (397-345), but 30 fewer starts (314-344). [This is because of Koufax's relief pitching - he finished 44 games and has 9 saves!]

- because of the different eras, there's no comparison on CG or shutouts (Koufax 137/40, Hudson 23/11).

- Koufax, however, has only 36 more career innings (or 1.6%) more than Hudson.

- no comparison on strikeouts, naturally ... but hit batsmen are interesting. Koufax - 18. Hudson - 84!

- finally, the most interesting point. Koufax has a much lower career ERA, 2.76 to 3.42. But when you look at ERA+ (which measures ERA compared to league ERA) they're very close. Koufax 131, Hudson 128.

Before going through this exercise, I'd have said you were nuts to mention these two in the same sentence. Looking at the numbers, I'm not so sure. The W/L is a cool coincidence... but maybe more respect is due Mr. Hudson.

HR vs. strikeouts

This post on baseball-reference.com is great, listing seasons in which a player had fewer strikeouts than HR (and at least 20 HR). The post points out that it's only been done 45 times in total and twice since 1956 (Brett in 1980, Bonds in 2004), but two other things hit me - (1) the number of legendary Yankees appearing multiple times on this list (Dickey, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Berra) and (2) Ted Kluszewski did it four seasons in a row from 1953-1956 - 40, 49, 47 and 35 HR and 34, 35, 40 and 31 strikeouts respectively. Adam Dunn, you have something to shoot for!

Band Name

Hello everyone, just wondering if you like this band name for a heavy metal band - Dümlaut!

氏エップと計算

私の父は私に何かをhttp://blog.familyofrock.com/ピーターフ レーム、音楽ジャーナリストによって書かれたからグランジファミリーツリーと呼ば示したように私はこのバンドにほとんど偶然だった。彼らはリスト知られてい るの上部にあるすべてのグランジ音楽の父としている。このバンドは、マーク アーム（マッドハニー、グリーンリバー）ジェフスミス、トッドモリーと、弟のダレンモリーの構成。ボー カルのマークアーム、ジェフスミスリードギターに、トッドモリーベースに、ダレンモリードラム。マークアームは彼のベルビュー高校数学教師氏エップからインスピレーションを得て、このバンドを始めた。彼らは酔っぱらったアウトギター、彼らはおそらくすべての問題をそれにしようとした解決しないと思ったものをからかった 低単調な歌の傾向を開始した。それがyoutubeに74elcaminohef私は彼らの音楽に耳を傾けることが できたことがないしていました、研究の時間を行って、彼らはすべてのツアーをやっていればどこから来たのを理解しようとしたら、私は何を実現、彼らはほと んど、存在する。そのHefにあなたにその歓 声！このバンドは70年代後半に結成されたが、バンドのほとんどがまだ生きている今日です。唯 一の人は誰が音楽業界でのキャリアを維持知ってseveralバンドだったマークアームみられ、マッドハニーsuchとして（最も顕著な）グリーンリ バー、スローマッシュと"サウンドに他の多くの貢献シアトル"。私はビデオへのリンクが含まれます。

Desperate. Not boring, though.: Mr. Epp and the Calculations

Desperate. Not boring, though.: Mr. Epp and the Calculations
http://www.youtube.com/user/74elcaminohef#p/c/13C88A385FB67405/3/3DpoOFOvx_o

Mr. Epp and the Calculations

I came upon this band almost by accident as my Father showed me something called the Grunge family tree from http://blog.familyofrock.com/ written by Peter Frame, a music journalist. They are at the top of the list known to be the father of all Grunge music. This Band consisted of Mark Arm (Mudhoney, Green River) Jeff Smith, Todd Morey, and his brother Darren Morey. Mark Arm on vocals, Jeff Smith on Lead guitar, Todd Morey on bass, Darren Morey on drums. Mark Arm started this band with the inspiration from his Bellevue High School maths teacher, Mr. Epp. They started the trend of fuzzed out guitars and low toneless singing that made fun of anything that they thought couldn't possibly solve any problem that it was trying to. After doing hours of research, trying to figure out where they came from, if they had done any tours, I realized something, they hardly existed, if it wasn't 74elcaminohef on youtube I would have never been able to listen to their music. So cheers to you on that Hef! This band was formed in the late 70's but most of the band is still alive today. The only person I know who kept a career in the music industry was Mark Arm, who was in several bands such as Mudhoney(the most notable) Green River, the Thrown Ups and many other contributors to the "Sound of Seattle". I will include a link to the video.

Alright Everyone be on the lookout for more posts about obscure bands. Most recently that I will do will be Mr. Epp and the Calculations, Limp Richerds and K733. I will also translate these to please our Brazilian and Japanese visitors!

Sorry, Adobe

I love Adobe's products, and wish I could afford more of them. And kudos to them for surviving so long in the quick-turnover world of technology.

However, the text below was in a promotional email I just received.

"From Blah to Aha! Ten Best Practices for the Virtual Classroom
Discover how to repurpose face-to-face classroom delivery with engaging,
facilitated online learning."

No one who is capable of perpetrating that prose should ever -ever! - be allowed near a classroom of any kind. No matter what they're "repurposing", "delivering" or "facilitating".

Floral Interlude

Now that I'm finished trashing cellphone companies, I have to admit that the new phone is pretty cool.

While visiting the town of the Hammers last weekend, we ended up at the Mum Show (which is what you might expect), and here I was with no camera.

But wait! My phone takes pictures!

Ok, there was some consternation with respect to getting the pictures off the phone and onto the computer, but with the magic of Bluetooth, I would now like to bring you some lovely floral offerings. Above we have a cow made entirely of Mums. Pretty cute. Also some greenhouse pictures and a large display of Mums. I never knew there was such a variety. Pretty good pictures for a cellphone, eh?

The Cellphone Saga - Chaper 1

...In which Little Red Riding Hood takes her kids cellphone shopping and turns into the Big Bad Wolf.

In response to the fact that the current contract had expired and that the kids were "totally embarrassed" by having "old clunky" cellphones, L'Hood decided to upgrade. The problem being that L'Hood and retail don't mix at the best of times. And the retail cellphone experience is definitely the worst of times.

As the kids, then, slowly back away, anxiously awaiting the Woodsman's appearance to "take care of" what used to be Little Red Riding Hood, but now resembles a crimson-fanged Wolf howling imprecations at Best Buy and Telus, let us take a moment to reflect on how this happened.

Telus apparently does not use the English language in the same way as most of us, and has a unique interpretation of the word "shared". Their "Share Plans" may look like a good deal, but in fact are not "shared" at all, since each phone owner/used must have his/her own plan. This confused and enraged Little Red Riding Hood, who uses the word "share" in what, I believe, is the more common English meaning.

Secondly, not being made of money, L'Hood wanted free phones for all. Many minutes were spent at the Telus display at Best Buy negotiating with children who had varying needs in terms of cellphone ownership. Once the decision was made, L'Hood bravely asked for three of the same, $0.00 phones. Naturally, they had only two. So, a second choice was offered. They had only none. L'Hood gave up and spent $50.00 on the third cellphone.

While in prison, L'Hood had time to reflect that what went wrong in this experience, and decided that it was a fundamental disconnect in value systems. L'Hood expected Best Buy and Telus to care what she, the customer, wanted, and to provide it. Best Buy and Telus expected L'Hood to lust after cool gadgetry without regard for price.

Perhaps surprisingly, or not, I think Dilbert illustrates it well in this cartoon. We as humans are almost completely self-involved and love what we have created more than we love what God has created. God, in whatever form you choose to conceive of Him, including potentially a particle, has created people. People have created much stuff for themselves, because they are clever, and curious, and creative, and in many cases think they can make a fast buck, which is another human creation. However, because we love our own creations more, we are often happy to remove the messy messy people from our nice clean process.

Despite marketing campaigns claiming to value human dignity, the process, or the product, rather than the human, becomes the point. Yet almost all processes and products, created by humans for humans, are necessarily arbitrary and artificial. We actually really need very few things. Therefore, by creating within ourselves an arbitrary and artificial need for a cool gadgetry, we allow ourselves to become captive to the machinations of, in this case, cellphone hell. So, in other words, it's our own fault.

Now, I know that many people in North America don't have a problem with this. We are, by and large, a consumer culture. And I myself am certainly not immune to the siren call of stuff. I just think that there could be less product, less process, and more time for human dignity.

Stay tuned as Little Red Riding Hood goes looking for affirmation in the religious, rather than secular church. Should be good.

Announcing....

Thank you for your votes and comments.

I can now proudly announce that the little dude's name is officially....

Tucker!

However, he's still occasionally known as Turkey Bite and Little Dude, although these seem to be giving way to Fubrox. Not sure why - he just looks like a Fubrox. Also, he acts like a Fubrox.

Tucker is easier to explain to the vet, though.

Cheers!

Salute to Brazil

We interrupt the feline-fest briefly for a nod to our Brazilian friends. For some reason, this little blog has picked up significant traffic from Brazil lately - some sort of embedded Brazilian Portuguese cuss word? Anyway, on this blog:
- we love Romario and hope his next political ambition is mayor of Toronto;
- we're happy to be able to generate our own Brazilian national team football shirt;
- and speaking of that team, who can't love them?

Name teh kitteh!

By popular demand, may we be allowed to present.....

The newest member of our household!

He's small, he's cute, he's destructive, he types rude words on the computer, and he may be breaking the law, it's ????

For reasons too complex to enunciate, Emma prefers the name "Turkey Bite". Myself, I prefer "Alfie". Other suggestions include "Mr. Darcy", "Tangelo", "Augie", "Li'l Abner", "Meow", "the Fubrox" and "Huffy J. Beak". Obviously, some people don't have to tell the vet what their cat's name is and can therefore afford to be funny. At the moment, we're just calling him "Little Dude".

In order to resolve our sad sad situation, we have spared all expense to bring you the "Name Teh Kitteh" survey. Please vote for your favourite name and/or suggest your own. All suggestions will be considered, but we reserve the right to be bound by none of them. There might be a small prize for the winner, if there is one, and if I get around to it.

Of Ikea, Greed, Privilege and Inflation

The former CEO of Merrill Lynch now says he wishes that he's bought furniture at Ikea for his office redecoration rather than the $35,000 toilet and $25,000 table he actually bought as part of the $1,200,000 project.

"Does anyone need a $60,000 car? ... Does anyone really need to be told, over and over, spitting in the wind comes back at you twice as hard?"
- Lou Reed, "Strawman"

Justice, morality and stuff

I don't know if Judge Rakoff is right, but refusing to allow a settlement for $33 million of a claim that payment of $3.6 billion in bonuses was improperly disclosed just feels good, doesn't it?

But maybe this is exactly what Edward Greenspan is complaining about. I'm not sure that the claim that we treat allegedly criminal business people no better than "heroin dealers, mafiosi or child abusers" isn't a bit hyperbolic, though.

What do "the most elementary notions of justice and morality" dictate here? Should the penalty for theft vary with the amount of the theft? The sophistication of the act or the number of advising counsel? The unwillingness of the victimized to protect themselves, e.g. by not buying stock in a bank whose operations they can't collectively control (or maybe comprehend)?

Glunicorn

Never before seen, now captured. Above, the shocking mug shots for this creature, once believed to be mythical.

Great moments in financial disclosure

Meanwhile, in the post-meltdown, post-Enron, post-Madoff world of financial regulation, it's apparently sufficient to disclose a transaction without disclosing what you sold, to whom, at what price, or whether you made a profit or loss on the sale.

See the details and great commentary here.

The outrage outrage

We all love a good scandal, especially a spending scandal that reconfirms our inherent belief that we're getting horrifically ripped off by someone else's free ride. However, I wonder if this whole process hasn't gotten out of hand, and I know that it's warped our sense of priority.
The current Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation scandal is a great example. The spending orgy! Five "hefty black binders" to outline all their incredible profligacy! Why, it's pigs at the trough, again!
I don't know about you, but I was really hoping for some Caligula-like excess that would be fun to read about. If what the Globe & Mail published today were the most outrageous examples of what they could glean from those binders, it runs the gamut from ordinary to inoffensive to ill-advised. I'm an Ontario taxpayer and all set to be cheesed off, but I have to say I question the editorial judgment that runs a large-type list of alleged excesses, attached to the employees' names, that includes an Obus Forme back rest and back support (total value about $200) for a guy making about $103,000 a year. Seems reasonable to me. And yes, expensing your $1.12 cloth bag from Sobey's doesn't seem smart, but why do I (or Canada's National Newspaper) care? And yes, "suit for meeting" or "ink cartridge for home printer" seem problematic on the face of it, but there might be some context in which they make sense - the attitude seems to be that just printing the list will elicit that Pavlovian reaction of fury that the editor is gunning for. From the government's point of view, at least, it seemed to work.
Surely we've got bigger things to worry about. The forecast provincial deficit for 2009-2010 is $14.1 billion. That's about 70.5 million back support sets at $200 per. Let alone the question of why we have a government agency to exploit gambling in the first place. I'm enough of a libertarian to think people should generally be able to do what they want with their money - but I have no idea why we need a government organization to run the activity. Yes, it raises revenue, but from whom and with what kind of implication? It makes the government complicit in some pretty ugly personal situations. And the efforts to "address" the social ills they're helping to create are laughable: according to their own statistics, "partnering in the education, research, prevention and treatment of problem gambling" cost $44 million, or less than $1.00 for every $36 awarded in prizes during the year (a total of $1.6 billion, in a province with about 12 million people in it). [Besides, is "partnering" the same as actually doing anything, or more like writing a guilty cheque? How much of that $44 million in fact paid for expenses of the employees of OLG's "partners"? Maybe the Globe needs to get on that.]
Finally, I think all the focus on nickels and dimes misses the best part of this story. Among the board members who have resigned (been forced to resign?) as a consequence of this is the "President and CEO of the Institute of Corporate Directors". The mission of this organization is "to represent the interests of directors — to foster excellence in directors to strengthen the governance and performance of Canadian corporations. We will achieve this mission through education, certification and advocacy of best practices in governance." Presumably the OLG is now a case study? It's also a shame not to note that of the six new directors, three are deputy ministers and two are assistant deputy ministers. So from this we can conclude, I guess, that government-owned corporations are better run by career civil servants than anybody else? Or maybe it's that the whole mess is irredeemably compromised by its confused purpose in the first place.

The best pie chart of all time

Courtesy: Tufte, the most erudite discussion of pie charts anywhere.

Presidential beer choices

Without getting into the politics of it, following are apparently the beer choices for today's White House meeting:

"The president will drink Bud Light, Gates will have Red Stripe, and Crowley will drink Blue Moon, [White House spokesman] Gibbs said."

Blue Moon, for Canadians, is just "Rickard's White". There are many better witbiers around that aren't made by Coors, but it's still the best choice of the three on a Washington summer day.

Good heavens, man, Bud Light? I agree with this guy. Given the historic outcry over dijon on the burger, I know that he's got to choose carefully, but Sam Adams would have been a better way to go however you look at it. Especially for a contretemps originating in Cambridge, Mass.!

* * *

Update: this would have been a far more entertaining result.

* * *

Further update: now CNN is saying that the beer choices were as follows:

"The president was drinking Bud Light, Biden was drinking Buckler (a nonalcoholic beer), Gates was drinking Samuel Adams Light and Crowley was drinking Blue Moon."

Leaving poor Joe out of it for the moment (nonalcoholic beer being like decaffeinated Diet Coke - why, o why?), where's the scandal over the Gates switcheroo? There needs to be a crack team of investigators on this. Was Red Stripe too culturally significant? However, Gates now gets the "best beer choice" award. Let's give the President the benefit of the doubt and assume he would have had the same but for the implications of siding with one of the combatants. Gosh, statecraft is hard.

Why I hate the DH

This finally occurred to me on the road today, and I don't know why it didn't make sense earlier. Normally, in baseball, all nine players in the field have to take a turn hitting as well. The designated hitter (or "DH") rule allows a team to have an extra player hit for the pitcher - usually, pitchers are the weakest hitters on the team. The pitcher gets to pitch, but doesn't have to bat; the DH gets to hit, but doesn't have to play the field when the other team is batting.

When there is no DH rule, managers of baseball teams commonly encounter this dilemma: the game is close, the pitcher has pitched well but it's not clear how much longer he can pitch, and the pitcher's spot in the batting order comes up in a crucial situation. Do you let the offensive opportunity pass by to keep the good pitcher in the game? Or do you take the pitcher out for a pinch-hitter to improve the chances of scoring and then take your chances with a relief pitcher?

And here's the problem in a nutshell - the DH rules says "you don't have to choose". You can choose what to do with your pitcher without any consequence for your offence; you never need to worry about the pitcher's spot in the batting order coming up at a critical time.

What I hate about this is that it's a symptom of a serious problem, which is the belief that we never have to make choices between two good alternatives, or two bad alternatives, or that we can always avoid consequences from the decisions that we make.

Cases in point:

- we think it's important that city workers have the right to strike to support their negotiating position, but when they don't pick up the garbage we don't want it dumped in areas the public accesses;
- once there are dumps in public areas, we don't want rats and vermin, but we don't want chemicals sprayed that will keep them away either;
- we don't show any signs of using less electric power, but we sure don't want nuclear, either because (geez!) it's nuclear or because we can't afford it (even after three years of study and a lot of public subsidy to the only qualified bidder); and we don't want power stations based on any other kind of fuel either, because they'll add incrementally to air pollution even though they're radically more efficient than what they replace. Nonetheless, we'll all be surprised when, mysteriously, there isn't enough power.

Sometimes, you have to accept that letting that pitcher go to the seventh inning will mean you forego an offensive opportunity in the sixth. You can't always just change the rules of the game to avoid the choice, or its consequences.

Blogging light

Chaos reigns. But Joey Votto's back with the Reds, and Doc Halladay is about to come off the DL, so there's always hope.

Quote of the day

The Toronto Star has a story today about the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's head, Kelly McDougald. One of the vignettes is about a gentleman who won the jackpot on a slot machine that was clearly advertised as having a maximum payout of $9,025, but the machine told him he had won $42.9 million. Of course, he's suing. But leaving the dubious merits of the lawsuit aside, I love the following statement by Ms. McDougald as reported by the Star:

"We did offer him prior to going to the media a settlement of around $10,000 in
recognition of the inconvenience and frustration that he felt as well as,
obviously, the dinner (for four) that was publicized," said McDougald. "It's
very clear in the rules and in the signage that we do not pay on malfunctions.
It could have easily said – because nobody controls technology – `you've won $42
billion.'"

Wait a minute - nobody controls technology? Good heavens! I thought the coffee maker was looking at me funny lately, and that explains a lot about Vista.

Michael Jackson thought

I rarely have those, I must admit. However, if you're going to call your tour a "final curtain call" isn't it tradition that someone should actually be calling you to the curtain? Maybe I missed that. Or maybe he should just beat it?