Saturday, March 3, 2012
Jays - how I'd bat 'em
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.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Koufax vs.... Hudson??
- 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.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
HR vs. strikeouts
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Band Name
Sunday, April 18, 2010
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。
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Desperate. Not boring, though.: Mr. Epp and the Calculations
http://www.youtube.com/user/74elcaminohef#p/c/13C88A385FB67405/3/3DpoOFOvx_o
Monday, April 12, 2010
Mr. Epp and the Calculations
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sorry, Adobe
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".
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Floral Interlude



Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Cellphone Saga - Chaper 1
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.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Announcing....
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!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Salute to Brazil
- 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?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Name teh kitteh!
Friday, September 18, 2009
Of Ikea, Greed, Privilege and Inflation
"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"
Monday, September 14, 2009
Justice, morality and stuff
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)?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Great moments in financial disclosure
See the details and great commentary here.
The outrage outrage
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.
