I check in at Rowland's Office regularly to get a feel for the state of the Atlanta Braves. Their assessments are always pithy and succinct.
We just saw the Phils dispatch the Mets this week and now the Braves meet the Mets starting tomorrow sitting 4.5 back.
After muddling around for the entire season the Phillies just completed the 4th game of a four game sweep of division leading New York this evening. They sit two games back of the Mets now.
Tonight's game was a crazy 11-10 affair that saw Chase Utley run the count to 3-2 versus Billy Wagner and then line a one out single to right to drive in Tadahito Taguchi for the winning run.
The Phils appear to be getting hot at the right time but overtaking the Mets will be no easy task. Willie Randolph is not a manager who will panic and make poor in-game decisions because he's looking in his rear-view mirror at the Phillies. Complimenting Randolph is a veteran team that will most likely follow their manager's lead. I don't think I've ever seen Moises Alou break a sweat on the diamond.
These teams meet for a final series midway through September and both teams play a majority of their September games against divisional rivals.
Washington Nationals manager Manny Acta is in his first year managing in the major leagues and is winning about as many games as could be expected for what is practically an expansion team. The Nats have 58 wins and with a month left in the season have a real shot at a 70 win season. The reviews on him have generally been good.
Tim Brown's article at Yahoo Sports has two interesting tidbits. First, Acta meets a hero of his, Jim Leyland, back in June.
For those three days in June, Acta, 38 years old and some 70 games into his managerial career, could summon no way to approach Leyland.
"I was too shy," he said.
So, Acta trailed the clubhouse attendant out of the clubhouse, through the doors and to Leyland. He stuck out his hand.
Leyland hugged him instead.
"He had no business talking to me," Acta said. "But, he took the time to talk to me in private. He told me to keep it up. He told me he went through the same thing early on in Pittsburgh. He told me, 'You can do it.' "
And then this Acta quote raised an eyebrow because I've never heard such a statement uttered anywhere by anyone -- including statheads.
Acta pressed his optimism and core philosophies – fewer outs on the base paths and fewer sacrifice bunts for an offense that would have difficulty scoring runs anyway, surer hands in the field behind a no-name staff – against the predictions of a historically bad season.
I have never heard or read of anyone positing that a team that's going to have trouble scoring runs should eschew bunting, or in the parlance of today, eschew small-ball. It just may make sense. At nearly all levels of baseball lighter hitting teams are expected to sacrifice a few of the precious twenty-seven outs they're granted each game to move a runner up one base via a bunt or lightly tapping the ball to the right side with a runner on second. The reasoning is that the light hitting team that gets a base runner on first needs to get them into scoring position immediately so that another of their light-hitting teammates can knock them in from second.
But why the assumption that such a strategy is optimal? Doesn't it make sense that a team that creates fewer runs per out needs to protect and save those outs as best they can throughout the course of a game? A high-octane offense like Philadelphia possesses could be handicapped at the start of every game with, say, just twenty-four outs and still be able to compete with Washington's anemic offense and their twenty-seven outs. So why would Washington sacrifice any of their outs?
This one sentence comment in an innocuous article in late August deserves some lengthy numbers crunching. If I were a college professor I'd ask for a sabbatical at about this point.
I'd missed the news regarding the multitude of fires that are raging in Greece. Particularly interesting is John Robb's take.
And be sure to click on the map in his post to see it at full size.
I'm a little late with this post since I was on vacation but it still seems appropriate to look back on the Orioles 30-3 loss at the hands of the Texas Rangers last Wednesday. Since that loss the O's have dropped six straight. Tonight's was another doozy. Leading 6-3 going into the 8th inning, four Oriole relievers allowed e-l-e-v-e-n runs to send the home team on their way to a 15-8 loss.
My Uncle Jim struck while the iron was hot last week and sent me the following email with his observations on the 30-3 game.
I saw history being made last night. In an intriguing attempt to broaden their fan base the Orioles played football against a Texas team (Texas is known for its great football prowess) yesterday evening but managed only a field goal while conceding 3 touchdowns and 3 field goals to a superior Texas squad. The O's quarterback had just been signed to a one year contract so it was particularly embarassing for him as he sat on the bench almost the entire game while the O's had to be on defense so much. In fact amazingly the Orioles field goal in the first quarter gave them a brief lead. But the pigskin parade passed them by quickly,
30-3 ,and tonight the Orioles will revert to baseball after their unsuccessful fling at football. But it was a bold and creative marketing ploy that may have worked.
Tonight's game would've needed a safety.
I just received an email from Ron Paul 2008 urging me to vote at the Maryland State Fair GOP Straw Poll before it closes down on September 3rd.
This will be my first trip to the State Fairgrounds off York Road in the lovely city of Timonium.
And finds that Ron Paul has the most combined straw poll votes since the Iowa straw poll.
One of the great things about The Hardball Times is that they serve up articles on unexpected subjects to its readers on a consistent basis. They reach back, grab a pennant race from forty years ago and write about a pitcher who carried his team to the brink of the World Series only to fall just short. Other sites would serve up the Yastrzemski September of '67 softball but the Times kicks it with Jim Kaat and his 1.51 September of '67 ERA for the Twins. Its baseball candy for those yearning to learn new things about the game every day of their life.
Readers of Minor League Ball weigh in on the Ron Washington bullet point.
Kudos from Ed Coffin,
Washington is a refreshing change from the prototypical fire and ice MLB manager. He doesn't oil up his pregame and postgame commentary, it seems to come straight from the shoulder. To which his head is attached.
Not sure I'd be qualified to judge or grade him, but these impressions stand out. He is an expert at the conduct of the game, and the conduct of playing the game, and is a teacher. He is less than expert (as yet) at situational and tactical calling of shots, yet seldom 'appears' to be theoretically wrong. He may need more depth of knowledge (or better advice) about deployment of pitching. In the case of the 2007 Rangers, I suspect just about anybody would have some indecision about pitching, though.
Some negatives from peanut,
If there is one big thing that worries me about Washington, though, it's his tendency to engage in a couple of old manager foibles, such as going with a player who had a hot spring training over someone with a track record or who otherwise shows more potential for long-term success. Using Jamey Wright and Matt Kata in April are good examples.
I think, too, that he likes players who remind him of himself when he played - a scrappy, good at fundamentals player not good enough to be a starter - and this leads to some of his questionable lineup/roster decisions (Hairston, for example).
Since my Newberg/Washington post on 8/4 the Rangers have put up a solid 10-10 record with a lineup full of youngsters. Some are speculating that Washington could be gone at the end of the year but barring a 4-25 September he'll be back for at least another year. This team is rebuilding and even if '08 is tough he'll stick around if he doesn't lose the clubhouse.
Curzon digs up two cool maps. The second one is interesting in how it shows how high a
percentage of the world's shipping occurs between Europe-America and Japan-America.
Stilwell predicts Paul to be a solid #4 in the Republican field come October. Plus, he has a clip of Alan Keyes acting crazy!
In other Paul news it appears that my wish may be bearing itself out as we move towards the beginning of the fall.
Even in light of the recent losing streak the Orioles are experiencing this guy keeps me hopeful. He's Dave Trembley and he's on-board through the end of next season and will have a chance to get the ball rolling in Spring Training 2008 the way he sees fit. He doesn't seem like the push-over that Ray Miller, Mike Hargrove, Lee Mazzili and Sam Perlozzo proved to be. Maybe the players will be more apt to listen to a guy who holds Miguel Tejada to the same rules as Tike Redman.
MLB.com: Is it hard to go from being a coach -- and being friendly with the players -- to being the manager and the chief disciplinarian in the dugout? I know it's been that way for most of your career, but is it an adjustment?
Trembley: No, because I don't feel as if I was ever a buddy. I was cordial and respectful to all these guys, but I kept my distance from them. I never socialized with them off the field. I care about them and I give them their space. I talked to them when I was a coach, though, and especially in Spring Training. A lot of guys came to me and confided things in me.
Here's a nugget from Hans Herman-Hoppe on one of the differences of being ruled by a King or a President.
Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on "his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.
So which evil would you support?
The Ron Paul field carving is on the ground at Stilwell's. The question is when will Google take another snapshot and get that thing on the internet.
Best crooked number of the year: Santana's 17 K's against the Rangers today.
From Lew's blog come a couple of nice pick-me-ups regarding the Ron Paul campaign. Here are results from three separate county straw polls taken in Illinois, Alabama and New Hampshire.
These results certainly aren't bad news but I really don't know how these translate to any broader appeal he may garner. I'm hoping to see Paul hit 4 or 5% in a national poll....soon.
Curt Granderson and Jimmy Rollins assaulting the 20-20-20-20 club? Kevin Cameron sporting a low ERA? Sounds like pieces of an article I wrote a month ago and then revisited this week.
Jayson Stark's most recent article includes notes on those three players and much, much more.
Through Wednesday, A-Rod's numbers projected to 155 RBIs and 146 runs over a full season. So with just a minor spurt in run-scoring, he can cash that 150-150 daily-double ticket...Who was the last man to go 150-150? Ted Williams in 1949 (159 RBIs, 150 runs). And here's the group before the Splinter: Babe Ruth (three times), Lou Gehrig (twice), Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons and Chuck Klein. And that's it.
And, Hanley.
...if Ramirez completes his journey to the 50-50 Club room between now and October, that conversation could change a bit. This particular 50-50 Club -- 50 stolen bases, 50 doubles -- is about as exclusive a group as you'll run across. OK, it's not as exclusive as the 511 Win Club, but it's close. Craig Biggio (50 SBs, 51 doubles in 1997) is one member. To find another, you have to power up the way-back machine all the way to 1912, to drag in Tris Speaker (52 SBs, 53 doubles). But that's the entire membership -- just those two.
I've heard Hanley's defense is atrocious. He plays big out in the field and perhaps observers are referring to a lack of range. Does anyone have any insight into just how bad it is? If there's one thing I have trouble evaluating players on it's their defensive ability.
A wonderful development is happening in the market for retirement home services. With the price of care in assisted living facilities skyrocketing in the United States, many American and European retirees are taking their dollars to Mexico and making them stretch a lot further.
With cheaper Mexican caregivers now competing in the market this may also have the effect of slowing down the price inflation of American assisted living centers, therefore helping those who stay behind in the U.S.
American pundits will of course come up with some terrifying stories of dirty Mexican retirement homes and how there's no regulation in the industry. Perhaps a story of one or two Americans who recently died in a Mexican retirement home prematurely will appear. Just observe the hand-ringing over the Chinese toy crises of the past week for a primer.
Then there will be some who eventually get around to suggesting that Americans who slink across the border for a better life are traitors for taking their dollars away from the Homeland.
Sliding. Whoa Nelly.
There. That's better.
I don't know if Jimmy Rollins is nearing exclusive company but this year marks the 5th season of his career that the 28-year old Rollins has hit 10+ doubles, triples and homers. Carl Crawford's done it three times. George Brett did it three times. Roberto Clemente seven times. Lou Gehrig nine times. Willie Mays five times.
Rollins continues to chip away. The current count is 27 doubles, 15 triples and 21 homers. He has a chance at 20-20-20. I wish I had the time to see who's reached those heights. I can tell you that of the triple hitters from the Granderson post above only Brett (42-20-23) and Mays (26-20-35) reached the 20-20-20 plateau.
Hopefully a Career Phillie
Cla Meredith
Over the years I have yet to read a pundit who knows more inane as well as interesting political information than neo-con sympathizer Michael Barone
Here's his full breakdown of the Iowa GOP Straw Poll results. The vitriolic Paul blurb is a dandy.
Momentum for Paul is accelerating according to the Intrade Republican nomination market.
Today at a crowded farmers market in dowtown Baltimore a man of about twenty came up from behind me, lightly patted me on the shoulder and said, "Nice shirt".
Perhaps the 1970's and 1980's were the decades when major league baseball was played at its most balanced level in history. I've never done a statistical analysis of the era (the balanced theory is not an original idea by the way) but what other period in baseball history offers us a richer and more varied combination of baseball skills and performance manifesting themselves on the field of play. Power hitters, speed merchants, high octane hurlers, innovative managers and entertaining personalities (think Rose, Reggie and Earl) dotted the major league landscape. With the exception of Nolan Ryan's ridiculous strikeout totals and Rickey Henderson's unparalleled stolen base numbers the period appears to have been marked by statistical modesty. Rare were the forty home run seasons of this past decade but neither were the leagues dominated by punch and judy hitters plying their offensive wares between home plate and the region just beyond the infield dirt.
It was over this era that the relief pitcher transformed himself from the back of the rotation castoff to the 7th, 8th and 9th inning monster who shutdown games with a vengeance to its current resting place as the ninth inning specialist.
There was also the fact that as the 70's moved into the 80's the mini-dynasties that ruled the former decade gave way to baseball's greatest era of playoff and World Series participatory diversity ever.
All aspects of baseball strategy had to be respected by the managers and players. The multitude of skills developed over the hundred year history of the game were finally all being used together to make the game as close to perfect as possible.
It was as if the game reached it's pinnacle in the years when I was four, seven, twelve years old. Too young to appreciate the completeness of the game on the field but old enough to fall in love with it.
This video, found at Church of Baseball, is narrated by a gentleman who tells the story of a day at Shea in 1977 with his father and brother. The story is ultimately a touching one without being sappy. I won't tell it because the narrator delivers it perfectly. Instead, it's the skilled production of the video and feelings it conjures up in me that deserve the written word. The players that appear throughout the video I know only through pictures, videos, books, essays and second hand accounts. Born ten years too late I missed their baseball primes.
Set to the back-drop of some damn good funk music, you see Joe Morgan stroking gappers and hustling his way to first base. One of those hits drives in Pete Rose, helmetless, chugging around the basepaths. Morgan, one of the glues that held together the great Red dynasty of the 1970's, is the last Red you see during the opening montage when the narrator gives his respect to this great team. A well deserved homage to the two time MVP.
Later there's Johnny Bench taking a pitch the opposite way into the corner at Fenway. Perhaps a single, maybe a double. We don't know but I've only ever seen vids of Bench pulling towering fly balls into the left field seats at Riverfront, the ugly astro turf speeding underneath the white baseball as it moves towards the stands.
More history and context peppers the video. There's footage of Joe Torre waving a white towel in the dugout as he presides over the dreadful Met teams of the late 1970's, a full two decades before extended success came his way on the other side of the New York baseball world.
The producer/narrator of the video goes by the You Tube screen name of theokappel. He's put together the best baseball vid I've ever come across on the internet. It's greatly appreciated.
This evening the O's get back at the Red Sox for the May 13th debacle at Fenway. Five runs in the last two innings off Eric Gagne and Hideki Okajima seal the deal for the O's.
Tonight marks the posting of Notes of Interest's first interview and I don't think I could be any happier with the result. At the beginning of this week I asked Liverputty's Jeffrey if he wouldn't mind writing down his thoughts and opinions on the James Bond character and the books and movies he's starred in over the past fifty years. For the past few months Jeffrey's been posting his Bond observations and select passages from the Ian Fleming novels at Liverputty. I credit his posting of the gun barrel video for my rebirth of interest in the Bond franchise after a looong six month hiatus.
Upon agreeing to be interviewed and using the following six questions as his vehicle, our interviewee threw down a goodly amount of Bond fodder to enjoy. Thanks again to Jeffrey!
Notes of Interest: Why the interest in blogging about James Bond?
Jeffrey: The recent infatuation stems from Casino Royale and Ross’s Rued Morgue 007 in ‘007 posts. I periodically focus on a specific topic to blog about – often movie related stuff – and spend a month or so only on that. A couple of years ago I was posting about Peter Cushing, then later it was samurai films followed by yakuza movies, etc. etc. This time it was 007’s turn. I’d been reading the Fleming books and most of my posts have been simple excerpts from the novels. They make for quick posts and, I think, the excerpts are not entirely without interest.
How has your interest in the character developed over your lifetime?
When I was in grade school I was interested primarily in the action. My brother, my friends and I would recreate fight sequences for home movies and so forth. In high school it was the sex….and the action. I don’t ever remember being uninterested in the Bond girls, but I was particularly fond of them later on as a teenager. Plus, Sean Connery and Roger Moore were ultra cool and evidently good with the ladies. Years later I realized much of that was a joke and the movies became enjoyable for the absurdity inherent in them. Somewhere along the way I also grew interested in the filmmaking aspects. If anything, the Bond films are a wonder of collaboration of technical details. So from action to sex to comedy to filmmaking techniques, and, more recently, to the novels.
Is there ample material left from Ian Fleming's literature to make many more movies? What book would you most like to see made into a movie and why?
Yes. I’m really amazed at how well and how piecemeal Fleming’s material has been used throughout the series, but I’m also amazed at what has not been used. The novels Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me have remained virtually untouched. I can’t imagine the producers will ever try to put Moonraker on screen. No doubt they think that it would come across as small and generic, which I guess is why they didn’t try it in 1979. The novel wasn’t as quickly paced and action filled as Fleming’s other stories, but nevertheless it had a film quality to it – particularly a well-described car chase towards the end. I also doubt they’d attempt The Spy Who Loved Me, though they should. It’s different than other Bond novels in that it is from the point of view of the woman and Bond doesn’t appear until the last third of the book. And he’s not really on a case. It comes across like Fleming’s version of Petrified Forest or Key Largo. That would likely be my pick for a favorite Bond film. But even if those stories are left alone, there’s plenty of other stuff to cover. Bond has never had a finale on a runaway locomotive in the films – he’s had two in the books – one in Diamonds Are Forever, and the other in Man with the Golden Gun – both stories were drastically changed in the films – and which have lots of un-pilfered material. Plus, there’s good unused material in Fleming’s two books of short stories. The filmmakers, are, however, running out of Fleming titles.
Do you feel Daniel Craig has the ability and popular appeal to become as synonymous with the Bond character as Sean Connery?
I really like Daniel Craig and, if he can get two more decent scripts – a significant if – he can be synonymous with Bond – certainly identifiable as him. But not as synonymous as Connery? I think Connery has an insurmountable advantage of being the first to define Bond. Plus, he enjoyed the apex of Bond-mania. Craig will be well received and will no doubt be Bond to the younger crowd unfamiliar with Moore or Connery and his films may gross more than Connery’s, but I can’t imagine the franchise will ever enjoy the same phenomenon status as Bond in the 60s. The spy thriller was younger and smaller back then. Plus, the genre in the 50s & 60s made plenty of hay out of the Cold War. I don’t think the film industry has been as comfortable dealing with our current threats in the world today.
My favorite Bond is Roger Moore. From what I've read many Bond fans find Moore's characterization of the character as too easy-going. Others refer to him as being an acting lightweight in general. What is your opinion of Moore playing the role of Bond?
I readily identify Moore as Bond. The first Bond I saw in the theater was Moonraker, and I well remember watching Moore’s Bond during the ABC Sunday night movies, before I knew Connery. He’s best when he’s playing Bond light and humorous – but I don’t necessarily think he’s a lightweight. He’s an actor that knows his limitations – and there are, quite frankly, too few actors like that around. His main Achilles heels were his age and a few mediocre movies – none of which suffered because of him, except, perhaps, A View To a Kill, when both age and script conspired against him. However, to Moore’s credit, he never intended making the last couple of films but did so out of duty to the franchise. It is difficult to rank Connery over Moore, but ultimately it comes down to Connery being the first. Still, I think Moore picked up the role when Connery ran out of steam and carried it more gracefully than Connery did – on and off screen. I have a tremendous affection for Roger Moore and I’m delighted any time he’s on the screen, whether it’s as Bond or not. And he is definitely the funniest 007.
Which actor enjoyed the best Bond movie scripts to work with?
Connery had the first three scripts – each a masterpiece. At that time, it seemed like the producers could do no wrong in how they adapted the script. The first two, Dr. No and From Russian with Love, follow the Fleming stories fairly closely, but when there’s a difference, I can’t help but think the film changes work for the better. Particularly in From Russia with Love, where the antagonist spy organization, SMERSH, is exchanged for SPECTRE. The expedient reason was to not insult the Soviets, but the plot, as a result, got a clever working over where the two sides of the Cold War are played off each other. Goldfinger, too, got a clever twist in the film where Ft. Knox wasn’t going to be robbed, but instead destroyed with radiation, driving up the value of Goldfinger’s existing collection of gold. After Goldfinger, the scripts got a little too bloated and directionless. Thunderball and You Only Live Twice seemed to plod along and lose interest at times. And though Diamonds Are Forever was a little better, I tend to think Connery was just bored with the role by that point.
Moore had his share of good scripts, too – though they were different than the ones Connery had. It seems that the producers picked the locations and gadgets they wanted to have and then had the script written around it. Miraculously, this method worked well for Spy, Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only.
And the one picture of Lazenby’s is about as fine a Bond picture as you could hope to see. I tend to think Dalton and Brosnan got the short end of the stick on that score, though I’ve heard defenders of License to Kill and should probably revisit that movie.
(Jeffrey's most recent Bond post is a compendium of observations on Bond's character from the Fleming novels.)
Baseball observers often make the mistake of comparing players by using their offensive statistics without taking into consideration the position they play. For instance, in the 1970's when major league shortstops hit like dime-store clerks a shortstop like Roy Smalley was very valuable offensively. While his 1978, 1979 and 1980 OPS+ totals of 122, 110 and 104 are just a bit above average when viewed against the league in its entirety, in actuality he was a much more valuable player offensivelt when compared against his shortstop counterparts. Since shortstops of that era hit far below the overall league average OPS, his above average figures against the overall league average became even more impressive when compared against other shortstops.
Such insights accentuate the extreme offensive value that catcher Ivan Rodriguez has given his teams over his career. With the catcher position ranging between 8 and 11 runs below average for much of Rodriguez's career, his career 112 OPS+ against the league average is more positively accentuated when compared to the other catchers of his era. Instead of being merely an above average hitter over the course of his career, Rodriguez can be viewed as a very valuable offensive commodity when compared against the others who played his position. This distinction increased his overall value and highlights the unique opportunity given to a team by a player who hits significantly better than the others who play his position.
An additional note of interest. From David Gassko's article comes this conjecture on the evolution of the catcher position from the late 19th century and into the early 20th century.
In the early days of baseball, catchers were absolutely awful hitters—on average, -14 runs per 162 games. That’s to be expected, as bunts were very common during these years and so a catcher’s defense was very important. Also, as pitchers began to throw overhand and batter-friendly rules disappeared from the game, catching pitches itself became more difficult and thus restricted the position to relatively good fielders.
As more players became accustomed to catching and bunting became less prevalent, catcher offense slowly improved. The average catcher between 1914 and 1986 was -5 runs per 162 games—still below-average but not that bad.
On the left-hand side of my blog underneath my labels and personal profile there is a vertical strip of Google Ads. Last time I checked they've generated just a touch under $2 of revenue in about a quarter of a year of blogging. Money this blog does not generate.
Originally, I had a dream of slowly building my blog readership and perhaps turning 5 or 10k in ad revenue every year. Now, just three months into my blogging venture, I could care less about the cash. I'm simply having too much fun writing about what I'm truly interested in. There's no feeling of pressure to produce content that's going to turn a buck for me -- content that may not interest me that much. I've tried that before and those blogs have died a quick death.
Zieak.com's post on how not to make money blogging sounds familiar to me. Point one sums up the state of my blog nicely.
"I write about many different things...So my randomness appeals only to people that know me and wonder what I'm up to."
And even that may be stretching it.
I seem to remember reading a blurb on Dodger outfielder Juan Pierre somewhere this winter that said he doesn't hit curveballs well. In fact, he has proven so inept at hitting curveballs over his career that it's amazing anyone throws the guy a fastball.
Mike Pindelski of Beyond the Box Score looks into Juan Pierre's future and while he doesn't see a disaster in the making he also doesn't see much hope in him justifying his $45 million contract.
The use of historically comparable player's career paths as a means to predict how a particular player is going to fair in the future seems to me to be a quite effective means of prediction. Pierre's comparables rarely sustained their late 20's performance level into their mid or in many cases into their early 30's.
The B-Burgs and Stilwell teamed up this weekend in Missouri to place 5th in the pulled pork competition. And we're not talking about 5th out of 10. No, there were 82 contestants that saddled up to the competition tables this weekend. A 5th place finish in one of their first competitions is very impressive.
But this kills me because my favorite meat at the Midwest BBQ competitions is pulled pork. Two weeks ago I was hanging in KC but now I'm sitting in Baltimore readying myself for Mac & Cheese and tuna with Jen in about an hour. Everything in life is timing, eh?
It may have been the first James Bond motion picture but for some reason I am oddly disconnected from Dr. No. I have no idea what the plot to the movie is and have only a passing remembrance of the villian. For me, the top Bond movie of the era is Goldfinger.
Of course Ursula Andress makes Dr. No a definite must see and if you can't see it then The Rued Morgue has the rundown. Something I didn't know...
The search for an actor to play Bond led Broccoli and Saltzman to consider a number of choices, including Cary Grant (Broccoli decided against him because he wanted an actor that would become part of the series and Grant would have likely been a one time deal) as well as Roger Moore, who was tied up at the time with The Saint. Sean Connery was an up and comer, having worked with Terence Young in Action of the Tiger (1957). Broccoli was impressed with him in Disney’s Darby O’Gill (1959) and he landed the part. It is hard to think of an actor, including Moore, who could have more firmly established the character as quickly and fully as Connery did.
When it comes to the American League West this writer pulls for the Oakland A's. I most definitely was one of those who fell hard for the Michael Lewis classic Moneyball. His portrayal of the A's as a finely tuned, low-budget organization that was constantly striving to get out in front of the other twenty-nine teams by finding baseball's next market inefficiency was intellectually captivating.
Two other teams in the division come in a close second when it comes to likability and interest factor. Much like the A's, the Angels of Anaheim are an organization that puts a premium on maintaining consistent organizational principles for the type of game they want their players to play. What makes both of these teams being in the same division so interesting is that their offensive principles are so different. The A's preach station to station basepath movement, high at-bat pitch counts and high on-base percentages. Angel players are taught to be aggressive on the basepaths, use their at-bats to move runners along early in the count and get on base through base hits rather than walks.
My other team of interest, the Texas Rangers, thought they'd have a shot at competing in the West this year but fell flat out of the gate. Under new manager Ron Washington the Rangers have stumbled to the second worst record in the American League this season. My interest in them started at the beginning of the season when Washington was hired as their manager. He's one of baseball's true good guys, a great teacher of the game and someone who had to wait well into his 50's to get his first managerial job. Add in that he came over to the Rangers from the Moneyball A's and things just got a little more interesting.
As third base coach for the A's throughout the late 90's up through the 2006 season, one of the indelible memories I have of going to Camden Yards was Cal Ripken playing third base and chatting up Washington between innings during infield warm-ups. More than any pitcher mound conference or umpire-manager argument, the Ripken-Washington chatter is the one thing I wish I could've heard on a major league baseball diamond in all my years watching the game. Two baseball lifers talking about the intricacies of the game. Or maybe they were talking about investments or women. Who knows, but it would've been cool no matter what the chatter was about. (Just recently I read that it was Washington who was sent in to replace Ripken in the 1987 game that stopped his mega innings played streak at somewhere around 8,200 innings.)
So I'm a Ron Washington rooter. As the Rangers sputtered to start the '07 season the machinations to start building the farm system were getting in gear and this summer a bevy of prospects have come to the Rangers organization through the channels of three separate trades. The biggest one, of course, being the trade that sent Mark Teixeira to the Braves for three minor league prospects.
This brings me to my second reason for finding the Rangers interesting. Jamey Newberg has a MLBlog named the Newberg Report. It's a prolific blog on the Rangers that is so detailed and interesting a read that I've found myself following this sputtering organization on a near daily basis. Newberg's passion comes through on the pages of his blog due more to the thought and effort he places into his knowledge of the organization than any homerism that so many team-centric blogs descend into. I have yet to read another baseball blog where you can find this level of daily excellence.
In Newberg's August 4th installment he delves into the vastly improved Rangers farm system. It's a farm system that can give Ranger fans great hope for the future. He starts by noting that Jim Callis of Baseball America estimates that the Rangers have moved from their pre-season ranking of the 28th best farm system in the game to approximately middle of the pack or a touch better than that today. That's a remarkable improvement in six months.
I just hope that Washington gets the chance to guide the Rangers through the next few years as these prospects filter onto the big club.
From Strange Maps comes a map estimating the various territories of Major League Baseball team fandom.
Interestingly, the White Sox/Cub territories accurately portray how I perceived Chicago baseball loyalties when I went to school in Iowa.
On Sunday my team's last baseball game of the year was rained out. We finished with a record of 7-10 this year. That's a nice improvement over the 2-16 travesty of 2005 and the little improved 4-14 record of 2006. With three team's dominating the 12 team over 30 league I'm a member of, our 7-10 record placed us 5th best overall. That is quite the accomplishment.
After a fall and winter full of workouts during the '06/'07 off-season many of us had made eight wins as a team our goal for '07. With our last game being rained out we didn't have a chance at that but we all had a chance to attempt to reach our hitting goals. After hitting .400 in 2006 but with only a .467 slugging percentage, my 2007 goal was to maintain my high average but produce more doubles so I could raise my slugging percentage. I also had the goal of hitting one home run out of the park.
Unfortunately, my hitting results were dreadful. I finished the year with a .229 batting average and a .257 slugging percentage! Such paucity of power is simply amazing for a 6'3'' 210 pounder who lifted weights during the off-season. I hit one double all year -- in the first game on April 14th. Every other hit (and there were only seven others) were singles. This off-season I will be hitting the batting cages by myself more often so I can develop a repeatable swing that I don't have to think about when I'm batting. I'm also going to read some hitting books and maybe even buy a hitting video or two. My knowledge on the subject is sparse but I think I really need to work on transferring my weight and doing it at the right time during my swing.
The hitting troubles this year were puzzling to me since this is probably the first year that I've ever played baseball where I had virtually no fear of getting hit by a pitch when I was at bat. Perhaps I was too comfortable and lazy at the dish.
On defense I played every position but second and short. In the first game of the year I played third for four innings -- a position I'd last played as an eight year old in pickup games in my neighborhood. I was then shuttled to first (my favorite and natural position) and center over the next two games.
In the fourth game of the season I was thrown behind the plate. I had never caught before and I became enamored with the position very quickly. Due to my past umpiring experience I felt very relaxed catching and while I was poor and throwing out runners -- everyone who ran on me made it -- I did prove to be adept at snagging errant one-bounce throws by my pitchers.
From May 20th through June 2nd I caught three straight games in their entirety. While it was great fun and I felt more involved than ever in the flow of the game my knees were feeling very creaky and my recovery time after games was getting longer and longer. There was also a clicking sound in one of knees that I started to hear. Visions of me as a forty year-old with crotchety knees and being forced to play a statue in right field got me nervous and I split time behind the plate with a teammate for the rest of the year. My knees quickly recovered.
It appears that this year's off-season will be just as active as it was last year. At least ten guys on our fifteen man team can be counted on to show up to practice at least once a month during the off-season. Then we'll all start up again for real in April. And maybe we'll shoot for double digit wins in '08.
