mauichuck, recovering nicely
Small interruption for some off-topic, real-life stuff here.
Some of you may know that Chuck is in Columbus this month for heart surgery. I just talked to him, and he's doing fine and recovering well. Mario, Chuck said in case you wanted to know, it was an aortic valve replacement.
He says after another three weeks of R&R, he should be more healthy overall than he's been in several years. Of course, that's just a projection, and we know what Chuck thinks of those. Personally, I can't see how being in Columbus for a few weeks could possibly be good for anyone's health, but what the hell, at least it's not Cincinnati.
I know a number of folks here knew about the surgery, so I just thought folks would like to know he's doing just fine. I expect he'll find the strength to check in here himself in the next few days. In the meantime, feel free to write some corny note, or if you prefer, you can just post images on the topic of "heart."
1 recs |
242 comments
Comments
if this was your excuse for not paying me the two six-packs on our bet, well…hats off to you my friend. Hope the recovery goes well.
by APV on
Oct 9, 2008 10:17 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
May your heart be as healthy as Travis Hafner’s bank account, Chuck.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 9, 2008 10:26 PM EDT
reply
actions
5 recs
Hey Chuck,
Have a complete and speedy recovery!
(And yes, that’s my 2 cents, and then some! :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on
Oct 9, 2008 10:35 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Hurry back. Venerable wisdom now in short supply.
by odradek on
Oct 9, 2008 10:35 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Hope the recovery goes well. Have someone bring you some Jeni’s Ice Cream, one of the better things Columbus has to offer.
by ClarkM on
Oct 9, 2008 10:59 PM EDT
reply
actions
1 recs
Here’s hoping you’re back on your feet in no time, Chuck.
by elsandito on
Oct 9, 2008 11:09 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
there once was a site
the folks talked about beer
chuck was their inspirational figure
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Oct 9, 2008 11:15 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t think it’s fair I can only rec this once.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 10, 2008 10:30 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chuck, is recovering from heart surgery or waking up and realizing you are in Columbus more difficult? Get well soon.
by fwembt on
Oct 10, 2008 1:35 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Lotta heart in Chuck.
Best wishes for a rapid and full recovery. Um, how long ’til you can drink beer again??
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on
Oct 10, 2008 1:45 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Get better Chuck! We need the big guy healthy for our run to the title next season
by Roger Dorn on
Oct 10, 2008 7:57 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Order that man some plavix and coumadin.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 10, 2008 9:08 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Thank God I don’t hafta take coumadin – they gave me a valve constructed outta bovine pericardium, not a metal one. What with the anit-coagulants and all that clanking I wouldda been even crankier than normal. And Buckeye Brad, I had it done across the street from the rehab center at Ross Hall. Had an up and coming Korean dude do the work – kinda the SS Choo of thoracic surgery.
Thanks for all of the well wishes guys, this is truly a unique place. And like Jay says, now that my cross sectional aortic outlet area is 25 mm instead of less than 8mm I’ll be better than ever. My doc promises me 10km times of less than 45 minutes a year from now. Now if only we could find a surgical procedure to get Hafner back to Pronk…………..
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 11, 2008 8:38 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The phrase “SS Choo” is awesome.
Hope you’re 100% soon Chuck.
by afh4 on
Oct 11, 2008 12:40 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not to mention that your legs won’t be blue.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 13, 2008 9:31 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Totally not a political or industry comment. Actually, coumadin generally makes people bleed internally enough that their blood can pool in their legs, making them appear blue. My personal feeling is that coumadin isn’t a great medication. It requires a ton of monitoring as well to ensure the correct INR (a measure of anticoagulant efficacy). There are new medications on the way that I ultimately believe will be so much better than coumadin that they will quickly gain a huge foothold of the market for outpatients needing an anticoagulant.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 14, 2008 9:59 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is that an area of interest for you, Erik? It is in my family — my mom and I have a genetic mutation that makes our blood clot too easily. I’m with you, about Coumadin — you’re not mentioning the mood swings, by the way.
Anyway, this isn’t the place for it, but I’d be interested to know what meds you’re referring to.
by fleerdon on
Oct 14, 2008 11:25 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Drop me an email, help may be on the way, but perhaps not right away. The first new indications for rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (no trade name yet) or dabigatran (Pradax) will probably be in deep vein thrombosis, atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndromes. But I’d be happy to give you a little background in what the clinical trials look like in the near future.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 14, 2008 4:04 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would gladly, though I’m short your email address. Could you ping me with it? I’m tylerpatrick at gmail dot com.
by fleerdon on
Oct 14, 2008 4:57 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Coumadin was first developed as a rat poison at the University of Wisconsin animal laboratories and called warfan – it’s some kinda anagram for UofW. It interfers with the synthesis of one of the coagulation cascade enzymes and can easily be reversed with Vitamin K. Internal bleeding with coumadin is relatively rare, but with severe consequences. Coumadin inter reacts with aspirin making taking the two in combination very, very dangerous.
The mechanical aortic valve replacements require coumadin therapy to protect against blood clotting on the metal valve surfaces and subsequent cerebral stroke. Since my valve is made of organic material I do not have the clotting risks. However, the life expectancy of my valve is ~10-15 years, whereas the the metal valves have considerably longer life expectancy. So, I’ll hafta do this again in ~10-15 years.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 14, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Coumadin also has significant drug-food interactions. I didn’t mean to suggest rampant Internal bleeding, but it does cause the blood to pool in legs. Nasty med.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 15, 2008 11:17 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m glad everything went well, Chuck. I spent more time at that hospital this past year than I every hoped to spend, but they treated me really well. I’m lucky to be in Columbus and close to so many great doctors. It’s not an exaggeration to say that had I been sent somewhere else after my accident, I might not be alive today. I’m sure you were in the hands of the best doctors — what else would you expect at The OSU?
I’m probably going back there in December for surgery #12 (and possibly also #13). Depending on how those go, I may be done. Woo-hoo! Too bad yours wasn’t a couple months later, maybe we could have shared a room and talked Indians baseball all day.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on
Oct 14, 2008 8:51 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Although not nearly as involved as either of your experiences, I watched what I could of ALCS Game 2 from a hospital bed in the middle of a hall while waiting to get an appendectomy.
by Voltaire on
Oct 14, 2008 11:21 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good luck with the recovery, Chuck. I guess it’s good news for your heart that the Yankees aren’t in the playoffs.
by cleveland teamer on
Oct 10, 2008 9:19 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Right now, Chuck is probably thinking it would have been better to be a lawyer – them being heartless and all.
Best wishes and get well soon!
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 10, 2008 9:40 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Get them to install some more grit in there while they’re at it.
Get well soon, big guy.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Oct 10, 2008 9:44 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Wow – after all the time that Chuck has spent running down our little burg, he comes here for heart surgery. I guess that’s why they call Ohio the heart of it all.
Best wishes and try not to let Columbus get to you too much.
by woodsmeister on
Oct 10, 2008 9:57 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Chuck, I know a, more than I understand, brilliant kinesiologist I can recommend for your recovery.
by Brick. on
Oct 10, 2008 10:02 AM EDT
reply
actions
5 recs
Here’s to a speedy and full recovery, Chuck.
by DaytonDogg on
Oct 10, 2008 10:16 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Turk, you could probably use these as hand towels.
by Brick. on
Oct 10, 2008 10:39 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You mean, specifically, a Chuck-sized version of them?
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Oct 10, 2008 3:15 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Get well Chuck!
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on
Oct 10, 2008 10:45 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Chuck, you’re a legend around here.

I made this hastily. I figured I could do this or put your face on Woody Hayes.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 10, 2008 10:52 AM EDT
reply
actions
6 recs
I will lead the charge to turn this green.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 10, 2008 11:03 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right behind you!
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 10, 2008 11:06 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I am surprised that this doesn’t have more faces replaced though.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 10, 2008 11:09 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I didn’t feel like searching through all the old posts for actual pictures. I could have done the muppets, though, if you feel left out.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 10, 2008 11:18 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is just impossible to work with. You’re wearing a Michigan hat (that’s not getting in), and Jay’s face is covered by Turk’s big straw man head and Jay’s own pensive hand.
If anyone with a good Photoshop hand wants to work their magic (and fix up my original in the process), have at it hoss.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 10, 2008 11:38 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Turk’s big straw man head
Remind me of the last time you saw a straw man with a beard that righteous
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Oct 10, 2008 3:17 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I dunno, but Medicine works all kinda miracles these days

by jhon on
Oct 10, 2008 7:29 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
why do old threads always make us look like we love the subject line?
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on
Oct 10, 2008 9:21 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is so awesome
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Oct 10, 2008 3:15 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
best wishes chuck … we miss the old ornery commentary from the (whatever italian slang term comes to mind) old coot.
peace!
by talonk on
Oct 10, 2008 11:12 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Don’t get well “soon”, Chuck. Get well NOW!!!!!!!
by Nat on
Oct 10, 2008 12:49 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You better get well soon Chuck, there’s kids all over your lawn!
by mrich on
Oct 10, 2008 12:49 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Get well soon, Chuck. Us young whippersnappers need a good talking to.
by painaxl on
Oct 10, 2008 1:29 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
My shoes are on in the house and I’ve left the door open with the heat on.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 10, 2008 1:36 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I haven’t turned out any of the lights in rooms I’ve left.
by Voltaire on
Oct 10, 2008 2:14 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the WWII generation consists of a bunch of wussies.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 10, 2008 2:23 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This thread is horrifying.
Hard truth: Your eyes lie.
by AngG on
Oct 10, 2008 2:30 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You guys ever try to pay your dad for the extra electricity? I got to the point where I’d hand him a five dollar bill when I walked in the door for the weekend. Not well received.
by Jay on
Oct 12, 2008 9:31 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t think I ever thought of that, but I recall it getting to a point annually where we’d all offer to pitch in for air conditioning. It would take something like that to get it turned on at all.
In the last several years the routine denial of comforts such lighting, climate control, liberal use of water and so on has taken on an environmentalist dimension, but it is my recollection that all of this started out as denial for basic savings and perhaps also for denial’s sake.
At the moment I design big, comfortable houses with two-zone HVAC systems, hot-water on demand, directional lighting—-you name it. I have to resist the urge to run through these spaces and turn off all the damned lights.
Channeling Chuck here:
It’s funny, because the regular design motif growing up was “in progress”. Years and years of exposed insulation, plywood suspended punching bags. At one point we had a Rotweiler. I’ve seen Great Rooms that are larger than my childhood home.
What was I saying? Kids these days…
by jhon on
Oct 13, 2008 1:24 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But realistically, our reckless use of light bulbs, even in mansions, is not a material part of our overall energy consumption and accompanying crisis. I mean, it’s not an engine, it’s not a fridge, it’s not even an amplifier.
by Jay on
Oct 13, 2008 8:14 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hey, it’s something related to my day job. The numbers fluctuate, but in 2007, the residential sector was about 20% of total consumption, and lighting was about 12% of that. Heating in its various forms is four times more energy intensive than lighting, so when Chuck yells at you to turn down the heat and wear a damn sweater you wusses, that makes more sense.
by FredOx on
Oct 14, 2008 12:01 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So we’re talking about 2.4% of total consumption? Does that include cars?
by Jay on
Oct 14, 2008 11:05 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There are four end-use sectors classified by the EIA, of which transportation is its own sector. The numbers for 2007:
Residential 21.4%
Commercial 18.1%
Industrial 31.8%
Transportation 28.6%
Fifty years ago, the industrial sector constituted nearly half – 48% – of US energy consumption – over time, it has gone down and everything else has gone up. Twenty-five years ago, transportation was 26% and residential 21.2%. Here’s the relevant table from the most recent EIA report.
by FredOx on
Oct 14, 2008 11:28 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hasn’t industrial consumption gone down because we don’t have any industry anymore?
by odradek on
Oct 14, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There’s at least two factors at work there. Most important is a decline in industrial production. Less important but still relevant is an increase in industrial efficiency.
by FredOx on
Oct 14, 2008 3:05 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Which are the most efficient sectors of the economy?
To what extent are the profits of this efficiency reinvested across different industries? Does it correspond with job and wage growth evenly, or are some industries “better” than others?
by jhon on
Oct 14, 2008 3:36 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You’re now moving beyond my areas of expertise (I’m a regulatory lawyer), although the economists I work with would have a lot to say on the subject. I just know that many industrial processes use less energy than they used to – steel is a perfect example.
by FredOx on
Oct 14, 2008 9:42 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So I suppose you wont be turning off all the lights in Casa Levin during Game 4 of the ALCS like Anderson Cooper seems to urging us to do.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 14, 2008 2:03 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, well I got solar heating in all of my houses in Hawaii. They’re do efficient they’ve got pressure release valves that often pop off because the water in the solar heater’s been turned into steam. I’m planning on installing a coupla wind turbines – I might actually end up selling power to the power company.
So I guess I’m a New Age old foggy – either conserve energy or make your own!
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 13, 2008 8:33 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Support Ohio’s economy! Use glass solar!
by fleerdon on
Oct 14, 2008 11:25 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just about every house in Maui has a main house and an ohana. Ohana is Hawaiian for family, but in this case refers to the cottage or ohana next to the main house. So yeah, just like about every other home owner in Maui I got more than one house.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 16, 2008 5:53 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I took a spade to your front lawn. Wait until you see it!
by odradek on
Oct 11, 2008 2:51 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Get well soon, Chuck! What will I do without my nemesis?
Hard truth: Your eyes lie.
by AngG on
Oct 10, 2008 2:28 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Chuck got one of them newfangled Aortic Valve thingies? Might as well replace the camshaft while he’s at it.
Chuck, I burned a Yankee cap in your honor, man.
by LeftyCatcher on
Oct 10, 2008 4:28 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
God watch over a speedy recovery. Get Well soon. Additional generic well wishing comment.
Fingers crossed, but breathing normally
by Chief WaDrew on
Oct 10, 2008 4:50 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I picture Chuck coming out of this kind of like the Six Million Dollar Man. Stronger, faster, a better gambler…
by hans on
Oct 10, 2008 5:09 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Well Chuck I’m sure you’ll be proud of the fact that I didn’t even see this post until now since I was actually focusing on my patients last night.
Best wishes my friend.
by supermarioelia on
Oct 10, 2008 5:46 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Chuckster, if our battles over LeBron and his choice in lid had anything to do with this… I take nothing back.
Get well soon!
by JulioBernazard on
Oct 10, 2008 7:08 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
CC in the playoffs is without 
(get well soon)
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on
Oct 10, 2008 9:23 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Get well soon, Chuck…one day at a time.
by Tribe Fan Matt on
Oct 11, 2008 4:50 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Hang in there Chuck! Hope you’re released back into the general population again soon…
by Seattle Tribe Fan on
Oct 11, 2008 6:19 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I echo all of the sentiments expressed upthread. I also give you this gratuitous shot of Danielle Peck.

by fleerdon on
Oct 11, 2008 11:41 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Dammit. Another reference to a person I’ve never heard of.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 13, 2008 9:33 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How soon we forget.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 13, 2008 10:48 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I still had to look it up, but I do remember now. Thanks wikipedia!
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 14, 2008 4:12 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Look “it” up. Excuse me?
Heh heh. Girls like this one would throw that in your face so fast…
by jhon on
Oct 14, 2008 4:18 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“It”, meaning the reference.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 14, 2008 4:26 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have to say, Chuck, you’ve inspired one of the stranger and more interesting Fanposts in awhile. Everything from amusing cartoon characters, to experimental anti-coagulant pharmacology, to domestic energy consumption….
by APV on
Oct 14, 2008 9:01 PM EDT
reply
actions
1 recs
That’s our Chuck – old, crotchety, but well-rounded.
by FredOx on
Oct 14, 2008 9:43 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This has turned into a real nerd-on.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 14, 2008 10:27 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It’s too bad the coin-flip probability analysis from the NLCS thread didn’t happen here. Nerdgasm.
by FredOx on
Oct 15, 2008 9:38 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is there really evidence that the topics in this thread are significantly more numerous and variable than expected by a Hierarchical Chinese Restaurant Process model of topic distribution? We could find out using the following analysis……
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 15, 2008 7:19 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
(and yes, there really is something called a Chinese Restaurant Process — it’s like a really complicated coin flip if the coin had an infinite number of sides and…lots of other stuff)
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 15, 2008 7:21 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
When I hear Chinese restaurant, I think “Seinfeld, four.”
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on
Oct 15, 2008 8:12 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Cartwright.”
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 16, 2008 1:02 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We present the nested Chinese restaurant process (nCRP), a stochastic process which assigns probability distributions to infinitely-deep, infinitely-branching trees. We show how this stochastic process can be used as a prior distribution in a nonparametric Bayesian model of document collections. Specifically, we present an application to information retrieval in which documents are modeled as paths down a random tree, and the preferential attachment dynamics of the nCRP leads to clustering of documents according to sharing of topics at multiple levels of abstraction. Given a corpus of documents, a posterior inference algorithm finds an approximation to a posterior distribution over trees, topics and allocations of words to levels of the tree. We demonstrate this algorithm on several collections of scientific abstracts. This model exemplifies a recent trend in statistical machine learning—the use of nonparametric Bayesian methods to infer distributions on flexible data structures.
The nested Chinese restaurant process and hierarchical topic models
by FredOx on
Oct 15, 2008 10:53 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs

It’s kinda like the Kama Sutra.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 15, 2008 11:15 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Compu Sutra?
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 16, 2008 1:04 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I was going to make a comment about how “Sarcastic Nerdgasm” would be a really awful name for a band, but that would have denied me the present apophasis…
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 16, 2008 3:02 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is it awkward that I have an undying hatred of nerds?
by joeee on
Oct 16, 2008 6:01 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs

I generally prefer “geek,” but “nerd” is better than “dork.”
by FredOx on
Oct 16, 2008 7:07 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s what keeps most of us coming back, ie, the knowledge that the site is basically populated by baseball nerds, who happen to be ready to nerd-up on their other topics of expertise when called upon.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 15, 2008 11:19 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you know what keeps me coming back?
chicken butt.
by Brick. on
Oct 15, 2008 12:04 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ve been meaning to take issue with this.
I am not here for the nerdery, except as an expression of Indians mania and baseball mania.
Am I willing to get my nerd on in an attempt to reach an understanding of or make some point about baseball? Yes.
Do I enjoy that others are ready to go there, too, because I’m not the only one who is hopelessly obsessed? Yes — definitely yes.
Do I enjoy the fact that it turns out that those others-equally-obsessed can also “go deep” on other subjects not related to baseball — definitely yes, and it makes all the sense in the world when you think about it.
Do I enjoy the nerdery for its own sake? Absolutely not. It annoys me, like the guy at the meeting who’s always trying to demonstrate superior knowledge of Robert’s Rules of Order. It’s the conversational equivalent of really bad prog-rock, lots of self-conscious “complexity” and preening display of “chops,” never mind the fact that thousands of other people could construct equally un-lovely and complicated music and play it just as accurately if not moreso. (Or as my big brother once put it, “Who do these bands think they’re kidding? Have they heard Beethoven?”)
In terms of off-topic references, it gets dull. In terms of the baseball talk, at some point, the forest is definitely lost for the trees. Obviously I’m not an extremist like Chuck, who basically thinks that all projections and nearly all statistics are totally pointless, but I do think that too often the great words of Bill James are not heeded around here:
We all know many things and many different types of things which are not reflected in the statistical record. Acknowledging this, a good statistical analyst is sometimes able to reach out and draw areas of the game which were previously undocumented inside the tent, inside the focus of the statistical record. The bad statistical analyst, on the other hand, will assume that what the statistical record tells him must be true and complete — and by making that assumption, will forfeit his ability to add anything significant to the record.
Baseball statistics are interesting not because they answer questions for us, but because they may be used to study issues. The value of baseball statistics in identifying the greatest players is not that they answer all of the questions involved, but they provide definitive answers to some of the questions involved, which enables us to focus on the others.
This is about the most intelligent bunch of people I’ve seen assembled on one sports forum, but let’s be honest, there is no real statistical research being done here — we are not generally going to “add anything significant to the record” in terms of statistics. What we can do, however, is recognize that there are limits to what the statistics tell us, and limits as to what any given statistical method will tell us, because this is baseball, and because we all know many things and many different types of things which are not reflected in the statistical record.
I would submit to you that this the true, objectivist view, and expecting to find all the answers within one of our little threads is not realistic. You want to make a statistical breakthrough, go off and write a serious paper, then come back and present it here. Otherwise, let’s go through whatever stats we’ve already got, discuss it to death like normal fans, and sit back and enjoy the games.
So in sum:
- Lots of passionate, knowledgeable fans = good.
- Smart people not being afraid to show it in conversation = good.
- People who stray off-topic into interesting territory = good.
- People who think they’re going to “crack the code” over the course of tonight’s game thread = not as smart as they think.
- People who go ten miles off-topic and apparently are only posting to show how much they know about something that isn’t even baseball-related = annoying.
- People who get nerdy about the things that genuinely excite them = good.
- People who get nerdy to show how smart they allegedly are = should be shot.
I may or may not be the geek-in-chief around here, but either way, that’s the way I see it.
by Jay on
Oct 16, 2008 7:20 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Damn, Jay, what a nerdy post.
Also, paragraph four: “others-equally-obsessed” does not need to be hyphenated.
by odradek on
Oct 16, 2008 7:33 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Scoolmarm.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 16, 2008 7:33 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It may or may not need hyphenation, but it’s better writing with the hyphenation.
by Jay on
Oct 16, 2008 7:37 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Them’s fighting words. Back in the days at the copy desk, people would duke it out over hyphens. Compound hyphenation + whiskey = trouble.
by odradek on
Oct 16, 2008 7:45 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You have to remember that although I know well over a dozen pro writers, my only experience actually working as a pro writer was with Scott Raab, and I am absolutely certain that in this situation, Scott would tell the copy editors to go F themselves.
by Jay on
Oct 16, 2008 8:14 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He’s got the personality of Chuck, if that helps.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 17, 2008 9:26 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The sunken-chested (pectus excavatum) chain-smoking guys with thick glasses are easy to beat up. (It’s like hitting an empty cardboard box.) But eventually they get revenge and poison your copy and make your life miserable when they allow mistakes to go through. Copy desk guys, in my experience, would not be intimidated by Chuck but would be impressed by his extensive knowledge of brooccolinese. They would view his contrariness as a kindred condition.
by odradek on
Oct 17, 2008 9:51 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just curious — where/when did you work in media? Are you still in that sector?
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Oct 17, 2008 11:31 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ve worked (and still do) in journalism since about 1978.
by odradek on
Oct 17, 2008 4:39 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ve been seriously considering a journalism career. I’d love to chat sometime.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Oct 17, 2008 5:03 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Everybody says it’s a dead-end business. You can email me at lfroehlich@speakeasy.net and i will be glad to talk.
by odradek on
Oct 17, 2008 5:46 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m not an extremist like Chuck, who basically thinks that all projections and nearly all statistics are totally pointless
Is this really the way I come off? Cuz I do think that statistics and projections have a place in analyzing baseball – they’re just not the be all and end all. I won’t bore you with my bona fides, but let’s just say that I have more than a little formal training in applying statistics to human performance and I recognize their limitations. In the end a projection system is only as good as its track record – just like a GM’s management scheme. Shapiro’s scheme which, I’m told, relies heavily on stats has shown to be good but with some serious flaws. I think Shap’s record is a reasonable example for measuring the use and accuracy of statistics in evaluating players – were I think it is the best tool and projecting their future performance – where I believe it is highly flawed.
Anyway, rave on boyz, the conversation is keeping me distracted while I recover.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 16, 2008 7:33 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
First, yes, that is absolutely how you come off.
Second, I know all about your bona fides, which are better than mine, and that’s why Holly Hunter is marrying you and telling my six daughters that I’m dead.
Third, I think it’s a fallacy to think of Shapiro’s scheme as statistically oriented, or rather, it’s over-simplified to the point of being fallacious. His scheme his based on gathering huge amounts of data and doing everything possible understand it as decisions are made. That includes not just an advanced statistical approach but also demographic and psychological proflilng, and a major emphasis on standardizing the way that all evaluators (scouts and coaches and special assistants) talk about things and grade players. This could be as simple as sticking with the 20-80 system but just making sure that everyone means the same thing when they mark down a “40,” and I think it has a lot to do with just standardizing the jargon.
Which means, simply, that Shapiro’s methods can’t be broken down by evaluating his statistical evaluation — which no doubt is best-of-breed but still limited. The key thing is realizing that Shapiro understands those limits and is working with a lot more information than mere baseball stats.
by Jay on
Oct 16, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I still need an explanation as to why in the name of CC “Cy” Slapnicka he signed Travis Hafner to the largest contract in the history of the organization when Hafner was in a serious – and it looks like irreversible – nose dive. Take away that galactically stupid signing and Shap’s tenure looks pretty decent.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 16, 2008 9:51 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I still need to actually bother to read an explanation as to why …
Fixed.
Dead topic.
by Jay on
Oct 16, 2008 11:42 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s sure was easy, no? The real answer is there is no good reason. Bill Bavasi never did anything as boneheaded as signing Hafner for $54M.
Try this: Mark Shapiro is just not that smart.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 17, 2008 3:07 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Epic fail going on here. You’re just the last one to know.
by Jay on
Oct 17, 2008 4:14 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also: Is there such a thing as good prog rock?
by odradek on
Oct 16, 2008 7:48 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Some Pink Floyd has to be considered Prog, and it totally rocks
by Roger Dorn on
Oct 17, 2008 5:59 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I am going to start rec’ing this. Just letting y’all know.
by Voltaire on
Oct 16, 2008 10:22 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
am i the only one who secretly worries that jay is directing this at them?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Oct 16, 2008 8:32 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
nope…
I definitely get the sense that Jay is bizarrely irritated about the coin-flip / momentum discussion, for one, although it’s obviously a broader diatribe (lowercase “d” and "t") than that.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 17, 2008 12:08 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You make many good points, but I would make some observations:
(1) The geek quotient increased exponentially when the season ended. Come February 12, 2009, it’ll be all ShopBlast! and Door #2! and KKKKKliff! all over again.
(2) I for one revel in my geekiness not to show how smart I am but to say “wow, what a life I do not have.” It’s self-deprecating, not self-aggrandizing.
(3) We also talk about beer. It’s Wailua Wheat for me tonight.
by FredOx on
Oct 16, 2008 9:26 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
GLBC Octoberfest. Only got three left.
by Brick. on
Oct 16, 2008 9:32 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nowhere to buy GLBC in Richmond. I miss Louisville and Liquor Barn.
by FredOx on
Oct 16, 2008 9:49 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you’re self-aggrandizing.
I think the way you self-aggrandize is by showing everyone how much more self-deprecating you are than everyone else.
by Jay on
Oct 16, 2008 11:44 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
One assumes this is a facetious comment — as always, it’s hard to tell, but it doesn’t actually make sense otherwise
I’m proud to say I’m probably the most modest guy around.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 17, 2008 12:15 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think this is exactly right. I was just recently thinking about how much nerdier my comments have gottten, and wondered if there was a reason — but I think the best explanation is that there’s no Indians baseball to talk about.
And attempts at self-deprecation are often missed, I think. For partly the same reason that it’s hard to be sarcastic online, or really do anything subtle, unless you’re intimately familiar with the people you’re talking to: a lot of that subtlety is usually conveyed in things like tone, in spoken conversation.
Beer. Absolutely. Not drinking tonight, but I had a yummy Indica IPA the other night.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 17, 2008 12:12 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We should have a vote to see who is smartest.
by afh4 on
Oct 16, 2008 10:08 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, you’re right. But he has potential.
by odradek on
Oct 17, 2008 12:02 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He’s the most projectable among us! We should draft him in the first round!
by Voltaire on
Oct 18, 2008 7:23 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I suppose you flipped a coin to determine whether or not to respond to my post then?
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
Oct 16, 2008 10:48 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It’s relatively hard to argue against your actual value judgments here. Nobody likes it when someone is just trying to show how smart they are, with no other purpose to their comments. That being said, I think you’re being pretty uncharitable in attributing that motivation to people (though of course it’s hard to make a specific case since you’re making a fairly generic proclamation here and not taking issue with anything specific). Of course people show off just to show off sometimes, but I really haven’t found it to be that common in this community. I think there are comments to which that motivation could be attributed, but it seems to me that it takes not only a lack of benefit-of-the-doubt-giving (sorry for that hyphenation, odradek), but a bit of active effort to assign the least favorable motivation you can come up with.
In an environment where it’s notoriously difficult to pick up on tone and nuance — between someone being a genuine dick and someone just giving a hard time — between arrogance and something that just looks like it — I try to assume innocent motives unless I have a strong reason to do otherwise. It seems to me, in my admittedly short time here, that you tend to do the opposite, and I’m not sure why. It’s entirely possible that I’m misreading you, too, but that’s my impression.
Again, your rant is pretty broad, and it’s not unambiguous where it’s directed, but I doubt I’m too far off in assuming that the section about statistics is at least partly inspired by our recent conversation about statistical inference using coin flip models and so forth. To the extent that it is, I don’t think that the sort of efforts you and Mr. James criticize are really remotely characteristic of what I was doing in that thread. I neither “assume that … the statistical record [is] true and complete”, nor have I been trying to “add anything significant to the statistical record” or make any breakthroughs, which I think I was pretty clear about. I’ll leave it at that for now, in case I’m being presumptuous in thinking you’re referring in part to that conversation.
Oh, and “nerdery for its own sake” is fun sometimes, when divorced from merely showing off. The two aren’t the same.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 17, 2008 7:06 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For what it is worth, I don’t believe there is much showing-off going on here. I’ve been challenged to learn things I had no previous understanding of—from your reference to Chinese Restaurant Process to Hans’ psychological models to Jay’s rigorous view of contracts (among other things). This is part of the fun. Nor have I found too much jerk or arrogant behavior. If I did I wouldn’t bother reading or posting.
That said, it’s all part of the rough and tumble. I like that about this site: Your assertions get challenged. You get called out for your statements, and it’s your responsibility to question others. You get knocked around sometimes. Jay ruffles feathers, but one is apparently permitted to ruffle back.
I, for one, have every intention of using the Bill James quote the next time I mix it up with Jay over what I deem to be his reductionist view of baseball. The next time Jay calls me out for being too touchy-feely about the game (or the next time I talk about psychology or process) I will have this ammunition.
I say keep up the good work, Logodaedalus. If people don’t want to read about stochastic processes they don’t have to. Reading here has forced me to rethink a lot about what I presumed I knew about baseball. It makes me enjoy the game more, which is saying a lot.
People who go ten miles off-topic and apparently are only posting to show how much they know about something that isn’t even baseball-related = annoying.
For me, this is a comment about Star Wars or Star Trek, nothing more.
by odradek on
Oct 17, 2008 8:44 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Reductionist, eh? Looking forward to parsing that. I think.
I think there is a common sense test. I try to take what we know about stats and read them truthfully. That becomes the starting point for a lot of observations, but it should not be the end point. Sometimes, there’s the reverse, where you have an informal observation and the stats become your reality check.
PECOTA is really interesting in a reality check sense, because it presents a range of possibilities with percentiles attached, and that allows you to rate the objective outrageousness of a subjective judgment. There’s a pretty big difference between confidently predicting a performance level where PECOTA is saying it’s 75º, or 25º, as compared with predicting a level that comes in under 10º or over 90º.
I side with Chuck in many ways with respect to recognizing the limits of what the stats tell us. Where he and I differ is that he’s willing to ignore completely what the stats are telling us, just so he can make whatever crazy-ass claim he feels like making this week, which generally is that Garko is going to be a top-tier first baseman.
by Jay on
Oct 18, 2008 12:39 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The rant was not directed at you, but to the extent that your posts in part influenced it, it was moreso your off-topic stuff than the coin-flip statistics. As far as the coin-flip stuff, anybody can learn formulas, but somebody who really understands applied probability knows that there’s little point studying empirically an event that only happens about one time per year, i.e., a 3-1 lead in a best-of-seven major league baseball contest. At that point, to continue hitting the formulas over and over again really only demonstrates that the formulas are all you’ve got.
This seems like a good moment to trot out one of my all-time favorite movie quotes: “Logic is the beginning of all wisdom, but not the end of it.” That, of course, is Spock from Star Trek VI.
Back to the main point. Erik posited that people like coming here because there’s a bunch of nerds running around. I disagree with that. I don’t personally enjoy the hyper-nerdery, and I don’t think the great majority of our 200-ish active users enjoy it, and I don’t think our many thousands of everyday readers enjoy it. I think it’s the work of a small but verbose segment of our most active users, and I think very few people enjoy it. It is, if you will, the attempt of proudly uncool people to don a cloak of coolness of a different fabric, if you will.
And my intent, really, was just to point that out, to provide a little counterpoint. It is cool to be a total geek about baseball, and absolutely, let this be one of the few places where you can use your brain, where you don’t have to dumb down what you’re saying to anyone else. Beyond that, though, nerdy is just … nerdy.
(Cue the SNL sketch with Shatner at the Trek convention …)
by Jay on
Oct 18, 2008 12:53 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A 3-1 lead in a best-of-seven major league baseball contest.
I agree that formulas don’t help much here. But what’s your hunch for Tampa-Boston tomorrow? How did you feel about the Indians last year when they had a day off after going up 3-1? My intuition was that the day off hurt the Tribe, and will hurt the Rays. And even though I hoped C.C. would pitch well I had a bad feeling when Hafner grounded into the double play in the first. By a bad feeling I mean something beyond the usual low-level sickness and dread of being an Indians fan. I had a sinking feeling that it was going to go seven and it wasn’t going to end well.
Regardless of what formulae say about being 3-2, I have a feeling that if the Sox get any sort of advantage, Tampa will start squeezing the bats. An example of carryover from one game to the next, perhaps.
by odradek on
Oct 18, 2008 1:10 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
there’s little point studying empirically an event that only happens about one time per year
Tell Edmund Halley that. But seriously, I think what’s important is sample size compared to effect size, not frequency of the event itself. As it is, we have over a hundred years of baseball to look at — yes, lots has changed over that period, and it’s a great oversimplification to treat it as one monolithic sample. It’s also not terribly useful (or at least satisfying) to make predictions based on such things, or use the data to, say, gamble on a game. But in some sense that’s actually the point. In that case I was using probability and hypothesis testing precisely to show how hard it is to take meaning from postseason statistics. Exactly the sort of quick “reality check” you cited above. The patterns we see in those small samples can’t be convincingly distinguished from complete randomness. In essence, you could summarize my main point with “Don’t make claims about postseason momentum, or the importance of certain situations in a series, unless you actually figure out whether the cited patterns are that unexpected from random coin flips. Otherwise all you have is a Just So Story”. It was a very tiny point, which I explained in some detail for those who didn’t have any background in probability. Then I got asked questions about it, so I expanded on it.
Okay, that’s been beaten to death.
It is, if you will, the attempt of proudly uncool people to don a cloak of coolness of a different fabric, if you will.
I’ll buy that. But why try to fit our square pegs into round holes? I don’t post such things for the passive readers, I post to interact with those few people who do enjoy it. Everyone else can ignore it — I don’t hold it against anyone. Besides, for that matter, how many of the alleged hordes of thousands enjoy the canonical Sabermetric analyses that you routinely engage in? It’s really probably an only slightly larger subset of the readers…
Anyway, I think this discussion is best concluded with the immortal words of one Brick: “chiz-icken-bizz’utt”
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 18, 2008 1:32 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tell Edmund Halley that.
See, if you’d stopped there, you’d have gotten a bunch of recs. This is a great line, and you buried it.
As it is, we have over a hundred years of baseball to look at — yes, lots has changed over that period, and it’s a great oversimplification to treat it as one monolithic sample. It’s also not terribly useful (or at least satisfying) to make predictions based on such things, or use the data to, say, gamble on a game.
And that’s why I tried to turn your analytical focus toward phenomena that could be studied using the vast pool of data that is MLB history. That’s your moneymaker, the essential truths that can be ferreted out of the vastness. But you kept shaking me off. I think you’re a little in love with your curveball right now, but you’ll get over it.
I’ll buy that. But why try to fit our square pegs into round holes?
Indeed. For that matter, why bathe?
I don’t post such things for the passive readers, I post to interact with those few people who do enjoy it. Everyone else can ignore it — I don’t hold it against anyone.
I guess on this point I’d ask you to have a little faith that this little “conscious experiment in civility” was running for a couple of years before you arrived. On the one hand, your basic premise is the bedrock of everything we write — I had no way of knowing there would be huge interest in my arcane laying out of transaction rules until I actually foisted it on everyone. So in that sense, you’re right. But in another sense, that premise has been used to rationalize all sorts of anti-social behavior, including hyper-nerdery and much worse.
And perhaps that is the critical point. This is not an academic environment, it’s a social environment. There is an expectation of courtesy here, and to be blunt, that includes making some small effort not to bore everyone to death. Again, these are just the same rules we’d observe if it were 20 Indians fans hanging out at a bar. You would not, in fact, yammer on for a half-hour about how best to cast the LotR prequel (can we get that Harry Potter kid in there?) while expecting 18 of the other 19 people to just ignore you. You’d realize the other 18 people were bored and move on after a few minutes, perhaps making plans with the one other interested party to get together for more nerding out later on.
Besides, for that matter, how many of the alleged hordes of thousands enjoy the canonical Sabermetric analyses that you routinely engage in? It’s really probably an only slightly larger subset of the readers…
I don’t know what canonical sabermetric analyses are, but I’d like to think that what Ryan and I choose to write about, both in main articles and in the forums, is in some small way connected to the popularity of this site, and in particular to the number or really high-quality contributors to this site.
by Jay on
Oct 18, 2008 5:33 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
By the way, in a typical month, we seem to have stabilized around 1600 daily visitors and 5500 page views.
In July 2008, when we were making the big trades, it was more like 2000 and 7000, as compared with July 2006 when it was 1300 and 3000, or Jan 2006 (Crisp trade) when it was 1100 and 3100.
Our peak traffic to date was last October, of course, when we averaged 2,700 daily visitors and 13,000 page views. It was of course over 4000 daily visitors for the two weeks when we were actually in the postseason.
by Jay on
Oct 18, 2008 6:01 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Are you counting visits to www.letsgoformertribe.com ?
by jhon on
Oct 19, 2008 3:25 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ll try to make this quick because I know this conversation is getting old.
that’s why I tried to turn your analytical focus toward phenomena that could be studied using the vast pool of data that is MLB history
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I didn’t think your suggestions were good ones. I was trying to inject some info about hypothesis testing as a general method that can be applied to any data set. It’s something I hadn’t seen much, if any, of. So yes, let’s apply it to more interesting problems with richer data sets than postseason series. I was just using a presently relevant example to introduce the concept.
There is an expectation of courtesy here, and to be blunt, that includes making some small effort not to bore everyone to death.
Sure, but two things:
1) this isn’t like a meat-o-sphere social environment, where only one person can talk at a time. The text is out there for anyone to read or ignore as they see fit, and having more of it there doesn’t prevent people from reading the things they are interested in, in the way that yammering on in a bar keeps other people from talking. I know that a lot of the time I see a really long comment that I don’t feel like reading, I just tab right past it. I’ve wasted no more time than if it were shorter. Unlike when someone tells a really long boring story in person that they could have kept short and boring.
2) When being nerdy, I usually try not to assume much background knowledge (unless that knowledge is part of the foundation of the community). On the one hand, this means that I end up explaining a lot of stuff and posts can get really long. On the other hand, all that is necessary to understand it, if one desires. So…for my part, I make specific efforts not to shut anyone out from the conversation, even though it might be pretty nerdy. When I don’t explain my references, it’s often because the specific reference isn’t important — like when I brought up Chinese Restaurant Processes, it didn’t matter what that was, just that it was a really nerdy thing. I was making fun of myself for my previous nerdulence.
Anyway, I’m off to go watch the Rays hopefully finish off the Red Sox.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 18, 2008 8:02 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m probably the last guy in a position to complain about long posts. Well, I’m the second to last guy, after i-fan.
Anyway. Your point about the bar analogy is absolutely right, but there is still an effect on the overall “atmosphere,” and the effect that has in encouraging or discouraging others from posting (or even reading). That has been the basic premise behind the “aggressive pro-civility” policy here. My sense is that folks are interested in smart conversation but not hyper-nerdery. Not only are there a few thousand people reading this, but from what I can tell, several hundred of them are actually terrified of jumping into the conversation.
But hey, why pay any attention to my instincts, it’s not like I’ve ever had any success building a smart and very popular Indians discussion site. No doubt you’ve had a lot more success and experience than I have in this area.
by Jay on
Oct 18, 2008 11:20 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How do you tell what people who don’t jump in are thinking? Do you get e-mail from people saying things like, “Love the site… I’d comment myself, but the amount of nerdiness is scary”? Maybe you do — I’m actually asking, not (entirely) being snarky.
If I had to guess, I would venture that a bigger part of the reason a lot of people may be terrified of jumping in is that they’re afraid of being criticized for their naivete, or lack of analytical rigor, or something similar. Most of the time I’ve seen you critique people’s comments and posts you tear them apart in a civil manner, but other times it seems like you get unnecessarily nasty, or patronizing and condescending. Perhaps that’s a deliberate attempt to weed out people you don’t think will add to the discussion, or to encourage people to think through their commentary before posting, but then I don’t see how you can at the same time bemoan the fact that there are hundreds of people who are scared to talk. Obviously, you deserve some of the credit for the quality and popularity of this blog, but we can’t really know how much, since it is after all a distributed community — nor can we be sure that it couldn’t be even better if there were less unprovoked hostility (for example).
Yes, you’ve helped to build a very successful baseball blog, which I’m glad to have discovered, and yes, there are plenty of baseball-related areas that you probably know more about than the vast majority of posters here, but when that translates into condescension, particularly unjustified condescension (as happens when it gets applied to things that aren’t directly related to the things you have special expertise in) it can be pretty off-putting. And to be clear, this is not meant to be personal — I’m not talking about condescension that’s been directed toward me (although there has been some), as I’m obviously not intimidated by it, and some of the time it’s even amusing. A recent example is the guy who made a comment about a “non-specific fan perspective”, which was met with a surprising (to me) degree of hyperbolic scorn.
Anyway. It’s fine to criticize others, so long as you’re civil about it (and a majority of the time you are), but it can’t hurt to turn that microscope inwards from time to time as well. Especially if you’re going to be concerned about people being too intimidated to participate.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 19, 2008 4:09 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
some old dead topics:
-calling jay a meanie-pants.
-the concept of “if you don’t like it, just ignore it” as not flying around here.
new juxtaposition:
-the irony of failing to “ignore” jay being meanie if you don’t like it.
by Brick. on
Oct 19, 2008 11:33 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If you search for “meanie pants” on Google Images, you get a lot of party pics from MySpace and bebo. It seems appropriate somehow.
by FredOx on
Oct 19, 2008 11:45 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So here’s condescending for you: On the subject of how a moderator should conduct himself, not only do I disagree with you, I think you’re totally out of your league. You have no concept of how the way I conduct myself correlates with the tone and quality of the forum, none whatsoever, a subject to which I’ve given a great deal of thought, and real introspection, every month of the past three years. You’re just … typing.
I also think, as a practical matter, that while you certainly can win an argument with me, or with Ryan, nobody’s ever going to win a pissing match. That ought to be common sense.
How do you tell what people who don’t jump in are thinking? Do you get e-mail from people saying things like, "Love the site… I’d comment myself, but the amount of nerdiness is scary"? Maybe you do — I’m actually asking, not (entirely) being snarky.
In a word, yes. We get lots of e-mail from those who choose not to post here, and a fair amount from those who do post. We also see occasional “drive-by” posts from those who admit to being terrified of posting here. Now, this is mainly due to the overall high level of on-topic discourse and not the off-topic hyper-nerdery — which only occasionally erupts — but I believe my tolerance for (and appreciation of) hyper-nerdery is well above the average sports fan, and solidly above even the average sophisticated sports fan (whatever that means). As such, my sense is that if it’s off-putting to me, it’s off-putting to the great majority of our audience.
I mean, just look at all the great people who are now staying away from this thread like the plague.
by Jay on
Oct 19, 2008 1:23 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You have no concept of how the way I conduct myself correlates with the tone and quality of the forum
No, you’re right, I don’t. I’m just guessing that at least as many people are afraid to post because they’re afraid of being pounced on as people who are afraid to post because of hyper-nerdery.
nobody’s ever going to win a pissing match
I’m sorry if I came off as trying to engage in a pissing match — I’m really not trying to be personal about this. I know that probably sounds silly given some of the comments in my last post, but I mean it.
Look, I’m happy to drop this. You’re probably not going to convince me to be less nerdy, and I’m probably not going to convince you to be less “meanie-pants”, so we may as well just get back to more interesting topics. Besides, the main nerdery I was trying to defend wasn’t even the thing you were criticizing originally, and the hostility I was trying to criticize really isn’t present in most of your criticisms.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 19, 2008 2:18 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Does that have more to do with the hyper-nerdery or the hyper-dead-horse-kickery of it?
by FredOx on
Oct 19, 2008 2:51 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Archaeologists are discovering the fossilized remains of this particular horse… Some believe it represents a new “transition species”. Others think that’s dumb.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 19, 2008 3:46 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Since I don’t really understand your question, I’m just going to bypass your filter and speak directly to the LGT public, rather than answering the way you might want me to answer.
I think folks are afraid of being pounced on in general. Of course there’s no real jeopardy — occasional visitors tend to be pretty anonymous and all of this is “virtual” — but a lot of folks feel like they don’t have much to add, even by asking a question. I think folks generally have more to add than they realize, and I basically encourage everyone to dip in the Comments pool a little and then dive in completely.
by Jay on
Oct 19, 2008 4:21 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I just wondered whether people were staying away from this thread because it’s devolved into a “Jay is mean” discussion, which is neither (a) particularly new nor (b) particularly unique to LGT. As for whether people are staying away generally, and if so, why, you’d certainly know better than I.
I’ve found this crew to be pretty welcoming – it’s easier to jump into a stats discussion than to wade into the fray at some other places I’ve participated in the past, like Metafilter or Slashdot.
by FredOx on
Oct 19, 2008 5:12 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We’re staying away because it’s boring.
In seriousness, I actually disagree with Jay/Ryan (sort of) on what makes this site exceptional. I think they both defer quite a bit to the community; essentially, they often say that the site is great because of the commentors.
In my estimation, it’s not the community or the commentors. It’s the content that Jay and Ryan provide, period. If this site had no forum aspect it would still be an absolute must visit-the content is as good as or better than Gleeman or THT. It’s one of the 4 or 5 best free, original, baseball content sites on the internet. That’s not to say the community doesn’t add an entire other level .
So, what that adds up to for me, is that if Jay or Ryan ask you to stop doing something than you should probably take the input and move on, as opposed to getting into this discussion. They’re very good at what they’re doing and they have good reasons for what they ask of us.
If you’re actually interested in the philosophy behind the way the site is run, which is what this has devolved into, then you should just email them. It’s not germane or interesting to anyone else.
by afh4 on
Oct 19, 2008 9:52 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
all i know is that this post was pretty much the only one i read in this entire subthread
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Oct 20, 2008 2:22 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Rec for saying what I was thinking about posting.
by NickFantana on
Oct 21, 2008 4:07 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Rec for rec’ing, posting, saying, and thinking what I was thinking about saying in a post.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 21, 2008 4:45 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is absolutely a valid point.
Personally, if I had to pick one reason as to why I like this site, it is the community over the articles (or whatever you want to call them). Though they are very good and add a great deal. But that’s just a matter of personal preference.
You are right that most of this conversation, especially the end part, should have been a matter for private communique, not public discussion. I apologize for that. Even though I’ve defended the value of posting things that only a small number of people might be interested in, I don’t take that to an extreme — and if something really is a matter between two people, it should be discussed privately.
Anyway, I’m done with this.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 20, 2008 11:31 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I too am here more for the community, but the community is organized around the articles — both from the mods and from the community. I think we’d have a lot of trouble trying to build it the other way around.
by Jay on
Oct 20, 2008 1:17 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ve found this crew to be pretty welcoming – it’s easier to jump into a stats discussion than to wade into the fray at some other places I’ve participated in the past, like Metafilter or Slashdot.
Thank you, that feedback is really helpful, actually. The twin goals of high-quality discussion and low barrier to entry are both worthy but are defiitely somewhat at odds.
The goal of anything we do in terms of forum Ground Rules, encouragement and the occasional brow-beating is always to make the place as inviting as it can be to a broad pool of participants, limited only by the boundaries of civility.
by Jay on
Oct 20, 2008 1:16 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i’m now convinced you hate me
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Oct 18, 2008 2:04 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The internet tends to encourage activity toward the margins. Is hyper-nerdery really that much worse that hyper-beer-snobbery or the interminable arguments about whether Friends Sucks!? With that said, I’ll try to rein in the geek side of my personality, so as not to offend.
by FredOx on
Oct 18, 2008 8:44 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don’t acquiesce to these anti-geek pressures, Fred…. I really doubt if it offends anyone — just annoys Jay. And I mean, if we avoided saying anything to annoy Jay we’d just have to shut up completely.
That said, Friends sucks.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 18, 2008 12:57 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hey, listen, I am not the sole arbiter of what’s cool around here, I was just weighing in on the question. I wasn’t making a ruling, or a rule, or a threat, or even presuming to provide leadership. Just weighing in.
Is hyper-nerdery really that much worse that hyper-beer-snobbery or the interminable arguments about whether Friends Sucks!?
Arguably it’s not that much worse, but the difference is that a vast segment of the community is shut out from the hyper-nerdy conversations, whereas almost everyone could follow a stupidly obsessive debate about Friends. As for beer, I think alcohol (for better or worse) has been established as functionally on-topic at this site. I think we once had an entire thread about gin, and not by accident.
I think it’s a good general rule of thumb that the fewer people who can follow the discussion, the more brief the tangent should be kept. And as with almost all good blog civility principles, this is true here because it would be true for a conversation in a real physical space as well.
by Jay on
Oct 18, 2008 5:16 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Functionally on-topic” is going to be my phrase of the week.
I’ll point out that getting to talk booze with other adults here was probably a positive factor in my transitional “I really don’t have to drink that much, do I?” phase. Admittedly that’s reduced the number of faux-Anglo, pro-Boodles posts I make about flies getting stuck in lampshades, but in general I think LGT has been a nudge toward grown-up drinking habits.
Also! A quick thanks to everybody who’s observing the “no politics” rule. It’s funny how much even off-hand political references can tweak me in here — it’s just so sacrosanct that I can come in and get left alone about not making $250,000 for five minutes.
by fleerdon on
Oct 19, 2008 10:30 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To me, the no politics rule here is analogous to how it must feel for people who hold off on any physical intimacy til their wedding night. It’s good because it helps develop other forms of intimacy, but it sucks because you’re just so curious and it’s always on your mind.
Except in this metaphor, there’s no marriage.
by NickFantana on
Oct 21, 2008 4:10 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And by “in this metaphor” I mean, “Except, on this blog”
by NickFantana on
Oct 21, 2008 4:11 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I do wish, sometimes, that a lot of us had another site where we talk about politics. I would love to have the discussion with some of the minds here, even while realizing it totally can’t be here.
by Jay on
Oct 21, 2008 10:36 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can only imagine how that site would turn out considering how at each other’s throats we can all get over, say, Ramon Vazquez.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 21, 2008 10:56 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ramon Vasquez? I can’t believe that’s the example you give. What the eff were you thinking?
I’m never typing to you again.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 21, 2008 11:14 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s not what your mother said. Aye, c’mon then.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Oct 21, 2008 11:39 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is there anything stopping that from happening?
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Oct 21, 2008 11:00 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If we had something like that, perhaps we should all use completely different User IDs, so no one recognizes anyone else. I suppose it would only be so long before everyone figured out who everyone was, but at least at first it would keep clashing political views from souring people’s baseball-forged camaraderies…
Is it too cynical to think that wouldn’t be able to compartmentalize these things? I’m not sure.
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 21, 2008 11:12 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And that’s exactly why we’ve got the rule.
But hey, if you read this, I just want you to know I’ll TOTALLY put out politically before we get married.
by fleerdon on
Oct 22, 2008 12:17 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree with that. I don’t personally enjoy the hyper-nerdery, and I don’t think the great majority of our 200-ish active users enjoy it
I hate all these nerds.
by afh4 on
Oct 18, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
recced.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on
Oct 16, 2008 1:05 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Battlestar Galactica. 3.131592653589793238462643383 I can kill you with my brain XKCD.
by Voltaire on
Oct 18, 2008 7:25 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Of course, you meant 3.14159 . . . .
You’re not much of a nerd if you don’t know the hundreths place of pi. Also, everyone knows pi — how many decimal places of e do you know?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on
Oct 18, 2008 8:19 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Someone who took a quantum physics midterm the day before.
by Voltaire on
Oct 19, 2008 1:24 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe when we’re not looking at it, pi is 3.13…..
by Logodaedalus on
Oct 19, 2008 2:40 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
A lot, but I learned most of them from the Google IPO. What about γ? [deleted for hyper-nerdery]
by FredOx on
Oct 19, 2008 9:13 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chuck
What with all this stuff, I sort of lost track of the subject.
How are you doing Chuck? Hope all is progressing smoothly and have you had to fight the urge to go out and root around searching for truffles?
by Cactus Jack on
Oct 20, 2008 2:18 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m doing remarkably well – considering that somebody opened my aorta with a sharp knife a little more than two weeks ago. You can skip the next part if gory details are not your thing.
It was a hell of a ride: you check in the day of the surgery at 0600, they take all of your clothes and put you into one of those backless hospital gowns, shave most of your thorax and wheel you off to the prep room where you are met by a short Korean anestheseology (sp?) resident who procedes to botch your arterial line insertion. She calls the head gas passer and ~15 seconds later you wake up feeling like you’ve been hit in the chest repeatedly with a baseball bat. You’ve got 4-5 tubes running outta you and you’re hooked up to more electronic gadgets than Neo in Matrix – thus scaring the crap outta all your friends and relatives who come to visit you. You’re up and using the facilities the next day and a day or so after that you’ve got the tubes outta you. Coughing can make a grown man cry – I know it did me. But they’ve got this wonderful drug called Dilaudid which can make it all seem worthwhile. Anyway after five days they discharge you but first they send the Endocrinologist down to adjust your blood sugar – this after you’ve had liters of D5&W, epinephrine and powerful steroids pumped into you. Of course your blood sugars off the charts so they declare you a Type 2 diabetic and put you on oral meds as well as subQ insulin which leaves you reeling and disoriented the night before discharge, I couldn’t figure out why in the world I was in a Columbus hospital, but never mind, you’re getting out tomorrow. So they send the nice nurse down to explain to you how you’re life is about to change because you’ve got diabetes, she gives you 40 units of insulin and you promptly go into insulin shock followed by cardiac arrythmia caused by the reduction in serum potasium caused by the coupling of insulin with serum glucose. This sends the attending nurse into a tizzy prompting her to get the Eletro-Physiology Cardiologists on consult. Thirty minutes later he arrives – the spitting image of George Clooney – with his covey of residents/fellows in tow. He looks at me and asks, “What happened?” I explain to him that the fakakta Endocrinolist had prescribe subQ insulin for my non-existant Type 2 diabetes and threw me into both insulin shock and an atrial arrythmia. He says, “you sure know a lot of big words”. To which I reply, “Crysanthemum” while the female Indian resident nods in agreement. He says, “maybe you should cut back on the insulin to 25 units” to which I reply, “yeah, right”.
So I choke down half a dozen saltine crackers with peanut butter to get my blood sugar up and get the hell outta Dodge before the shooting resumes.
But now I’m at my in-laws in Dublin Ohio, walking about 3-4 miles a day. My aches and pains are slowly resolving and I should be back to old ornery self soon. This site helps me stay grounded in what’s important – baseball and most specifically Indians baseball.
Thanks for asking Jack – and, oh yeah, I didn’t get a porcine xenograph, I got a bovine xenograph. So instead of truffles I’ve been chewing my food at least twice.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 21, 2008 3:40 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
3 recs
so are you saying I shouldn’t be sending you the double-chocolate fudge get well cake or not?
by APV on
Oct 21, 2008 3:49 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Best post I’ve ever read on this site.
by NickFantana on
Oct 21, 2008 4:13 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Many great lines. I liked “head gas passer” a lot. Nicely done, Chuck.
by jhon on
Oct 21, 2008 4:20 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh, come on, you’re saying that was better than my “We’re always going to be under Justin’s skin” post? Puh-lease.
by Jay on
Oct 21, 2008 10:38 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I bet you do that cud you’re hungry. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
by Cactus Jack on
Oct 21, 2008 5:54 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So you got a bogus diabetes diagnosis? No diabetes for Chuck?
by joeee on
Oct 21, 2008 6:42 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No diabetes joee. I wouldn’t let the Endocrinologist who Dx’ed me with Type 2 diabetes treat my sick cat. Inaccutate Dx followed by un-needed Tx resulting in near death experience does not engender much confidence in the attending doc.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 21, 2008 6:57 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wow. Who ever guessed that med school might be useful?
by joeee on
Oct 21, 2008 9:13 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chuck, how long you going to be hangin’ in Dublin? I was thinking we could meet for a beer and watch some World Series baseball, if you’re interested.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on
Oct 22, 2008 5:19 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Brad dude, sorry I missed this. I’m here until November 2 – gotta get home to vote, don’t you know. Here, drop me a line at cghardy@maui.net and we’ll get together.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on
Oct 23, 2008 5:39 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Any story that begins…
you check in … at 0600, they take all of your clothes and put you into one of those backless hospital gowns, shave most of your thorax …
could have ended much, much worse.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Oct 21, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Hell, they’d have to put me under just for the thorax shaving.
by fleerdon on
Oct 21, 2008 7:46 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To anyone who can read this – I am loving this new archive format.
by joeee on
Oct 23, 2008 12:49 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs














