Post Thanksgiving, holiday shopping over-reaction thread

I want Andy Marte to learn how to bat left-handed to give him some trade value.

I want Mark Shapiro to send an email that says “Hey Hoynsie, go root for Detroit, F@#& you”

I want Dick’s Sporting Goods to believe my fake press release that Sizemore has been traded to the A’s so I can buy a jersey at 75% off.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Nov 28, 2008 10:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I like your second one

by hans on Nov 28, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve read there are some high ranking people in the front office that think Huff can start in the rotation next year.

by world dictator on Nov 28, 2008 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Who doesn’t think that, in or out of the front office?

by Jay on Nov 28, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh yeah…

I also want to stop hearing about how NYY/NYM/BOS/LAD/LAA/CHN will sign every important player during the off-season.

by APV on Nov 28, 2008 12:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I want New York and Boston to miss the playoffs next year.

And a Red Ryder BB Gun. And a replacement eye.

by cclemens31 on Nov 28, 2008 2:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I want LaPorta to be with the big league team by the end of April and a fixture in the 4 or 5 spot from June through our World Series title

by Roger Dorn on Nov 28, 2008 2:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

wait, are we signing Adam Dunn?

by hans on Nov 28, 2008 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I want them to sign or trade for a solid, veteran starting pitcher.

I want them NOT to sign Casey Blake or Joe Crede or to trade for Garrett Atkins.

I want them to give guys like Meloan, Rundles, Adam Miller and Stevens a shot at establishing themselves in the bullpen. By a shot , I mean an extended opportunity with regular work.

I want the Yankees to sign AJ Burnett and for him turn out to be Carl Pavano.

I want Anthony Reyes not to be a mirage.

by peter m on Nov 28, 2008 4:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I want:
- To watch Gutz patrol the OF for 162 games and reminisce daily with APV “we knew it”
- To trade Broussard and Perez to SD for Peavy
- To then trade Peavy to SF for Cain and Timmay
- Jake Westbrook to be 100% in July
- To avoid Casey and Hoffman
- Manny out of the AL, unless its with us
- A huge-ass Fausto jersey for $43

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 28, 2008 4:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

and a 4th of these:

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 28, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want. To blow up this team. In its entirety. Now.

by fleerdon on Nov 28, 2008 4:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It’s funny, I was reading somewhere recently — THT, I suspect — that there’s a fallacy accompanying a first-blush understanding of “regression to the mean.” The problem is that, just because your luck was BAD last year, doesn’t mean that it’s going to be GOOD next year. The example was, Nick Swisher may have a 950 OPS, 30 HR season for the Yankees next year, but if he does, it won’t be BECAUSE he was so unlucky in 2008; or, more accurately, he’s not more LIKELY to have better-than-average luck in 2009 because he had worse-than-average luck in 2008. Regression is not a statistical spring constant.

I know Adam was shopping for some Mountains of Change here. I’m just feeling very sober about the team for some reason right now. Lemme see what my tectonic plates can push up. I definitely want to dispense with the horsey sauce — if Huff is one of the five best starters in camp next season, put him on the God damn roster. And I want Miller, Meloan, Stevens, and the rest of the gang called up as soon as they’re ready. If 2009’s version of Fastball George is in their way, well, screw him.

Funny, we’ve all kind of forgotten about Ben Francisco these last few weeks, but nobody seems to be asking for him. Is Ben our opening day left fielder? I’d love to see Choo-Grady-Gutz every now and then, just for the defensive fireworks. And does Dellucci have anything left?

Can I be this dense? I want Marte on the 25-man. One. More. Try. Or one first try, depending on your position.

Not Casey. For the love of Pete, not Casey. Do the Indians know something I don’t? Why did we even call his agent?

by fleerdon on Nov 28, 2008 5:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I get the impression that the front office thinks higher of Blake’s defense at third than we do here, In Hoynes most recent article he talks of the Indians souring on Garrett Atkins of the Rockies because of the perception that he is a terrible defender, yet they are still in contact with Blake’s agent. I really doubt with resign Blake, because of the years on his deal, I’d be happy if another team gives Blake a 3 year deal rather than us.

Marte…..aghh. Your counting on a breakout season from him for him not to hurt us with the bat next season, thats something I don’t want to go into the year counting on….

by hans on Nov 28, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The front office could be aware that the Twins are actively looking at Casey, and playing as a decoy to worry the Twins and drive up the price

by Roger Dorn on Nov 28, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At least that is what I am telling myself

by Roger Dorn on Nov 28, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want Dayan Viciedo to be a bust – but only out of envy because I wanted us to sign him.
I want Huff in our starting rotation.
I want Gutz to play everyday.
I want NYY/NYM/BOS/LAA/CHIS/CHIC to miss the playoffs after pissing off the entire nation by spending like the idiots they are…
I want to actually win a bet with Jay.
I want Pronk back.
I want us to trade for Peavy.
I want the Twins to know the joy of Blake on a daily basis.
I want a viable infield with speed.
I want a Nikon D40 so I can go to games and take really good pictures.
I want Wedge gone.
I want dinner and a beer.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Nov 28, 2008 7:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Did I win a bet? I don’t keep track. I think it’s pointless with baseball, predictions are just too hard.

by Jay on Nov 28, 2008 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I suspect you won – but to be honest I don’t even know. It was made somewhere around a year ago about this past year. All I know is that absolutely nothing I hoped would occur actually occurred, so I must’ve lost. I think I owed you a beer whenever the O’s/Phillies/Nats play the Tribe.

Eh? I’d buy a round anyways.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Nov 28, 2008 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want Wedge gone.

I wanted to include this, but if it happens during the season or immediately after, we ain’t getting very many of our other wishes… such as a WS championship.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 29, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m hoping for a midseason dumping with a vastly improved second-half leading to a WC berth. Let the magic happen….

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Nov 29, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to see LeBron wearing a Kansas City Royals cap.

by elsandito on Nov 28, 2008 8:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I want LeBron to go away. Not to NY, Boston or Idaho. Just away.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Nov 28, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh? He is Cleveland’s best chance for a championship. The Cavs are fantastic this year and fun to watch.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 29, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

god, I see this exploding into 150 posts by tomorrow…..

by hans on Nov 29, 2008 2:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

150 posts. There. Saved time, I hope.

by peter m on Nov 29, 2008 6:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

151, doofus.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 29, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

152. Shall we dance?

by peter m on Nov 29, 2008 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

153 and I still want him gone. I don’t care about the NBA. Never have, never will. Bunch of overblown egomaniacs who can’t play defense. So, outside of the greater claim to Cleveland’s overall sports misery, I don’t give a flying fig. And he wears a Yankee cap and wants CC to play there.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Nov 29, 2008 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bunch of overblown egomaniacs

Yeah, that’s exclusive to the NBA.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 29, 2008 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe not, but I’m not interested enough in the game to put up with their hijinks and mayhem. NBA = Yawn.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Nov 29, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well if you’re a Cleveland sports fan then you should be excited about the Cavs. They have the best chance of brining a championship to Cleveland for the first time in FOURTY FOUR years.

They’re actually a fun team to watch since they’ve added Mo Williams. It’s amazing what a real poing guard can do to a team. No longer is the offense give the ball to LeBron and watch. They pass the ball around and get open shots. LeBron himself is amazing, of course. The Cavs have always played great defense but now they have an offense to match and are certainly one of the elite teams in the NBA. They have a really good chance of making the Finals and winning this time, and that should get every Cleveland fan excited.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 30, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How about this as a link back to the original thread: we want the Cavs to win the NBA championship so that the Indians will feel compelled to win a World Series.

by peter m on Nov 30, 2008 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i’m a marginal Cavs fan, much bigger NBA fan in general, but man oh man I don’t want the Cavs to win the first Cleveland championship in how many years

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Nov 30, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d much rather have it be the Indians or the Browns also. But I’d take ANY championship right now.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 30, 2008 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don’t want them getting there first over the Indians.

by Voltaire on Dec 1, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait…Cleveland has a basketball team?

by world dictator on Nov 30, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Brad beat me to it. It’s rare to have a home team you can actually root for and have them win. I REALLY care about the Indians, and less so about the Cavs. But, if they win, I’m going to feel good about it. That would make only the second time one of the teams I follow ever won something. I’m getting too old to be picky about it.

by peter m on Nov 30, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See, I’m a Indians fan and once upon a time I was a Browns fan (still trying to get back into being a full-fledged Browns fan – they don’t make it easy). I watched the Mark Price/Brad Daugherty Cavs because they were there and I was too young to know any better regarding the NBA.

All the Cavs winning a NBA title would do for me was to ruin the cornerstone of legitimacy of being the most sports suffering town in the world. The name Mo Williams means no more to me than Johnny Twinkletoes. The only reason I know LeBron’s name is because he’s the local boy and, well, he’s kinda hard to miss. I don’t know that I could name 10 NBA players right now without the help of ESPN. Don’t bother, I’m sure most people here can.

I’ll concede that it’d be nice for the Cavs to do well if only to give the city something to feel good about. Goodness knows its needed. Otherwise… Let’s. Go. Tribe. Sign a free agent or creatively trade or something.

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Dec 1, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So let me get this straight — you never watch the NBA and don’t know anything about the league, yet you know that all the players are “a bunch of overblown egomaniacs who can’t play defense.” Gotcha.

Listen, I don’t want to come off as an NBA apologist because I’m not that. I’m a Cavs fan and enjoy watching them, but I don’t follow the NBA like I do football or baseball. But I hate it when people complain about the NBA (the typical nobody plays defense, nobody cares, etc.) or the players (they’re all a bunch of thugs) who then proudly say they never watch the game. That’s so hypocritical, and I’ve had discussions with other people on here about this topic (so it’s not just you mj).

If you don’t want to watch the NBA that’s fine with me. But don’t go around complaining about how terrible it is and how bad all the players are. NBA players aren’t any different than NFL or MLB players, people just think that way because most of them are black and wear a lot of tatoos. And a lot of white fans don’t like that. So they assume the players don’t try hard and don’t care, which isn’t true at all if you actually watched the games.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 1, 2008 7:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hate the NBA, but I’m certainly not going to make blanket statements about it. I find it boring… plain and simple.

I suppose if some basketball team has to win their championship thing, I’d want it to be the Cavs.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 2, 2008 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll second that yawn.

by fwembt on Dec 1, 2008 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Any debate before taking said motion to vote?

297… 298…

Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.

by mjmarble on Dec 1, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want Pronk to be Pronk again. That would solve so many of our problems.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 29, 2008 1:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I want everything APV wants. But then, after we sign Trevor Hoffman, I want him to blow out his arm, and I want Tony Sipp to inherit the closer’s job, and for Sipp to have 30 saves by the All-Star break. Why do I want this? To teach APV a hard lesson about relief pitching.

by ken from alexandria on Nov 29, 2008 9:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

1-year contract…and mine is a list of things I want for the off-season. During the season, yes, I want to see Adam Miler, Tony Sipp, Jeff Stevens, and John Meloan all get some major league pen exposure. They are all ready.

by APV on Nov 29, 2008 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s only 9 games, but since this is an over-reaction thread…
Gutierrez has 2 HRs, more walks than Ks, and +.900 OPS in Venezuela. And Asdrubal has an OPS over 1.100.

by APV on Nov 29, 2008 11:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

joygasm

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Nov 29, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hypothetical: If Gutierrez is September 2008 Gutierrez for real and actually can hold down a starting job, could we afford to keep him? Would we?

by fleerdon on Nov 29, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why wouldn’t we be able to? where else are we going to find a guy who can play elite defense, put up something like an .816 OPS (his 2nd number), and get paid the league minimum?

by APV on Nov 29, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, true enough. We’ve got at least two outfielders to cut, and several to mature, before that would be a problem.

by fleerdon on Nov 29, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d trade him. I’m very skeptical of his ability to consistently hit. Especially if choo has another good offensive year.

I think the value we get from trading gutz would outweigh our value of keeping him, especially when you consider the risk he might have a bad offensive year the year after.

by world dictator on Nov 29, 2008 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but what’s their Net?

by Jay on Nov 30, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

chalk up another HR for Gutz

by APV on Nov 30, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m kinda down on Wedge by this point, so the two things I want have to do with him, and I’ll take any fortunes after that:

1- I want Wedge to get his team ready to compete by opening day, none of this “its a long season, we have plenty of time” crap. Except for one season, the first couple months have been pretty much a sleepwalk during the Wedge era.

2 – I want any younger player who has an equal or greater amount of talent than a “Wedge vet” to play by fiat, not by necessity. Guys who’ve touched all the bases in the minors and have nothing else but the final level to prove themselves need to play, period. Most of this syndrome has played itself out by now, luckily, barring Delucci starting in LF.

Meta want: I want The Plan to be executed in its fullest – figure out a way to rotate the ready prospects on the 40 into the ML roster throughout the season, reserving one spot in the rotation, one spot in the pen, one spot on the bench to give those “ready” guys some exposure. There should be a regular shuttle between Cleveland, Columbus and Akron, providing steady play every week punctuated by stints in the bigs.

by mcrose on Nov 29, 2008 11:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I know what I want, and this one’s free.

I want people to stop referring to Laffey, Lewis, Huff, and Sowers as if they’re all the exact same pitcher.

IE “I wouldn’t mind trading including Laffey in X trade. We’ve already got three other Laffey’s in Huff, Lewis, and Sowers.”

Ugh. THEY’RE NOT EVEN THE SAME TYPE OF PITCHER.

Also a corollary. I want people to stop casual suggesting we include Adam Miller in X package to fill the void of the “decent” prospect in the trade. Um, no. The same reasons anyone would want Miller are the same reasons we’re not going to trade him.

by world dictator on Nov 30, 2008 4:21 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

rec

by Fundamentals on Nov 30, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Have people really been saying either?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 30, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s trade Aaron Laffey and a decent prospect for Brian Roberts, we already have three other Laffey’s in Huff, Lewis, and Sowers.

We should make Adam Miller the decent prospect.

by ClarkM on Nov 30, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ex post facto.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 30, 2008 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’ve seen both multiple times. Its far far less prevelant around here, but these two ideas seem to be conventional wisdowm everywhere other than Let’s Go Tribe.

by world dictator on Nov 30, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t let LGT off the hook totally. I think our young pitchers get grouped together a lot in trade discussions, though I don’t think Huff is included generally. I do think Laffey, Lewis, Reyes, Jackson, and Sowers are viewed as interchangeable a little fast and loosely.

by afh4 on Dec 1, 2008 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps. Like you said I think Huff is excluded and I certainly believe Laffey should be as well. Jackson’s a rung below the rest.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 1, 2008 8:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I meant to add: I think this “lumping” comes from how often these people are discussed together as competing for a rotation spot. If I hear those names in one breath it’s usually not because they’re interchangeable talent but because none of them have anything guaranteed next year.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 1, 2008 8:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The lumping is because we will fill out the uncertain spots in the rotation from that group of players.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 1, 2008 9:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is what I was trying to get at.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 1, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sowers is most unlike the other three.

BECAUSE HE SUCKS.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 2, 2008 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Um, I like your list except for first point. Mark me down as a Gutz non-believer. He got 440 PA last year and was pretty awful.

Given a choice, I’d rather not gamble on him again. Any theory on why he’ll turn it around, or just a hunch?

I’d rather have him as defense off the bench. But we won’t (and shouldn’t, given other needs) spend big resources for a replacement, so LaPorta will have to make that happen.

He’s young enough to turn it around, but I vote no, please.

by dgcambridge on Dec 1, 2008 5:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Gutz might be my favorite Indian that has never done anything outside of a small sample size.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 1, 2008 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Word to this. Penciling Gutz is too many moving parts. He’s young, but not that young.

by joeee on Dec 1, 2008 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And I’ve got a hunch that LaPorta won’t spend a lot of time in the majors this year.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Are you’re thinking about him as a prospect? He’s well past that point.

What about his age concerns you? Gutz will be 26, putting him in the breakout nexus (+/- 27). He hasn’t been great at the bat, but he has been steadily IN the major leagues. That’s something. His career line isn’t unusual in the least for a player short of 1000 PAs in his career.

Whatever boost is due probably isn’t going to transform him into a star player, but his defensive contributions are more than enough to keep him in the majors for the next several years. He’s already here, and for the foreseeable future he’ll stick.

He’s going to make this team and he’s going to get at least another 400 PAs. I think he can get considerably more, getting most of the RF starts against LHP, spelling Grady in CF, and splitting the remainder with Francisco if Dellucci retires/ is released / is injured / sucks.

Isn’t this kind of ideal?

There’s also the chance Francisco goes in the tank offensively, which would render him useless. Assuming Dellucci is out, Gutierrez is the most likely candidate to become the “starter” in that case. Yeah, I admit that makes me a little nervous, but it’s not likely to be totally disastrous. It’s not like naming Josh Barfield the everyday second baseman, ok?

Too many moving parts? What exactly is so challenging or fragile about this arrangement? When have we not attempted to extract some platoon advantages? It hasn’t always worked out, but out of necessity it’s been a feature of our lineup (as well as recent Yankees lineups). Do you think this is the year we finally put the kabosh on the platoon?

In any event, I’m led to believe that Wedge likes Gutierrez’ game, so brace yourself for at least another season of Gutz.

It’ll be just like last year, but better.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 1, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn’t we do community projections for Gutierrez? We should do them again sometime.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 1, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Optimistically I’d put him down for a 110 OPS+, 580 PAs and a Gold Glove. Pessimistically, I dunno, 330 PAs (as an Indian) and a 90 OPS+. Ain’t no way he’s not just a little better than he was last year.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 2, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your pessimistic projection for OPS+ is four points better than his career average and one point better than his ZIPS projection. It’s a good projection, it’s just not a pessimistic one.

by ClarkM on Dec 2, 2008 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, sure it’s pessimistic.

Ok, the other pessimistic projection is that he gets 6 hits in 54 sporadic ABs and gets sent back down, never to be seen around Cleveland again. A failure. But what sort of projection is that?

If his 2009 performance charts the high middle course between the results of his earlier tryouts, showing only some linear it’s a disappointing projection. If he’s any worse he won’t be an Indian very long, and it probably means that he’s injured. No sense in projecting that he’ll do something for the Indians that won’t be allowed to happen.

He’s 26 this year. Healthy players who’ve already reached the majors tend to put together their biggest years between 26-28. Ok, Mel Hall didn’t, but who else? Even toolsy Damien Easley managed to hit for power in these years. The essential thing is that they be talented.

Joeee, his power is diminished, but it hasn’t totally collapsed. Would it look better if the number was a .round 4 and not a .398? I insist that a lot of that was because of bad luck, and in getting the big share of his PAs in the phase where everyone in our offense (outside of Grady) sucked. Last years offensive collapse ranks as one of the most incredible things I’ve ever seen in baseball.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 2, 2008 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except he slugged .383. Yes, .400 looks better than .383. It is certainly possible that he OPS+ 115 next year. I just think your “pessimistic” projection is probably dead-on balls.

by joeee on Dec 2, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In case anybody cares, 17 points of slugging = 4 points of OPS+.

by Jay on Dec 2, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re looking at it the wrong way. His season was pretty screwed up. Forget the total.

Anyway, he started slow, was pretty good in the final two months, and so unbelievably bad in the middle of the season that he had to of been hurt or something. The separation is so drastic that I’m inclined to write it off. It’s different from Garko, who was just steadily bad for 4 months before getting hot. Gutz’ slump looks like a total anomaly to me. Does is to you?

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 2, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Given his 2007 campaign and 2008 comeback, yes, it certainly appears like June and July might have resulted from injury. That’s grounds for optimism. I doubt his craptastic plate discipline is going anywhere.

by joeee on Dec 2, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’ll be a shortcoming for Gutz.

T-Pain can’t sing all that well, but he can still rock the party.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 2, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess my point is that I’m more joeee than jhon here.

Gutz can justify a 90+ OPS with his glove, but it won’t be enjoyable to watch and I’ll be hoping for something better.

I thought Andrew’s comment was the type usually applied to either prospects, or a guy that has not received a chance. Neither of those apply here.

But Jhon’s probably right: we’re going with him – so here’s hoping we see that breakout.

by dgcambridge on Dec 2, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Gutz/T-Pain comparison makes no sense.

J-Peralta is a much more reasonable comp for T-Pain. Both chunky and play bad defense, but can pop-and-lock up a storm. Plus they both have the same chin-strap half-man, half-boy beard. J-Peralta is toolsy in weird ways, much like T-Pain.

What is the baseball equivalent of autotune? Steroids?

by joeee on Dec 2, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Vocoder?

Did someone say vocoder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=234v_apCQO4

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Dec 3, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m glad to see this guy has a sense of humor about the one-trick-pony technology dependent nature of his success thus far.

I’m looking forward to the day when disposable pop songs do not include the vocoder—at least until the make a come back in 20 years when retro 00’s style is all the rage among youth who didn’t experience it firsthand.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 5, 2008 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

T Pain is a young guy, and he’s shown that he’s vulnerable to criticisms of his use of the vocoder. He’s on record as saying that autotune is on it’s way out.

I think it’s too bad. I like the vocoder in general, and I think T-Pain has had the some of the best results with this instrument in the history of pop music. I agree that it’s a fad that’s being abused by lesser talents, trying to piggy back T-Pain’s success.

Before T-Pain, when you linked the words “vocoder abuse”, you probably thought of Cher. No more. T-Pain is the Beethoven of the vocoder.

Also, T-Pains recent collaborations with Ludacris are anything but disposable. I’m not enamored with T-Pain’s “I can’t Believe it” remix with Justin Timberlake, but it’s pretty special when those two harmonize through the vocoder at the end. What other pop songs have auto tuned harmonies?

I celebrate T-Pain’s entire catalog.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 5, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t question your enjoyment of this T-Pain cat, but you do realize that a.) you could sound just as good singing through a vocoder, and b.) he sounds exactly like Cher when she sings through a vocoder—that’s what a vocoder does.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 5, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but isn’t saying that my E flat on a Martin 000-28 sounds the same as when Clapton plays a E flat on a Martin 000-28?

Obviously a hacky example, but it’s all in the execution of the instrument, right?

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Dec 5, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Digital vrs. Analog? Do you really want to step into my dojo and drop that challenge?

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 5, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see how the specific implementation of the instrument makes a difference here. It all turns into a waveform at some point, right?

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Dec 5, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not even sure what you guys are debating at this point, and I don’t think you guys know, either.

I do see this ending with another hilarious instruction to me to stick to my “real field of expertise,” which allegedly is baseball.

(For those who may not be aware, I own a recording studio, and I don’t mean a nice little setup in a spare room.)

by Jay on Dec 5, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was expecting you to weigh in here—I’m over my head (I don’t even own a dojo or anything.)

I only ever heard of T-Pain for the first time last week.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 5, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Quick summary:

1. T-Pain is, most definitely in love with a stripper.
2. T-Pain would appreciate it if his shotay would neither chop nor screw him.
3. Girls do not know how T-Pain will get down on the dance floor.

That’s pretty much it.

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Dec 5, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I learned who T-Pain was when I was on spring break in Mexico a few years ago. I was the only person there who did not know who he was at the time

by Roger Dorn on Dec 5, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To clarify he gave some sort of performance

by Roger Dorn on Dec 5, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I got a C in Stoicastic Signals at Georgia Tech eight years ago. TAKE THAT!! RMS IN YO’ FACE!!

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Dec 5, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the “sound the same” argument is like, the worst you could possibly evoke.

Do you know what all sounds the same? Jazz. And classical. Doesn’t make it bad.

Who else is getting a lot of work done right now? Toby Keith?

by joeee on Dec 5, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m using the interwebs to experience lesser known T-Pain tracks.

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Dec 5, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A recording artist makes a lot of choices that go into making a record. Whether you could sound good through a vocoder is quite beside the point.

Also, it’s not really a vocoder, it’s Auto-Tune. A vocoder typically takes the fundamental frequency (the note) from a separate source entirely — like a guitar or keyboard — ignoring the voice’s frequency while retaining the formants and plosives (essentially, the consonants and vowels).

Auto-Tune is using only the voice as the input but “cleaning up” the fundamental frequency. Used in a severe way, it also creates odd audio artifacts that are now essentially being used as a new type of instrument.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I should have made a distinction. I have a vocoder built into my keyboard, and it annoys me that I have to play keyboard and sing at the same time to use it. A hands-free get up would be much more fun.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 5, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You get that Korg thing?

by Jay on Dec 5, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, the mini. I looked closely at the Novation, but I just didn’t have any first hand experience with it.

It’s a toy for me, a lot of fun. I want a Moog lil’ fatty too, but I’m saving it for a future in which I’ve got more time and money.

I’ve still never seen a real deal recording studio. Have any instrumental oddities on hand, any theremins used by Luther Vandross?

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 5, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oddities, not so much. We have a very solid set of instruments across the board, but we have become known especially for having great classic keyboard instruments. We have a seven-foot Steinway from the 20’s, a Hammond/Leslie combo from the 50’s and a Wurlitzer from the 60’s, and all of them have been slavishly restored so that play beautifully and sound phenomenal. The Steinway is the only one where we really sought out having something great, although we got a little lucky on that, too. The other two just sort of happened to us, long stories in both cases, plus befriending one really fanatical electrical engineer who is a vintage instrument obsessive. We also have a cool Rhodes suitcase, but it’s not in as good shape.

by Jay on Dec 6, 2008 12:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s really cool. A good piano is a marvel of craft.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 7, 2008 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t artists who use autotune normally test their range with it? Like, you’re more likely to go flat at higher pitches, so the artifacts sound “better” or you get more of them?

by joeee on Dec 5, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really. It’s more for people who just don’t sing well. I’ve never really seen it used to stretch someone’s range.

by Jay on Dec 6, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I celebrate T-Pain’s entire catalog.

This is high on the list of things I did not expect to read on LGT today.

by NickFantana on Dec 5, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

20 years? You underestimate the hipster sense of irony. That stuff will make a comeback in August.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 5, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

i have decided my total lack of appreciation for any music disqualifies me from being a hipster.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 5, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno, it might be the next logical step for hipsters to disdain most things and just be apathetic about the rest… I mean, liking stuff is so uncool.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As long as I nor anyone you speak to has heard of said artist/band, it’s cool to like.

Or of course unless you like them in an ironic way. Phil Collins for example.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 5, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i liked justin timberlake in an ironic way, then i actually liked him.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 5, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Him or his music?

by NickFantana on Dec 5, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow — I thought this thread was dead, and it was brought back to life by T-Pain. Who knew?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 5, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, we need a substantial transaction soon, because people are getting delirious in here.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 5, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Britnified.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know how widespread this terminology is, but my friends and I in college referred to the process of “Britnification”, whereby initially ironic appreciation of an artist (say, Britney Spears) gradually becomes genuine enjoyment of them. But, of course, you can never let on, lest ye be forever shunned by others for whom the artist has also been Britnified and who must put on a show of shunning you to avoid letting on…

Gah… ironically liking things is dumb.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2008 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ironically liking things is dumb.

by joeee on Dec 5, 2008 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to be clear, I didn’t mean to make it sound like I ironically like T-Pain. That’s not what this is about. I don’t know if I ironically like anything. I genuinely appreciate T-Pain. I can’t tell if it’ll have staying power in my collection, but he’s been pretty hot in ’08. No joke.

Like, I think it’s important to be honest with oneself. I just wrote this early on a Friday night—who am I to pretend that I’m above, say, Britney or whoever. If you’re into Miley Cyrus, more power to you. I don’t judge, and like most people I don’t care. The people who do care and do judge are, well…

For the record, I don’t dislike Britney either.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 5, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to be clear, I’m pretty sure no one was accusing you of liking something ironically.

by joeee on Dec 5, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t

by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Snark attack! I’m confused. I was talking to Daedalus.

I’m not scolding anyone.

I suddenly feel like my “back’s against a wall”, as Britney put it in Gimme More.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 5, 2008 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

see above. I wasn’t implying that you liked T-Pain ironically — just making a general comment on liking things ironically, per Nick’s comment above.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 6, 2008 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The court reporter will adjust the record to show that jhon does not dislike Britney.

And speaking of which … (not all that SFW) …

by Jay on Dec 6, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Logo—

That’s a good term to have. Seriously. I can apply that to several things.

What up, Steely Dan. You’ve been Britnified.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 6, 2008 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’ve gone from irony to Steely?

I like Steely Dan, actually… I guess that probably makes me uncool since I never went through the ironic liking period first.

(Cue “that’s what makes you uncool?”)

by Logodaedalus on Dec 6, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I used to dislike them just because my father played them constantly. Then I realized the songs stuck to me.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 6, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I almost got beat up in a pool hall for declaring that I hated Steely Dan.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 6, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If I could find the scene from Knocked Up when they argue over Steely Dan I would post it.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 6, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 6, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is the same story for me, except I still don’t like them.

by Voltaire on Dec 9, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Steely Dan commands almost universal respect among musicians, like, almost on a level with the Beatles. But it may be that it’s not cool to like them if you’re not a musician.

by Jay on Dec 6, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am one, actually… I don’t recall ever being made fun of for liking Steely Dan, actually, so maybe you’re right

by Logodaedalus on Dec 6, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

actually

by Logodaedalus on Dec 6, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m assuming you’re a prog-rock guy.

by Jay on Dec 6, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting… based on self-indulgent nerdiness? I went through a period of being pretty into Yes in high school, and I have a couple of Kansas and Rush albums that I got around the same time, but I wouldn’t say it’s an especially significant genre in my collection… Though I was just listening to Hella today, which is sort of proggy, of a different era.

These days the majority of what I listen to is probably considered “indie rock” (though I’m not well-connected enough any more to know the super obscure stuff). One band I’ve been really into lately are those wunderkinder from your neck of the woods: Man Man.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 6, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, a lot of “indie rock” is even more self-indulgent than prog. Man Man is pretty cool, though.

by Jay on Dec 7, 2008 8:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably the single best live show I’ve ever seen.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 7, 2008 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would have said that the problem with some indie rock is the self-conscious coolness, which is different than self-indulgence (maybe even the opposite, since self-conscious coolness is outward, image directed, whereas the sort of self-indulgence you find in some prog is inward, “screw the audience” directed). In some cases you even get extreme self-conscious non-complexity which is also the opposite of prog.

Maybe you have a different sort of self-indulgence in mind? Or maybe it’s there to the extent that bands have prog influences…

by Logodaedalus on Dec 7, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with indie rock is that it sucks*.

Ok, maybe not all of it, but enough for me to categorically remark that it sucks with confidence.

*Having taken an extreme position in an open forum, I recognize that I deserve the flak that I might take.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 7, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a difficult discussion to have, since it’s such a nebulous label. I never know what counts as indie rock.

But I’m pretty sure you’re wrong, in any case.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 7, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should also ask what you prefer instead, so I know whether making fun of what you like is a viable strategy.

And also what “indie rock” bands are you thinking of, specifically, so I know whether I need to do actual defending.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 7, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m thinking of the bands whose sound can only be described as “indie”, or where it’s first and foremost in the synopsis. But that real utility does this distinction provide?
Ever been at a party and some guy starts pathologically regurgitating verbatim the facts from a Pitchfork review he had just read?

Of course there are bands that have a legitimate style that might share characteristics of “indie” bands, such as being on an independent label. Nothing wrong with that.

I mean, I don’t have any objection to the indie spirit of recording at all. It’s where the rock comes in, which more often than not means it’s the edgy avant garde variety that’s begging for a critical comparison to My Bloody Valentine or Public Image Limited or whoever.

The live experience is something different, and some bands are better or worse than in their recorded version. We all have different motivations for going to live shows.

It’s nice when the venue is just a good place to be, like the Southgate House outside of Cincinnati, or the Grog Shop in Cleveland. The “scene” starts to seem different when you’re in a decrepit venue in a new town, and there aren’t a lot of friendly faces among that room—and they’re all white guys. At some point it gets to be a lot more sensible to walk out, and eventually to stop going altogether and do different things on Friday nights.

For a number of reasons I won’t name all the names on my bad list, but there are a few that are probably safe to single out: I can’t believe I’m admitting to witnessing this, but I saw Architecture in Helsinki apologize on stage for sucking (the band leader blamed the hectic travel schedule.) I saw Yo La Tengo go out of their way to alienate their audience. The F**k Buttons were offensively bad, as their name suggests. Another walkout.

There was the slow feedback solo project of the TV on the Radio guy. Wow, was that boring. Spiritualized (not exactly indie, though) made me uneasy because of the way they used black women as props before an all white audience. That was all it took for me walk out, but at least the Dirt Bombs, the opening band, put on an energetic opener.
Stars of the Lid’s presentation was original, but the mood was thoroughly depressing. Depression is a key word here. Music and art, I think, should do just the opposite, to uplift or enrich the spirit. In my experience there are too many “experimental” bands that are just rotten and wickedly self-conscious.

Reaching for the profound is fine, and there’s no right way to do it, but there is a wrong way.

But yeah, not all music is sober and meaningful, and it all can’t be held to the same standard. Guys like Dan Deacon and Girl Talk (who boasts a Cleveland connection) are actually having fun with what they do, and I won’t say anything bad about joyous spontanaity in art. Gil Mantera’s Party Dream is uplifting in this way, and I always support Ohioans.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 7, 2008 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ever been at a party and some guy starts pathologically regurgitating verbatim the facts from a Pitchfork review he had just read?

F**k that guy.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 7, 2008 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha, seriously. I don’t know that guy ‘cause I won’t go to that party. I like the one three houses down with tupac playing, keg stands, and girls.

by joeee on Dec 7, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No he’s also there, smoking a bowl with two or three others under the deck stairs and not sharing it with the rest of the party.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 7, 2008 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I basically start openly mocking any guy that starts talking to me like that. I guess I’m lucky in the sense that, keeping busy on the production end, I don’t get too caught up in the tastemonger crowd. We actually are pretty genre agnostic, and we genuinely want any opportunity to work with anyone on something good, pretty much regardless of what it is. The downside is, as a listener, I’m too caught up in the stuff we’re working on to keep up with all the great stuff coming out.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One nice thing about getting older is that interaction with tastemongers and observance of trends becomes scarce, and when it happens it’s easy to see this behavior for what it really is. On top of that I keep busy enough that I’m oblivious to condescension on the grounds of taste.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting that you mention Architecture in Helsinki… I’ve seen them twice live — once was a really good show, the other time was pretty lousy. I think a lot of it was the space (the second show was at a much larger venue and they didn’t really connect with the audience as well), but some was the change in personnel and overall sound (the two shows were about a year and a half apart and there was an album in between and a shakeup of the lineup).

I still like their first album, and that first show was pretty good.

And I agree with you about the “experimental” label. I’ve noticed that a bunch of bands call themselves “experimental”, but often this just means that they are playing on and on without much happening… sometimes it seems to be a stand-in for “instrumental”. Occasionally there are bands who are called experimental who really are being somewhat adventurous, and doing so in worthwhile and creative ways (Carla Kihlstedt’s 2 Foot Yard project springs to mind).

I haven’t kept up with much of the goings on in the last 4 years or so, unfortunately.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 7, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Me neither, but who has the time to get really possessive about everything. I mean, I already spend a considerable amount of hobby time reading about baseball, just one of my hobbies that takes precedence over music. Joeee’s right that nothing is any more interesting than girls.

There’s only so much time. You know, I’m getting too old to risk a keg stand.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone should go to at least one Gil Mantera’s Party Dream show.

by ClarkM on Dec 8, 2008 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Typically, watching a man smoke a cigarette with his posterior on stage might turn me off to a band, but I was able to move past it and put it in the context of the experience.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 8, 2008 8:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s getting your money’s worth!

My impressions are hazy. Bare chests on and off the stage. Lots of drinking. The feeling that the floor was in danger of collapsing (I saw them in a century old rowhouse). This girl at the bar…

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jhon, I’d argue (like L is) that “indie rock” is far too broad a term to just simply say it sucks.

That’s almost like saying any music that is not widely known and commercially successful is terrible. But that depends on your definition of indie.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 7, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m just being a reactionary prick.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 7, 2008 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, most* music that is not widely known or commercially successful is terrible. Contrary to the myth that success=appealing to the lowest common denominator. But there’s plenty of underground hiphop, not known, not successful, and that’s not indie rock. They suck on similar levels, though.

by joeee on Dec 7, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s just because there’s such a greater pool of un-mainstream music to choose from.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 7, 2008 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh. Talent gets recognized. Dickens was a rockstar in his day. Ray Charles. Babe Ruth.

Not starving artists. Geniuses of their craft.

by joeee on Dec 7, 2008 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm… I think it depends on what level of recognition and success you’re talking about. I think that above a certain minimal success threshold success and talent aren’t that highly correlated — at a moderate level of success you have great bands who are not accessible to the widest audiences (like Man Man, for example), or you have great bands who are playing a genre that’s not that popular, but then you have mediocre bands who have a sound for wide appeal but just aren’t good enough to make it really big.

Then at the top levels of success you have the bands who transcend accessibility — they are really good and everyone can tell (say, for example, Radiohead, Outkast, KT Tunstall, to give somewhat disparate examples in time and genre) — but you also have bands who do, in fact, appeal to the lowest common denominator, and have only made it because some producer figured out a way to market them and polish their recordings of any imperfection and humanity (I don’t even know examples any more — five to ten years ago these were bands like the essentially indistinguishable Third Blind Matchbox Door 182 Down Blink Blink 20 — but there are examples from hip hop and other genres as well)

And, of course, as Nick points out, there are a lot more bands who haven’t made it (especially in the Clear Channel era where radio plays like 6 bands over and over again), that a lot of them are bound to be not that good.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 7, 2008 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are, of course, a small amount of really awesome “bands” (I hate bands, except Radiohead you got me) who are inaccessible or whatever, but they’re so few, and they give cause d’celibre or however that’s spelled to the rest of the 99% sucktastic ones.

RE: Blink 182. I don’t like them either, but I have a friend who was a classical guitar major/marching band president at a major university and is now in the industry in NYC, so he’s got the snob chops down, who once told me that they recorded really well. Whatever that means.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The number of completely craptastic bands out there is, truly, unbelievable. There are probably almost as many bad solo artists, but they take up a lot less mediaspace as a group.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like r&b and hip-hop ‘cause a.) it’s still relatively new (unlike “band sound” bands. The Beetles broke up 80 years ago), b.) it isn’t up its own ass (I want to be able to tap my foot, or dance) c.) doesn’t try to sound smart (if I want smart, I can watch the history channel, thank you very much). Any r&b/hip-hop that stops sounding good, sounding simple and pure, gets up it’s own ass or tries to be smart, can’t stand.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s worthwhile to make a distinction between music that “tries to be smart” just for the sake of chops or whatever, and that which is smart/complex/interested in trying different things, does it well, and can be appreciated for having a lot there to listen to.

I’m certainly not saying that straightforward, simple music isn’t great too (when done well, obviously), but complexity has its place (again, not automatically, but when done well). It’s just not for everyone — you sometimes have to have a trained ear or whatever to appreciate it, so a lot of more intricate music doesn’t make it as big.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you sometimes have to have a trained ear or whatever to appreciate it

Stop right there. Simple can be complex, it’s just not complicated. I know it seems like a contradiction, but it’s just…not.

J-dilla was crazy intricate when he was alive. Respected by just about every hip-hop artist in the game. Busta Rhymes referred to him as “the Godfather.”

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To clarify, once I hear “you just have to have a trained ear…” I just immediately think “you have to have good taste to see the king’s clothing.” I think the “trained ear” argument is employed by all the trillions of hacks out there, and is simultaneously bullet-proof and dead-wrong.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s not what I mean. I’m saying that sometimes having practice paying attention to the layers and nuances of music increases one’s enjoyment of it. It’s not an argument about taste — I’m just trying to defend the notion that some artists are really good, but not really popular, in part because some people are turned off by music that’s not instantaneously catchy.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This seems to have gone in the wrong direction.

Like, there is very good religious or folk music, for example, that isn’t necessarily popular, though a group of people might enjoy it intensely.

This is why I stopped using the iPod and started listening to the car radio again, to relinquish some control and restore diversity in my musical experiences. Even if that means hearing elevator muzak my building or Christmas carrols at Radio Shack or a screeching train. I am troubled that we make too many selections, the “smoking your own stash” principle.

Joeee (and also I) protest the cult of that esoteric music or anti-music, the comically rarefied New Zealand shoegazing or some such crap. The proliferation of the iPod, and the availability of information on the internet of “what’s cool” encourages folks to “tune out”, and that’s what bothers me the most.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The iPod and Internet have much more powerfully diversified people’s listening choices than the negative effects you describe. I think you perhaps are unaware of how narrow radio options got in the last 20 years.

Left to your own devices, you might make choices that are more narrow than the radio selection, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, well, that didn’t come out quite right, and I might have been caught in the act of inadvertent narrow-mindedness.

I mean to say that I am not programming life’s “playlists” in a routine way, and that I make an effort to get exposure from the widest possible variety of sources. Radio, internet radio, links to youtube clips, the public experience of live music (though I avoid clubs), etc.

It’s true that the radio by itself leaves a lot to be desired, but in major cities I’ve found that it’s still a good source. I wonder if many people my age aren’t listening to it at all, since most people I know don’t.

I’m no expert—not in the least bit—but I like to think I have managed to well rounded musical diet. Room for improvement? Always.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it’s entirely possible that those younger listeners who don’t have very narrow tastes have simply abandoned radio altogether at this point.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know how any urban youth listens to the radio. I don’t drive-when else would I listen to the radio? It’s totally abandoned.

Additionally, my students will, for the most part, not be drivers when they turn 16. When are they going to listen to the radio? They certainly aren’t going to turn it on when they’re sitting in bed doing the trebuchet assignment I just wrote. They have iTunes.

by afh4 on Dec 9, 2008 12:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand ’Net Radio to be basically the same thing, although I guess that Pandora or whatever pick up on the trend line too rigidly and too soon.

I don’t hate the iPod. I have one. There’s just a lot that I like about the old technology.

I credit the radio with helping me find a lot of what I like and don’t like, more so than any other source. The kids in my neighborhood weren’t listening to Roger and Zapp, but I liked Roger and Zapp, and if you listen to the radio long enough you’ll hear them.

I always liked the experience because of the element of surprise, and of the suspense of hearing only half of a song for the first time and falling in love with a hook, and of chasing that sound, of hanging on for 10 minutes for the DJ to tell you who they played.

But I haven’t followed my own advice. Out of boredom or passion I went on to spend what I consider a shocking amount of money on collecting music, but ultimately I wish I hadn’t. Having it all really took a lot of the fun out of it for me.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 9, 2008 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not saying radio doesn’t have positives. It’s just, when am I supposed to listen to it?

I don’t think there’s any popular internet radio that replicates real radio. Pandora isn’t radio to me.

But, I’m not really the point am I? My students will never listen to the radio-I think I might believe that to be true. As in never. By the time they have cars it will be so easy to link your portable music that they’ll never think about the radio.

by afh4 on Dec 9, 2008 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel exactly the same way. Driving = radio for me, and living without a car means no radio. Music is far to intimate an experience for me to listen to some wannabe shock jock in between top forty hits every 3 minutes. Radio when I’m driving is good background noise, since I’m focused on driving. Every other time, the music is my primary focus. That’s why I rarely listen to music at work, too.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 9, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

there is very good religious or folk music, for example, that isn’t necessarily popular

This is the other category I referred to above:

or you have great bands who are playing a genre that’s not that popular

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The following three comments by me should be read in reverse order, as they were posted. Lack of indentation is becoming an impediment.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait, that’s not right either. I give up — use the up button.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even more, having a “trained ear” (so arbitrary, what defines "trained") only enhances the degree to which you can enjoy something. I’m no wannabe ignoramus, it is a privilege to be educated in art, literature, music, et cetera (not that I am, I just recognize that it is a privilege). But it doesn’t take 10 years at Julliard to like good music. It just means you can say exactly why you like it. Who do we think we are? Experts? Raymond Carver got famous writing about important, meaningful emotions with simple language.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 1:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that it’s not a well-defined term. And I’m not trying to say that you need a music degree — but for some music you need to be willing to listen to it a few times and pick it apart a little, after which it becomes that much more viscerally enjoyable. It’s not like this purely intellectual version of enjoyment — for me, complexity can become emotionally enjoyable in a very immediate sense sometimes.

And again, I’m also not saying that complex music is the only good music. There’s a ton of really simple but beautiful music out there. Again, I just don’t think you can say that the only good music is simple, nor that if an artist were good they’d be really popular. I don’t think that’s that controversial…is it?

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here are my thoughts on this:

Having a good ear (whatever that is, again, we agree: let’s say you played music for a long time or listen to it a lot or, what really means a good ear, is that you’re a pro in the industry) I feel does sort of the inverse of what you’re saying. Someone with a good ear is more likely to snipe out a terrible song or artist. And it also allows him or her to appreciate a song MORE, but it is not the litmus test for whether you have the sheer “tools” or “makeup” for being able to appreciate a song. Like – it is never, in my opinion, “You’d like this, but only if you knew a little bit more.” More like, “you wouldn’t like this if you knew a little bit more.” So people who have good taste just have fewer duds in their collection, ideally. Although, paradoxically, I find that people with self-proclaimed good taste almost never have anything good in their collection.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is some latin phrase about how you can’t argue taste. And it’s true. I just argue motives for taste.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is such a thing as an acquired taste, in music as in many other things. Having a well-developed ear as a listener is not the same thing as being a pro musician, but it’s easier for a pro musician to have a well-developed ear.

As a producer, it’s my job to avidly maintain an interest in less sophisticated music, even as my ear continues to develop to appreciate sophisticated music more than ever.

You can argue against the idea of “sophistication,” but it’s not the same thing as self-indulgence or complexity for its own sake. It’s the same thing as enjoy a fine scotch instead of arguing between Bud Light and Coors. As a listener, I have an interest in both arguments, and as a pro, it’s my job to have a point of view in both arguments.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The point I didn’t quite get around to at the start, as your ear develops, you are in fact going to like things that you otherwise wouldn’t have liked, and possibly you’ll start to dislike other things.

Don’t kid yourself, our tastes do evolve, not just the “depth” of our appreciation, but it isn’t necessary to swear off the simple pleasures (like Krispy Kreme) entirely in order to enjoy gourmet cuisine.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well-put. Although I wouldn’t equate really good, simple music with Krispy Kreme. Krispy Kreme is more like…top 40 pop — full of sugar and fat and things that appeal to us at an immediate base level. Great simple music is more like….a fresh organic vegetable — simple and delicious the way nature made it, without the fixins.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See, I like all of those things, both in food and in music, and in music, it’s my job to like all those things, to appreciate them, to be able to separate (and effectuate) good from bad.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can see why you would need to like everything as a recording engineer. Personally, I think I can do without much of the top 40 stuff which is made for pretty much entirely commercial reasons. Some of it can really be painful to listen to sometimes. I do like Krispy Kreme though, so maybe that’s not the best analogy in my case. I have no place in my life for plastic nacho cheese — maybe that’s the better analog.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know, I have to say artists of the various genres and degrees of commerciality are not as different as you might think. The hyper-pop people genuinely want to make great records, it’s just a different type of great record than how you might define it. And the “fresh vegetable” types have plenty of ego and are driven to achieve widespread recognition and wealth if at all possible. The hyper-pop folks on average have a lot more drive, and believe me, when you’re a pro, you come to appreciate working with people with a strong work ethic, and that’s often the ones doing more commercial material.

And we don’t like everything, by the way, we just like everything that’s good, regardless of style.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I didn’t mean to suggest that you like everything. That’s obviously ridiculous.

I imagine though that I have a lot less appreciation for production value by itself than someone might in your line of work. Maybe not you, but I have a recording engineer friend who enjoys listening to suckily-written pop music because it’s so well-recorded. That doesn’t really do it for me.

In fact, I’ve found more than once that an artist whose music I really like, and whose first record is minimal in its production, will go on to produce a second record with much higher production value (because they can now afford it), but which all of a sudden sounds sterile. I find myself longing for that earlier recording sound because it seemed intimate.

I’m sure you can argue that those people didn’t use their budget in the right way and ended up with a sterile record because they didn’t know what they were doing in the studio, but, still.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 9, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If it sounds sterile, then it isn’t higher production quality. We make very clean and quiet recordings — except for the dirt and noise that are supposed to be there. Clarity is great, but if it isn’t creating a heightened sense of realism — helping to remove the barrier of the medium that’s standing in between musicians and listeners — then it’s just a weak taste choice.

Certainly a lot of stuff that is great musically doesn’t have great recording quality, and is very enjoyable anyway. But great production isn’t just in the recording quality, it’s in helping the artist get the material right — the songwriting, the arrangements, the accompanying players, the performances. On those other records, those non-engineering production aspects are clicking, just not the actual recording quality.

When we relaunched a few years ago, we had a new attitude that the pure engineering quality had to be something taken for granted — like, it’s the price of admission, the foundation for other stuff, we had to be able to just sort of put it in our back pocket and say, “Okay, that’s taken care of.” And from that point, concentrate on the musical part of the production process, on the experience of the musicians and the environment we were putting them in. On the basic question, are we using our expertise to put all the creative contributors in a position to make a great record? Giving them a process to follow, while letting them take the technical part for granted entirely.

Less experienced producers get caught up in gear, and they let themselves believe that the important stuff is all in the signal path, from the mic through the storage medium. It isn’t true, or at least, like I said above, that’s just the price of admission. The important stuff is outside the signal path, where the music is being created and performed. That’s where the record is really happening, regardless of how good or bad the recording quality is.

by Jay on Dec 9, 2008 3:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should add — without buying into the “organic” BS — that we do a great deal of what you might think of as “fresh vegetable” work. Our joke is that we have a nice little niche in the recording industry, and that niche is … recording.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My favorite architecture professor made use of cooking and food analogies. He went so far as to encourage us to sketch the meals we ate, which is impossible to do with Krispy Kreme because it just takes me one look before I’m stuffing my face.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“Acquired taste” is a good way to put it. And yeah, that’s basically what I’m saying: “sophistication” ≠ self-indulgence

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, I agree with this.

I think that sophistication gets warped, however. As jhon mentioned, you start to smoke your own stash a little bit – get possessive. And the analogy to scotch is a good one. We possess all things that we give a crap about. That is why every single 20-30 something white male knows just about everything there is to know about beer. And I know that, empirically, Christmas Ale is better than busch. Maybe that’s it – absorption. You have to simply immerse yourself in the vat for a long time before you come out with this ultra-filtered spirit. Drink enough busch, you’ll like Christmas Ale. I guess I just want music to know where it comes from – joy, or sorrow, and a few other emotions. And these elements are pretty fundamental. Someone whispering delicately into a mic, or screaming quasi-poetic bs is just the anti-christ of music for me. And that’s why I hate bands.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

/end rant. Sorry, above post had no real point.

Here’s what I tell myself:

If you find that your music taste has deviated so far from the norm you are the only one who likes the stuff you do, or you find that the people who like the stuff you do have a serious inferiority complex and are pretending to be intelligent 24/7, then you have lost what it was that made you like music in the first place. I think we referred to that earlier as “self-indulgence.” Self-indulgence needs to be checked vigorously. I mean, super freaking vigorously, because it’s anethema to music. A little “Atomic Dog” is its only cure.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or you find that the people who like the stuff you do have a serious inferiority complex and are pretending to be intelligent 24/7

In agreement there.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The people that only like music that Pitchfork tells them is good are one end of the spectrum. The other end are the people that only like music played on the radio station. Neither of these groups have defined their own musical tastes, which is the real shame. The Pitchfork people are really annoying, but so are the people that mock others for liking a band that they have never heard of.

by ClarkM on Dec 8, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Joeee and I (yeah, we’re brothers) saw a performance of Prokofiev’s symphonies—I forget which ones—at the Cleveland Orchestra a few years ago.
I read in the pamphlet that Stalin regarded Prokofiev as a bourgeois cosmopolitan formalist, a reminder to me of the danger of taking the anti-taste thing too far.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

obvi Peter and the Wolf. You should know that.

Listen, no one here is anti-taste. I rail against hyper-esoteric crap in defense of taste – remembering why we love music.

There are levels of good and bad. You have unsophisticated pop which is known to all. You have sophisticated/“sophisticated” music which is known to few. Then you have truly, truly great music, truly sophisticated, which is known to all – and is accessible all over again. Kinda like prokofiev.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Aren’t you and Jhon brothers? Isn’t it weird to refer to each other as jhon and joeee instead of John and Joe? Assuming that’s what you call each other.

by afh4 on Dec 8, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can neither confirm nor deny these rumors, afh4.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My real name is Rufio.

His is Clarence.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a pretty broad statement about “bands” there, joeee… does that mean you only listen to solo artists (and, I guess, groups that wouldn’t be considered a “band”?) I think you’re most definitely missing out if you dismiss any group that would be considered a band…

I guess the emotional content of music is like the raw ingredients — your meat, veggies, grains, etc. — which you can combine using musical technique into something delicious.

I suppose it’s often said that a chef is only as good as his/her ingredients, which might be true of music too, although I personally am not quite willing to say that music is only as good as its emotional content. Maybe only as good as the visceral aesthetic sense it evokes in the listener, but not necessarily the emotions that went into writing it…

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The key thing to keep in mind is that sophistication and complexity are not virtues or admirable objectives in their own rights, and — this is the key thing — simplicity is definitely not a vice when it comes to any kind of art.

Like Christmas Ale, the most impressive art ultimately is stuff with a high-level of sophistication that somehow reaches out to appeal to unsophisticated ears anyway. That’s a hell of a neat trick … and it gets us back to Steely Dan.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right. I think that appealing to unsophisticated ears is almost – the definition of sophisticated, in a way. That’s the cause of Ray Carver man crush. I mean, what is more sophisticated than Beethoven? And who can’t enjoy it? I think you could even say that about King Lear. I’d bet that anyone would like that play.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sophistication and complexity are not virtues or admirable objectives in their own rights

Right — this is what I was going for in the first place. But sometimes they can be alienating, even when done well (maybe not when done the very best, but that’s rare).

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should have added that this whole time I’ve had in mind music in combination with lyrics.

I assume that’s what you refer to when you speak of music that builds alienation. Is this right?

I’ve always thought of the primary purpose of music as a communal experience meant to inspire backbones to slip and alleviate sexual tension, to achieve an effect that’s the opposite of alienation.

But surely it may come from be about and for other emotions. It’s not like I can’t relate to those feelings, to confusion and dread, alienation, or whatever inspires the more extreme styles. I might relate all too well. I just don’t ask that of music. I ask music to make me feel different or better.

Some music is hilariously bad, but there are some songs that I find so revolting that I physically can’t stand them. There’s a popular emo band that comes to mind that will send me out of the room in an instant in search of any other source of music to drive it from my mind.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All great art is about loneliness.

Or so I’ve heard.

by Jay on Dec 8, 2008 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve been taught that it’s about Good and Evil, too, and a state of loneliness will produce that tension.

“What makes a Man, Lewbowski?…”

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 8, 2008 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it also allows him or her to appreciate a song MORE

Okay, but this is consistent with my point — if you only appreciate something a little, you’re probably not going to bother to listen to it much, and if that’s true of most people, it won’t be widely popular.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t get your point here… Am I supposed to be arguing that J-dilla isn’t complex?

by Logodaedalus on Dec 8, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait, wait. Says the guy who just legitimately declared his love for T-Pain? Now, I’ve got no beef with T and I’m certainly no huge fan of consciously obscure indie rock, but… really?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 9, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Too good for t-pain, turk?

by joeee on Dec 9, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

/Gets dirt off shoulder

/hi hater

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 9, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Saw them at the Toledo Zoo a couple of years ago. Great show.

by ClarkM on Dec 6, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I assume that refers to Steely Dan, not Hella. Hard to follow these when the indentation stops.

by cleveland teamer on Dec 6, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Up button.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 7, 2008 8:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have no idea what this is in reference to.

by NickFantana on Dec 7, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The post directly above mine.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 7, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Got ya!

by NickFantana on Dec 8, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You crazy hipster.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 8, 2008 8:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Gutz has the potential to be a good T-Pain comp, but I agree wholeheartedly that Jhonny has the most credibility in this regard on the team, if not the entire league.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 3, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I gotta say I like where this argument is heading….

by hans on Dec 4, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s going here.

Akon = Rafael Perez.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Afrika Bambaataa = Fausto Carmona

by hans on Dec 5, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kurtis Blow = Cory Snyder

by mcrose on Dec 5, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Steppin’ in a rhythm to a Kurtis Blow

Casey Blake = Genius of Love

(Low blow?)

Gutierrez = R Kelly
Choo = Grandmaster Flash

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 5, 2008 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually Lee is the Grandmaster, and

Jackson, Lewis, Laffey, Sowers, & Huff = The Furious Five

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 5, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hope they don’t let ZJ become the leader of their group and rename it… They’d have to switch genres…

by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2008 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And Grady the Wheels of Steal (sic)

by mcrose on Dec 5, 2008 8:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Very weird season.

• Huge opening day.
• Seven weeks of giant sucking, April 2–May 22: .210/.252./.290
• Two massive weeks: May 23–June 6: .423/.483/.692
• Then back off the cliff for eight more weeks, June 7–Aug 4: .145/.181/.245
• Very strong for the last seven weeks, Aug 5–Sept 28: .316/.397/.485

Don’t know what to make of it, but … weird.

by Jay on Dec 2, 2008 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My feeling is that Gutz’ swing is very mechanical as a result of the re-tooling the Indians org had him do in the lower minors. As a result of the mechanical nature of his swing, he can go through periods where just nothing feels comfortable to him at all and he struggles mightily.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 2, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure how wise it is to start slicing up sample sizes that aren’t that big to begin with.

Also, this is the second time in the last week I’ve seen someone on here try to explain away a bad stretch by an injury. First, it was Laffey and now it’s Gutierrez. I’m aware of no evidence to suggest that there was an injury on either occasion.

by ClarkM on Dec 2, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn’t matter if he was injured or not. The swings his performance inside of 2008 are so drastic it’s baffling.

Wedge praises Gutierrez’ work ethic and his devotion to improvement. I wish I had knew where to find the week-by-week totals, but in his 178 PA in May, June, and July in which he had 40 K and 7 BB, and in his final 167 PA he had 27 K and 15 BB (and of course he was hitting better and playing more frequently at this time). Fewer Ks, more walks. Whatever changed in his approach, it worked. Something changed. Do you think it was only luck?

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 2, 2008 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s 167 PA. Weird stuff can happen. Ryan Howard’s April OPS was about half of his September OPS. Who’s the real Ryan Howard, the April one or the September one? The answer is probably neither, he’s about the average of the two. In regards to Frank, I’m glad that his splits occurred in the order they did, but I’m not sure how significant it is.

by ClarkM on Dec 3, 2008 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you’re reading this wrong.

It’s not evidence for injury. It is a split that suggests the possibility of something suspicious. Many things are suspicious – such as terrible luck, injury. Some things aren’t suspicious – such as being bad at hitting baseballs.

by joeee on Dec 2, 2008 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m the one who suggested it for Laffey, on the basis of reduction in velocity. And I finally found the pitch f/x data I was looking for to show that the movement on his sinker dropped off considerably from ’07 to ’08 as well (in my mind, suggesting injury).

Here’s his ‘07 numbers
and his ’08 numbers

I’m worried about Laffey, because I think he can be very good, but not if he isn’t healthy.

by APV on Dec 6, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the visual to go along with his ’08 numbers. Far too many of his pitchers sitting right in the middle of that chart. Basically straight pitches.

by APV on Dec 6, 2008 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting, it appears the velocity didn’t really change, but his movement dropped off. I’m not really sure what to make of this, but I would guess that an injury isn’t the only explanation.

I’m skeptical that Laffey was injured because the Indians continued to let him pitch. The Indians, by all accounts, take the health of its players very seriously, and it seems unlikely that they would let one of their young pitchers continue to pitch through an injury long after they were in contention, including several starts in AAA. If the Indians thought Laffey’s struggles were related to his health, one would think that they would give him time to heal after demoting him. Instead, they had him continue to pitch, suggesting to me that they believed his problems to be of a different nature. Though, it is possible that Laffey was hiding an injury, and the Indians missed it.

by ClarkM on Dec 7, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok: he’s not Josh Barfield.

I don’t know. The guy has approximately a 4:1 K:BB. Last year he had a pretty serious power brownout. I just don’t see why we would expect much change. Granted – what we have in him is pretty alright, I’m just don’t see cause to be rosy on his bat improving.

by joeee on Dec 2, 2008 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He walked with the bases loaded at least twice. Any guy who can do that has the potential to acquire patience.

No, really. I’m being serious.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 2, 2008 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reasons to be thankful ….

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3737502

by peter m on Dec 1, 2008 8:49 PM EST reply

Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Login Bar

Network Bar

Let's Go Tribe!

CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Post Thanksgiving, holiday shopping over-reaction thread

Comments