Indians sign Mike Redmond
Terms of the contract haven't been revealed yet, but Castro reports it's first major league free agent we've signed.
So no Toregas as backup.
[UPDATE]: Anthony Castrovince (same link) is now reporting that the Indians will be paying Redmond a base $850K salary with $10K more for each 10 games he starts, capping at 70 games (Ryan).
about 2 years ago
JP_Frost
854 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I was just about to post this. I’m disappointed. Here’s what I had written.
The Indians signed Mike Redmond to be the backup catcher. Not what I had perceived as an area of weakness, but then, I don’t care.
Turns out when Redmond is slumping he takes BP in the nude. How do you think they score that in DiamondView?
From here
"He doesn’t have the most aesthetically pleasing body, either," [Andy] Fox said. "That’s just my opinion."
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
by gorilla_baller on Jan 15, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
………… And Grady Sizemore has found his new best friend.
by JP_Frost on Jan 15, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
So Toregas goes back to Columbus to back up and mentor Carlos Santana? What a bad day to be Wyatt Toregas. And, to a lesser extent, Chris Gimenez.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 15, 2010 11:00 AM EST reply actions 14 recs
I went to school with her and she’s not that kind of woman.
I can’t really vouch for Shoppach.
by JimmyAB on Jan 15, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
As backup catchers go, Redmond’s pretty good, but I’m still scratching my head as to why they wouldn’t just keep Shoppach for a couple months and THEN trade him.
Well, this way they avoided having a bitter, lame duck employee ripping management during his monologue every night.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
by Ockus_NYC on Jan 15, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Haha. But there’s nothing “lame duck” about Conan.
by JulioBernazard on Jan 15, 2010 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
you and i and millions of viewers may feel that way, but Jeffy Z. appears to feel differently, unfotrunately.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
Ah, members of the mighty Team Conan … nearly all of whom will go back to watching Letterman, regardless of how this turns out.
Team Craig here.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 16, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
Same. Ferguson is the best thing going right now. He is awesome. I just read his novel and am about to read his memoir. He is genuine and very funny.
I feel like I’m cheating on Dave anytime I watch Conan, but neither of them seem to be on the top of their game anymore.
Leno has always, and will always, suck as a late show host.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 16, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
Yes. That is, unless you happen have a job where you need to hire a late show host who will help your company make money, in which case you would feel that he’s among the best two or three late show hosts of all time. But in fantasyland where it’s all about the tastes of college-educated faux hipsters, he’s the worst thing ever.
Ferguson is incredibly underrated. I was a Conan fan from his first month on the air, but Ferguson is just plain funnier than Conan has ever been or will ever be.
But in fantasyland where it’s all about the tastes of college-educated faux hipsters, he’s the worst thing ever.
or maybe in reality where he isn’t funny to anyone under the age of 50, he’s the worst thing ever.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 16, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
That’s why DVRs are so awsome.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 17, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
I would also like to point out that simply having mass appeal doesn’t make you good at your job. If we went by that logic, britney spears would be one of the best musicians of the last decade.
also, to say he’s one of the top two or three late night hosts of all time is misleading. his time-slot is very lucrative. the tonight show is a tradition for many people. much of leno’s audience is people that would have watched the tonight show regardless of who was hosting. The failure of leno’s 10 o’clock show backs this up. it has nothing to do with jay leno, it has everything to do with the tonight show.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 16, 2010 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
In your defense, buddy, you’re not wrong about everything, only about seven or eight major things.
- Leno pretty clearly could not have beaten Letterman for the last five years in a row, and most of the last 17, if nobody under 50 thinks he’s funny. Like it or not, tens of millions of people under 50 prefer him to Letterman, and many more millions would say that both men are funny.
- If your job is to get ratings (or record sales), then having mass appeal does in fact mean that you’re good at your job.
- Britney Spears is pretty great at her job.
- Britney Spears’ job cannot really be described as "musician," and herein lies the fallacy of your argument. She is an entertainer.
- Yes, The Tonight Show is an institution and a decades-old habit for millions of people. All the more damning that Conan lost half of Leno’s viewers in just a few months, while Leno had the ratings lead 17 years after Carson retired.
- Having said that, it is fatuous to suggest that viewers aren’t sophisticated enough to tune to a different channel, and, over a 17-year period, make a judgment as to whether they’d rather watch Dave or Jay.
- I believe anyone who works in television would tell you with great confidence that what matters most is what channel the TV was tuned to an hour before a program starts, not 20 years before it starts.
Having said all that, I’ll take Letterman over any of these other guys. History will record that Letterman lost The Tonight Show, switched networks to challenge it head-to-head, and earned far more critical respect while usually losing narrowly in the ratings. History will also record that Leno took over The Tonight Show and held a leading audience against a heavyweight challenger for 17 years. Finally, history will record that Conan couldn’t come close to either guy in the ratings. Did he get a fair shot? Perhaps not. Had he really earned a fair shot? Not necessarily.
Letterman lost the ratings battle with Leno for one reason: Hugh Grant.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 16, 2010 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
So he gets big ratings for one show, and people who actually prefer Letterman continue to watch his show for 14 years?
Guys, I know most college-educated men under 40 strongly prefer Letterman, but at some point, common sense enter into the conversation. Hating Leno isn’t any smarter than hating strikeouts. You want to talk intelligently, your feelings must be put aside.
What’s your argument, Jay? I’m getting an argument from popularity: lots of people like Leno, therefore he most be funny.
To both of you: I didn’t make an argument about “better.” The original statement was no people under 50 find Leno funny. Obviously that is not the case.
Lots of people want to watch him. It’s reasonable to assume they find him funny. We can say he isn’t funny, but what does that statement even mean, when he’s a comedian that millions of people want to watch?
I can say what I find funny. I can also say which comedians are very popular. What other definition of funny is there?
Lots of people want to watch him.
Wasn’t this whole debacle started by the fact that lots of people don’t want to watch him in the 10p time slot?
by JulioBernazard on Jan 18, 2010 9:50 AM EST up reply actions
In part, sure, but it was an untested format.
It’s more damning by far, it seems to me, that Conan lost 40% of his audience that has been watching that exact format in that exact time slot on that exact network for over 40 years.
No, I’m not saying that. Many people probably didn’t care strongly about either guy, but Leno got a lot of press and coverage for that interview and so people started watching him and stuck to it (because that’s what many people do when it comes to TV viewing).
But the fact is that Letterman was consistantly beating Leno until that show, so something certainly happened. Maybe people who didn’t like Leno watched and thought “hey, this guys isn’t that bad” so they kept watching. I don’t know. But it was the turning point.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Nope, we want proof, preferably in the form of a spreadsheet or long-form statistical analysis.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Evidently a large percentage of Team Conan doesn’t even own a TV set. Which raises some interesting questions. TV revenue is still largely driven by live broadcast ads, so naturally the older viewers (who watch more live and less via DVR or Internet) are going to drive programming decisions that are timeslot-sensitive.
Average viewer ages: Leno 55, Letterman 54, Conan 45. Conan’s is a lot older than I would have guessed, but that just says something about the market for the live broadcast. Who would have guessed that Letterman’s audience is basically the same age as Leno’s?
At the same time, if the younger generation isn’t watching on live TV, then why should they care what time Conan is on or on what channel? This really does seem to be a generational divide. The younger you are, the more likely you are to really loathe Leno, and some folks just can’t believe that we don’t get to be rid of him finally. I honestly think a whole lot of people hate Leno a lot more than they love Conan.
Leno still isn’t funny.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Neither’s Conan and frankly the “cute” has worn offa Letterman too.
Whatever happened to Richard Jeni?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You really don’t know? He shot himself in the head. Depression.
Big Steaming Pile Of Me is a classic.
I’d be depressed, too, if Dane Cook and Jay Leno rose to be the titans of my profession.
by JulioBernazard on Jan 18, 2010 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
Again with the knee-jerk Leno hating. Leno was revered as a master standup comedian by his peers. Even Patton Oswalt, last week in the middle of ripping into Leno savagely, made a point of mentioning that he was one of the very best ever. That fraternity in some ways seems most annoyed that the guy neutered his own act to achieve ridiculous mass success.
Yeah, I’ve been very careful to restrict my criticism of Leno to late-night television hosting. I’ve seen clips of Leno a few times doing standup and thought he was alright. And, like you’ve said, his peers recognize him as a master.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
If he sucks at the thing he’s done for the past fourteen years, and for what he’s most well-known for, doesn’t he, ya know… suck?
by JulioBernazard on Jan 18, 2010 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m just having trouble reconciling the phrase “sucks at” with the phrase “most successful person in the world at.” What that juxtaposition says to me is that a bunch of under-qualified taste-mongers have way too high an opinion of their own opinions.
I prefer to recognize that he’s done something right, whatever it is, and not to hate someone for doing something counter to my own tastes.
No. Both are outstanding, well-written, well-acted, well-directed comedies.
They are however, for completely different audiences.
I've really got to change my signature.
I may be misremembering if Everybody Loves Raymond was the sitcom being compared to AD, but the TV debate did happen on this site and the points were similar to those being made right now about Conan v Leno.
No. It really isn’t about that, and there’s something smug, reductionist and even a little pathetic in thinking that it is. It ought to be obvious that the two are not inversely related — The Beatles, The Godfather movies, Ray Charles, etc.
In my mind — and I realize my view here is not the typical one — it actually is about two things. First, the different way that professional “content people” view content as compared with pure content consumers. I produce records, I write and edit, and other stuff here and there, and I know quite a few people who also write and produce, including TV shows.
Those of us who create or produce for a living know that it is damned hard to create highly successful works that permeate the culture. Not just anyone can produce a Britney Spears record, especially given that you have to work within Britney Spears limited range of capabilities as a vocalist and performer. (It’s also not easy to produce a Justin Timberlake or Beyonce record, but it’s at least a little easier.) Likewise a show like Raymond or Leno’s version of The Tonight Show.
You think just anyone could have beaten Letterman — himself a true giant of the industry — in the ratings for most of 17 years? I don’t. Someone was doing something right. So within the industry, there may be some professional jealousy or cattiness here or there, but for the most part, there’s well earned respect for a peer who is making it work. It’s simply not easy to do something that millions of people like, and it’s a weak talent and/or amateur who acts like it is. I think the professional view of Conan’s situation is that he does the late-night kookfest thing really well, but maybe he doesn’t have what it takes to attract a large audience before midnight. Letterman had the ability to adapt to that jump, but that doesn’t mean that Conan does.
The second thing is the tendency of people of a certain age and proclivity to base some significant part of their personal identity on cultural tastes. “I am a hip kind of person, and that kind of person hates Jay Leno.” And also hates REM after they got popular but not before, and loves PT Anderson, etc. I personally don’t understand this at all, but again, I’m a content guy. I am not the least bit impressed by who you like and don’t like. I am not judging you by your taste. If anything, I would be more impressed if you recognized that you are only a consumer of content, and you aren’t an official or even unofficial arbiter of anything, because your taste doesn’t mean jack outside of it being your own taste.
There are only three prisms through which to view these matters. One is popular taste. Another is professional taste, i.e., the respect of the creators’ peers (and possibly also professional critics). And the last one is personal taste, which is just you, the guy with the opinion. And when you don’t realize that, you may gain the nodding approval of your friends for defending the Accepted Taste Of Your Social Cohort, it doesn’t mean that you know anything. On the contrary, it demonstrates rather powerfully that you don’t.
by Jay on Jan 19, 2010 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I love what you’re saying here, but I’d like to add a little to the content creators / professional critics angle. In literature or art, for example, the “titan” writers and critics (academia) are heavily influenced by, for instance, whatever Paris is telling them is okay to like or what “objective aesthetic” is true. Tom Wolfe wrote a great essay, “My Three Stooges,” about how Irving, Mailer, and Updike threw an absolute fit about his ’98 novel, “A Man in Full.” AMIF was one of the best-selling novels of the 20th century, apparently, and Tom Wolfe is an absolute giant in the writing world, but he is constantly at odds with “the writing community,” who claimed his book was just pop-trash entertainment.
This is all to say that, it is possible for people in the industry to hate on other people in the industry for making Britney Spears tracks, especially when Britney Spears tracks are really good. As Wolfe said, “popularity is not an artists’ live in slut.” So the industry ain’t infallible. Also! Britney Spears’ “3” is genius.
AMIF was one of the best-selling novels of the 20th century, apparently…
According to Publisher’s Weekly it was the fourth-best selling novel of 1998. I don’t think it would even be one of the best-selling novels of the decade.
A quote from “My Three Stooges”:
“[A Man in Full] sold almost 50 percent more [than The Bonfire of the Vanities], placing it rather high up, I haven’t been able to avoid noticing (and once more I blush), on the list of bestselling American novels of the twentieth century, along with The Bonfire of The Vanities.”
Because it’s Tom Wolfe who wrote that sentence, you can rest assured with 6 sigma confidence that that sentence wouldn’t be published if it weren’t true.
[O]n the list of bestselling American novels of the twentieth century…
I don’t share your confidence in Wolfe’s accuracy. A few questions: What is the list? How long is it? Whose list is it?
Dan Brown and Paulo Coehlo have fights over Davinci Code and Alchemist.
A Man in Full does not approach Jonathan Livingston Seagull or Catcher in the Rye or Little Prince. This is Wolfe having fun and playing around in his usual self-aggrandizing manner.
It’s funny you say that, because I was thinking on my walk to the library about how Harry Potter actually blows, even though its mega-popular.
I mean, there are things these authors do well. But there are huge traps – like character development, male genius worship, and cliche – that someone like Rowling falls into. I think that the writing community – as massive as it is – is just less talented than the music industry.
Meant to mention this earlier:
I think the novelist community must be much less of a community than music, magazine, movie or television production. It’s far more solitary and far less collaborative, so there’s less opportunity to work with other people, and to work with people who’ve worked with other people, etc. Much tougher to get a read on what everyone does and who does it well.
Heh. Steven King certainly is a master, but that critique doesn’t get too deep into the books themselves. Also – King has been spurned by The Community for being popular his whole career – of course he’d come to her defense. But even he would have to admit that a.) none of the characters had a serious change over the course of 7 books, b.) Harry Potter was literally perfect in every way, Will Hunting perfect, from day one, and c.) Rowling violated a major no-no by telling everyone how to interpret Dumbledore.
But she did a lot right – inventing a massive world that is ultra-saturated, ultra-rich, and obeys perfectly a set of strange laws such that millions can see it’s coherence – that’s what is great about the series.
My mom is a best-selling young-adult novelist, and she would disagree with the idea that there’s “less of a community.” She goes on writing retreats with other novelists, is in writing groups that critique each others’ drafts, and is on mailers where they all discuss new books and award winners and such.
I guess they can’t actually go into a studio and record a track together, but they’re not really solitary either.
I’m just saying, hundreds of people typically work on a film, and maybe 20 people on a CD project. It is very different from writing a novel. Those retreats you’re talking about are not where the real work gets done.
That’s true. I don’t know about your conclusion, though, that it’s “much tougher to get a read on what everyone does and who does it well.” In cinema, so many people are involved that it’s hard to tell who’s responsible for what unless you’re directly collaborating, like you said. In the novelist community, though, you can pretty much read the final product and judge how good that novelist is (except to the extent that they may have an amazing editor, or something).
It’s more about the fact that while actors and musicians are competing with one another, but they’re also constantly collaborating with other actors and musicians. Almost all of their work relies on it. You can be a novelist and not ever work with or even talk to another novelist, but it’s impossible to do that as an actor and almost impossible (and unheard-of) for a musician.
I absolutely loved the Harry Potter books. And I read them when I was 24.
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 23, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
A lot of people read Dan Brown, and while he is not my taste, I recognize that it may not be representative of the majority.
Later we’ll discuss the literary merit of the many Tom Clancy opuses
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
If we stick to strictly literary merit – an impossibility with this bunch – the Clancy discussion’ll go maybe 5 posts – 10 posts tops.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m not a big fan of his novels, but Dubliners may be the best collection of shorts stories ever.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 21, 2010 7:55 AM EST up reply actions
But he’s a hack who
must be doing something right.
by JulioBernazard on Jan 20, 2010 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
This is true. Although, I must say The DaVinci Code was a good read.
Everything else he’s written is pretty awful.
I've really got to change my signature.
joeee just posted as I was writing, but I’m going to continue…
Here’s my problem with your prisms. Those peers and professional critics are recognizing something creative and fun and substantively excellent in the creation. But why can’t people here be recognizing the same thing? Why the jump to the “faux hipster” charge? (and yes, I do ride a fixed gear bicycle) Maybe when a large, vocal group of intelligent consumers/listeners/viewers praise the quality of the less-than-most-popular creation it is because there is something to it.
Popularity and dollar numbers is a goal in of itself. It’s very hard, and should be respected. Good job, Mr. Leno. But even though it’s hard to define, and its always mixed with mere taste, I think people do and can recognize creativity/excellence/wit.
(note: I’m replying generally. I don’t watch these shows very often)
It’s the premise that all these young, college-educated men somehow AREN’T enormous teeny-boppers. Like they can cut through the Britney albums and go straight to the good stuff, when they’re actually just as easy to peg in market research.
To myself and others: go eat up your Daily Show and AD and Family Guy and Philosophy degree and political awareness and English Premier League and microbrews and law degree and blogs even (like this one!). You do everything you’re told and like everything you’re told to like.
…Not trying to be a jerk, only saying that, in my opinion, you first have to completely admit the fallibility of your own tastes and recognize that you are just as programmed, just as part of the collective as everyone around you, in order to truly understand that, say, the guys who produce Britney are basically geniuses.
You’re not being a jerk, and I, like a lot of us, fall right in that group. But I don’t agree that we are AS programmed.
Sure, that groupthink is somewhat there. But I reject the idea that moving from McDonalds to better food is just moving from one group to another. There is better food out there. Objectively better.
Except that you can seriously make the case that there aren’t better fries out there than McDonald’s fries. If you are too smart to admit that McDonald’s fries are off the chain, then, you’re dumb.
And one thing that people tend to completely overlookis manufacturing. Even using the word “manufacturing” has a negative connotation.
Obviously, my burger would taste better if it were cooked by Bobby Flay the restauranteur than Joe Blow the McDonald’s worker. But the fact that someone figured out a way to bang out burgers such that you have, literally, and under-two-minute-wait that hundreds of millions of people will buy is an absolute miraculous stroke of genius engineering and innovation.
People don’t give that any cred. Then add in the fact that McD fries actually ARE better than Bobby Flay fries, and we should be falling on our knees in awe and respect for these titans, these McDonald’s inventors, the guys who write “Hit Me Baby One More Time.”
Nutritionally, those fries (fast food vs. duck fat) are not likely better.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 19, 2010 11:07 PM EST up reply actions
The McDonalds people are geniuses for their food production, but you said it yourself — obviously the Bobby Flay burger is better. There’s an objectively better food, despite which one sells more. Isn’t that the point that you’re arguing against?
When did this thread become a Ricky Gervais podcast?
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Jan 20, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Of course Mickey D’s makes great fries – you know how I know? Julia Child told me so.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Only that’s not what she says. She says McDonald’s fries used to be good before 1990, when they switched from frying in seven percent cottonseed oil and 93 percent beef tallow. Back before John Maynard Keynes ruined the french fries.
by odradek on Jan 19, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
So are you arguing that no one is capable of being something other than part of the collective? That even the individuals are not truly individual?
I mean, I love the EPL but also prefer Leno to Stewart and hate Family Guy. I realize this is no major digression but, to me at least, it is a digression. I’ll join you in not trying to be a jerk but I think that you have vastly oversimplified the dynamic.
You know, I should’ve left out Family Guy because the tide has completely turned. It Is Now Lame to like Family Guy – went the way of Dane Cook six years ago.
This is so close to the heart of the matter.
The fact that we can track the trajectory of how cool it is to like something is just proof of how bogus most people’s stated opinions are.
We all ultimately know very little other than our own opinion of something and its popularity. And a lot of people don’t even know what their own opinion is, they rather only know what it’s supposed to be.
And a lot of people don’t even know what their own opinion is, they rather only know what it’s supposed to be.
The implication here, and in all of yours and joe’s backslapping, is that there are people who know their own opinion, or who know better than to think they can. Apparently, this group is composed of industry professionals and disenchanted hipsters.
My question is: what’s the big payoff of being part of that ‘in’ group?
Well, I like whatever I want to like, for one thing.
There isn’t really a big payoff, though. As I think you probably know from your own experience, being involved in this kind of work in some ways takes a lot of the joy out of consuming it.
I just think it’s a false dichotomy between the person who “likes whatever they want to like” and the person who likes MGMT because Paste told them to.
The former group, it seems to me, is trying to assert that the latter group is somehow confused or deceived or wracked by some toxic self-destroying dishonesty. In actuality, I think neither point of view is of much consequence for the human experience, whatever that is.
And I’m saying, people who feel the need to violently oppose certain entertainment choices basically fall into two categories: Those who actually know something about the subject, and those who are just acting out on some cultural expectation they’ve placed on themselves. You could, of course, decide that even if I’m right, it just makes no difference to you. Maybe the only difference is a more charitable stance, giving artists and craftsmen the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway … agree to disagree.
I don’t think I’m being less charitable to artists at all.
I guess I feel like this conversation comes up and it targets an attitude I find baffling: I’m not encountering these people who violently oppose things all the time.
I think the average person is probably not a taste-radical.
But the burden of proof is generally on you when you are a.) hating on something that has mega-success and b.) loving like crazy a more esoteric, commercially unsuccessful alternative. Because it might just turn out that a.) is good stuff and you are blinding yourself, and b.) still leaves you just as trendy as the next millions of people who are “unique” exactly like you.
But again, I think there is a loophole in crippled industries that have a high-temple of taste (coincidence?), like visual art and literature. For instance, you are a total unwashed heathen moron jackass if you don’t like, for instance, Contemporary Art or precious short fiction.
How much someone brings the hammer down rhetorically doesn’t mean that these aren’t common sins against creativity that are, generally, to be avoided. You know, if you’re in to that.
Chemo, I’m talking about trends. Family Guy was mega-popular, until all-of-a-sudden it wasn’t. Now liking Family Guy makes you Recognizably Unfunny (if you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s you type-deal). But six years ago that wasn’t the case. Quoting FG now is the lamest thing you can do. But it’s the same show.
Down below, you said “FG has always been my litmus test to see if someone has a good sense of humor or not.”
I know you prefixed that by saying “all opinion modesty aside,” but you just copped to hating something that was extremely successful, and judging people accordingly.
For the record, I have always hated Family Guy. And Dane Cook.
In other words, I’m awesome.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Jan 20, 2010 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You aren’t on Facebook.
You apparently haven’t seen a million “Team Conan” members who don’t even watch TV.
I guess I disconnect people’s behavior on things like Facebook from their actual opinions. Like, when I sit and talk with anyone about music, they don’t usually yell at me about TV on the Radio. On Facebook, though, they might digitally yell about it I guess.
I am on Facebook, btw, but no one from LGT wants to be my friend. Except for MTF.
I think we just had a moment.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 20, 2010 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
As an aside, I actually know the guys who founded Paste, They’re huge baseball fans. They were passing through Cincinnati and I drove down form Columbus and we went to a Reds game just before the magazine launched.
Frankly, I think the last thing any of them would want would be for people to discard their own opinions of what is good in favor of a Paste hipster pose.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 20, 2010 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, and I kicked Josh Jackson’s butt at fantasy baseball.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 20, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure I see the difference between
A) The hipster who thinks Everybody Loves Raymond fans are sucked in by groupthink, and
B) the meta-hipster who thinks regular hipsters are sucked in by groupthink, but “I like whatever I want to like.”
by Chemo on Jan 20, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The term “meta-hipster” has no meaning. If you’re not a hipster, then you’re just not one.
The difference is that I like some popular things but not others, some “hip” things but not others, and I don’t care what you think of it.
Meta-hipster has no meaning, but I couldn’t think of a better term to use. Maybe I should have said “guy.” Regardless, that word wasn’t the point.
I imagine every person in this conversation would say about themselves, “I like some popular things but not others, some ‘hip’ things but not others, and I don’t care what you think of it.”
by Chemo on Jan 20, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The term "meta-hipster" has no meaning.
Then what, exactly, is a “faux hipster?”
Jay, I’m with you on 98% of what you’re saying. I’m in the creative field, I criticize and create art for a living (with a healthy subsidy from my day job as a hack journalist), but I also live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the supposed barometer of hip – and the actual mecca of perceived hipster-dom. So it seems you’re talking out both sides of your mouth here. After I (regrettably, now that I’ve seen the 300-plus comments that it has generated) made a not-so veiled reference to Conan way up the thread, you immediately cast aspersion on those of us who (not really) declared ourselves “team Conan.” I was all ready to get my back up about being pigeonholed as some sort of left-of-center elitist until you started making complete and total sense with your stance on pop-art vs perceived “real art.” I guess, more than anything, I’m just confused. You seem to appreciate the idea that pop art isn’t garbage simply because it’s consumed by the masses — and I love that you feel that way. But you also seem to be not above the garden variety knee-jerk “I-know-why-you-like-XYZ-even-if-you-don’t-know-why-you-like-XYZ” tropes. What are you really trying to say, here?
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
First, let me acknowledge that you’re asking for trouble (and not going for precision) any time you try to generalize.
A faux hipster is someone who only wishes he or she were a proper hipster. Phones in the lame Jay Leno condemnation but still eats at Olive Garden. Doesn’t know nearly enough new music to make any judgments about pop music. Sees four movies a year at the Cedar Lee and thinks of himself as something of a film connoisseur.
In other words, someone who is not only pompous and ridiculous, but not even really the least bit culturally literate. A couch potato who thinks he’s a professor.
wow. what’s a “proper hipster?” what is a “hipster?”
And it seems to me that Olive Garden is something – like, perhaps, Jay Leno – that is loved by the masses and therefore, shouldn’t be derided as something that sucks.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
I think I know a thing or two about Eyetalian cuisine and I think that the Olive Garden’s pasta fagioli is the cat’s pajamas.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I ate at Olive Garden today!
You know, The O.G.
They have a good imitation Pasta e Fagioli.
I've really got to change my signature.
Dude pasta fagol - Scilian pronounciation – is like guinea chili. There’s hundreds of variations and most of ‘em good. The OG’s got one of the better ones.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The Sicilian is great. I didn’t know fagol—or rigaton or covatell—had the extra syllables until I was about 15.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 21, 2010 6:09 AM EST up reply actions
Just to send this completely off the rails. Maui has probably more great restaurants per capita than any other place I can think of – and yes I’m including Paris, Rome and Lebanon, Ohio. Any way one of our better restaurants closed – Roy’s Asian-Pacific – and, rumor has it, the space will be filled by and Olive Garden. You would think that Elvis is coming back from the dead. Every faux gormand on the island is chomping at the bit to get the $7.99 salad/breadsticks/pasta fazol for lunch. To hell with the moi-moi and Nick’s Fish Market, I want me some minestra maritata !
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Au contraire. After an evening at the Raceway, retire to the sumptuous grandeur of the Golden Lamb, a restaurant that rivals anything in Paris or Rome, if not Maui.
The Golden Lamb is one of the most hideously overrated dining establishments I’ve ever been exposed to. Perhaps they lost heart when Chuck went to Maui.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
A little further out on that route… 63 I think is the anatomically correct rearing horse above the fairgrounds not that far from the prison.
How I miss that drive back to Miami in Oxford
I’m particularly fond of buried touchdown Jesus along I-75 just north of the permanent flea markets.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 22, 2010 8:31 AM EST up reply actions
I read down and was mortified. I’d call in witnesses but my conscience is clear.
I think what gets lost in the hipster thing are the people whose taste actually runs counter to the popular. To proclaim that all some sort of faux hipster posturing is failing to account for the individuality of people. I genuinely prefer Anathallo to Coldplay, and Folgers to Starbucks, but I try to avoid spewing philosophy unless it is late at night or I have been drinking (or, preferably, both).
All that extremely anecdotal evidence to say that it is just as disingenuous to throw everyone into some easily analyzed pot as it is to pretend to dislike the popular for the sake of becoming more popular.
But you still love a massive name-brand coffee (you like coffee at all).
Face it! We are all part of the collective! We never stood a chance.
Me? I like White Castel coffee. $0.79 for half a gallon at the drive thru.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I agree that we are part of a collective, what I can’t agree on is that we are not very unique parts of it.
I prefer indie music but extremely mainstream coffee. I like the choice of old people in talk show hosts even though I’m only 27. You like baseball and provoking intellectual discussion. Phil likes his highbrow beers but also enjoys the cliched beer at the baseball game. It is not profound to look at one single characteristic from a person and use it to say that person fits into the collective, because, to some extent, we all do. However, to a much greater extent, we all operate individually.
That to say. An actually developed personal taste doesn’t care for the opinions of others. You may be the only person in the world who listens to The Weepies. If they were to sudden;y become popular would that invalidate your viewpoint?
By admitting that you aren’t above the fray, that you are a lame teenage girl screaming for your N*SYNC (Woo Nate Silver!!!! Jon Stewart!), that someone somewhere gets paid money to have your tastes defined dead to rights – you stand a lot greater chance of being honest about your own opinions.
Somebody gets paid money to define the tastes of college-educated white males. Nobody could nail my tastes dead to rights, just as they couldn’t nail Fwembt’s and I’m sure they couldn’t nail yours.
As a matter of fact, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s not very cool to like sports. We’re bucking the trend just by being on this board!
but it’s not very cool to like sports.
I have no idea where you come from, but this is decidedly not true.
To clarify, among the hipster, Jon Stewart/Conan O’brien crowd we’re getting lumped with, it’s not very cool to like sports.
How did Jon Stewart get lumped in with Conan O’Brien? Stewart took over a fringe basic-cable show and ended up one of the most influential people in the entire country. Conan has taken over two established shows and formats and struggled like crazy in his first year both times. He has never, ever been as popular or influential as Stewart.
So is it ok that I liked Craig Kilborn better, as long as I acknowledge that’s just my dumb opinion?
Because, man, I love me some Craig Kilborn.
A few years ago, he played a villain in one of the worst “baseball” movies of all time.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 22, 2010 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, someone does get paid to define this. And, funny though they may be, they’re not always right.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
Wait, is it still OK to like Family Guy reruns? I’M SO CONFUSED
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 19, 2010 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t want to freak you out, but you might actually have to watch and decide for yourself if you like it.
Oh, I like it plenty. I’m just trying to figure out if I’m cool or not.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 19, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
I think just participating in this discussion answers that question.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 19, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What isn’t cool about Internet message boards?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 20, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
Family Guy is polarizing. My wife isn’t the least bit potty-mouthed but loves South Park — she watches it disapprovingly and laughs all the way through — yet can’t stand Family Guy. She says it’s just too heavy-handed. So on the one hand, I’ve talked to lots of hipster guys who act like McFarlane brilliant, yet my wife (who isn’t at all a comedy writer) thinks it’s all really obvious humor.
All opinion modesty included, FG has always been my litmus test to see if someone has a good sense of humor or not. Now, obviously, everyone is scrambling to claim they always thought Family Guy was weak. But your conscience remembers (or it doesn’t)!
Me too. I heard many good things about FG and watched a few times but never found it that amusing. South Park — while not what it once was — is still pretty good. I am often disgusted and amused at the same time.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 19, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree. maybe those were the golden years b/c of your age but they had some amazing episodes after season 9 (manbear pig, satan’s super sweet 16. warcraft, the N**** episode)
I have not been a big fan of season 13, but I think southpark has still got it. season 13 definitely had its moments (jonas bros, kanye and fishsticks, the economy, michael jackson, pimps, and glenn beck)
the only one I really though fell flat for me in the most recent season was the one making fun of the WWE…but that one wouldve been much funnier like 5 years ago
I don’t understand why obvious humor isn’t funny just because it’s obvious.
… Maybe I need to re-examine my courting techniques.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 19, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
they are similar. shock humor does rely on the element that it is unexpected. it also relies on other emotions such as anger by making lewd jokes.
yet my wife (who isn’t at all a comedy writer) thinks it’s all really obvious humor.
which, to some, makes it brilliant pop art. Maybe not to some, and maybe not to me, but isn’t having the “Kool Aid Man” burst through a door just a post-modern version of the Campbell’s Soup can?
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
Are there people who argue that Britney’s producers aren’t geniuses? I can’t imagine someone not realizing that. These are people who listen to the Black Keys a lot or something?
If you were to take any number of Britney tracks – let’s stick with “3” – and plug in a clear-voiced young man, instead of auto-tuned Britney, and released that song on an independent label, imagine how well it would sell.
Really freaking well.
Yeah, who are these people arguing against any version of this idea though?
Doesn’t everyone realize it takes talent to make good pop music?
no…it doesn’t take talent to make good music.
what is T-Pain’s talent…working an auto-tune machine?? he has not talent but everyone loves his songs
how about miley cyrus. she honestly has minimal talent and a bad voice but masks it by making catchy songs and distorting the sound so her voice sounds good.
Their point is talent from a total production standpoint and not the individual artist necessarily, which I agree with.
yes, to produce the music it takes talent but that is left up to the music producers who don’t get any of the credit. miley cyrus, from a total production standpoint, does virtually nothing. so did brittney. T-Pain might do slightly more, but he does not even do a majority from a production standpoint. one of the only popular musicians I can think of that does a majority from that standpoint (performing, editing, writing songs) is taylor swift.
Isn’t this the argument that is just wrapping up?
Of course the entities known as T-Pain (which is comprised of probably at least two dozen people) and Miley Cyrus (probably more like five dozen people) are brimming with talent.
Party In The USA? That’s absolute genius, who ever’s behind that. And they were making it for a commercial!
It took me so many listens to realize that the Party in the USA actually achieved what it set out to do – which is to take the pulse of current American teenagehood. My only problem with the lyrics in these songs is that they are so tight, they always feel like they were written by a much older person who has mastered the pitfalls and concerns of teenagers.
But Party in the USA is actually dead-on, just in a much subtler way than I first expected.
It’s a horrible song. All the assembled talent in the world, all the ability to make the song exactly what they wanted it to be, all the voice toning, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a miserable song.
I am not going to disagree…The entities are talented but the single person (what I am talking about) isn’t really.
I was looking up infor on Party, and the songwriter is just a genius and writes catchy songs that are often very good.
here is a short list of some of the songs written by this writer
Right Roun
I Kissed a Girl
My life would suck without you
Since you’ve been gone
Girlfriend
Tik Tok
Hot n’ Cold
Circus
This writer has mastered capturing the spirit and attention of the teen audience and just about always gives a song that is great to dance to
so miley is a genius because she had this songwriter work for her??
i think in that sense, the genius is in the green.
There is a general ignorance of how many different forms talent or genius or whatever can take on.
If Miley is such a fringe talent, why is she so, so much more successful than all of the other children of half-stars who’ve given this kind of thing a run?
Because she’s good. Good at pop music, good at pop television, good period. Call it charisma, call it having an intuition for what choices will work out but don’t call it money or luck. Because plenty of people with both of those haven’t gotten to where she is.
she is good at marketing and PR. I will give her that. it also helps to have a dad who was in the industry, be on disney and get your own show, and get disney, the biggest corporation in the world behind you.
without disney, she wouldn’t even be 20% as big as she is. i was talking pure musical talent, which there she is just about average. she just had the right connections, had support from a huge corporation, and her staff knew how to market her.
it is very little intuition or charisma.
when you have a show on disney and disney gives you a national tour, you will become huge. the jonas brothers also wouldn’t be where they are today without disney.
she is good at marketing and PR. I will give her that.
This is the motto of people who know nothing about talent. Blame the marketing, blame the PR. Dismiss out of hand the possibility that the person (or product) might actually be good in some way.
I don’t disagree with you re: Disney, but having said that, there are reasons Disney is backing these performers and not others.
maybe…
Maybe it is the fact that she is more marketable that disney backs her.
i am not saying she has not talent at all, but there are much more talented (musically) people in the industry.
The demands of their jobs go well beyond musicianship.
Of course marketing appeal plays a role, but it played a role with Elvis, too.
I do agree with that.
my main point is that miley does not seem to do a ton outside of musicianship. she has her personality, but don’t you think she has a team of PR people to help with that? her public image, i doubt is really her, but what disney wants her to be.
disney is by far, the biggest corporation conglomerate in the world. they are significantly bigger than any of the other top 5 (Viacom, Time Warner, NBC universal, Newscorp).
I do agree that she had some market appeal, but she also had a dad in the music industry, and quickly got backing by disney.
Taylor swift has much market appeal (maybe more) but she is much more self-backed and does not have the backing of a huge, powerful corporation.
Good Lord. Ask anyone involved with talent if you can give someone personality, charisma or mass appeal.
Better yet, how about just stop spouting opinions on topics that are well outside your actual knowledge, casual or otherwise?
I am not just spouting out opinions.
Yes, you cannot give someone personality or charisma, but marketed the right way, a lot of people could have mass appeal. I am not saying that miley does not have some talent in these areas, I am just saying that talent in these areas isn’t everything.
she does have a very marketable personality but she would not be even half the star she was without the support and backing from Disney inc.
Maybe you know this, but very few people do, that the jonas brothers have been a band since early 2005. they opened for some acts, but they were not really known that well, outside of their small fanbase, until they started appearing on the disney channel. this led to them being backed by disney for tours and such. without the disney channel, the jonas brothers would probably still be relatively unknown, and definitely not nationally known like they are. they have talent, no doubt, but they were also helped by support from disney, whose influence stretches extremely far.
the influence of disney rivals the influence of great britain on the civilized world, during the 18th and 19th centuries
Yes, you cannot give someone personality or charisma, but marketed the right way, a lot of people could have mass appeal. I am not saying that miley does not have some talent in these areas, I am just saying that talent in these areas isn’t everything.
And on what basis are you claiming this?
How do you know?
Have you worked in show business or PR? Are you a singer, songwriter, producer, entertainer?
What you’re writing goes well beyond what you like or don’t like, or even casting judgment on what other people like or don’t like. You are now claiming to know something about what it takes to be a major star entertainer, and backing that up would require some serious expertise — or at least, any direct knowledge.
I don’t disagree with you re: Disney, but having said that, there are reasons Disney is backing these performers and not others.
Ding ding ding. Disney, just like any major music label, could have anyone. They pick the people who offer them the best chance at making money. The people who are good at succeeding as pop stars.
but at the same time, the power of disney definitely doesn’t hurt. they have shown they can take just about anyone and make them a pop star, at least for some period of time.
here is a short list of people who have become pop stars under the disney label
miley cyrus
the jonas brothers
Vanessa anne Hudgens
Selena Gomez
Demi Lovato
Zac Efron
Hillary Duff
Lindsey Lohan
Ashley Tisdale
Ding Ding Ding. it looks like disney just produces stars
yes, all these people had some talent. I am not denying that. what I am saying is that the walt disney company makes anyone they back a star. talent is good, and all these people have it, but talent only gets you so far.
it seems like every week I see a new person from a disney channel show with a new hit single. all the people do have at least decent voices, but disney can make most people a star.
Guess how many Disney stars had a single in the Billboard Hot 100 for 2009? One. The Climb was #21 and Party in the USA was #29. Know how many Top 30 albums Disney artists produced in 2009? Two, both by Miley Cyrus (#5 and #30).
There’s an argument to be made that Nickelodeon, not Disney, is the real powerhouse in that demographic these days. It soundly beats the Disney Channel in total viewers on a regular basis. The premiere of a new iCarly episode on Monday night drew 11.2 million.
demographics are not everything.
maybe disney channel loses out to nickelodeon but does nickelodeon create pop sensations with success like disney? absolutely not. this is a complete straw man fallcy. I am not talking about demographics at all, I am talking about how they take so many teen sensations and turn them into pop stars.
Out of every aspiring starlet in the world Disney gets to pick. That’s obviously the key component.
Disney pre-screens and finds the best people. They don’t just pick random people and make them stars. Duh.
yes. I am not saying that disney just picks people at random. but the people they pick most of the time would not be stars without there support.
best example: jonas brothers. the jonas brothers existed before disney and had a nice career going but were pretty unknown. they were gaining slightly in notoriety but still very few people knew who they were, until disney started working with them. disney had them guest star on a lot of disney shows, then star on disney’s movie camp rock, then they went on to have a disney tour with miley. if disney hadn’t found them they would still be a regional pop-rock band with a small but loyal fan base.
What you’re saying could be said, almost without alteration, about nearly every major music act of the past 60 years.
Again, you don’t really know the first thing about the music business, so I’m not sure why you keep posting your confident conclusions about it.
AGAIN, not replying is also an option.
disney is by far, the biggest corporation conglomerate in the world. they are significantly bigger than any of the other top 5 (Viacom, Time Warner, NBC universal, Newscorp).
A company name of ExxonMobil has revenues more than ten times those of Disney.
You also forgot to:
- Admit when you don’t really know.
- Concede a point when you’ve been shown to be wrong.
- Decline to comment or reply when you have nothing more to add.
- Stop repeating yourself.
I do admit when I don’t really know..
where have I shown to be wrong?? I never said miley cyrus had no talent, I just said that disney can mass market teen stars, which they have been doing for the last 20 years.
bross, just stop. Please.
You said that you weren’t going to do this any more.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
I think luck is important. It is not enough obviously by itself – but it helps separate our a lot of otherwise equivalent entities. Also, having a dad in the industry probably pushes a lot of “luck” her way.
Speaking as someone who is actually in the music industry, you don’t seem to have the slightest idea who does what or how much talent anybody has.
actually I do. miley cyrus does nothing productionwise in her music and she has fringe singing talent as it is. taylor swift however writes her songs, and does a lot more things (and has even written songs for miley)
just don’t say i don’t have any idea, when I do have some Idea of what happens in the music industry.
cyrus, to my knowledge, has never written a song without the help of an actual songwriter. even on the album “breakout” where it is supposedly to showcase her songwriting, she didn’t even “co-write” all of the songs. the ones that she did co-write were written also by writers who work with all of those disney stars and write for all of them (hudgens, aly and AJ, etc..). it makes me wonder how much actual input she had into those songs.
scratch that part about her not writing anything by herself. I think she did write a song or 2 (according to my sister who is a cyrus fan) but they weren’t any good (also from my sister)
Being able to read the liner notes doesn’t tell you everything about the role each person played in creating a record — or in creating a career.
Rest assured, Swift has been “handled” as a talent just as much as any Disney-backed performer. She’s been sold to you as a sensitive songwriter, just as Avril was sold as “punk.”
So much of this boils down to respecting what you don’t know instead of merely disrespecting what you don’t like.
but on the subject of swift, a lot of the handling was self-handling. for a while she was handling her own PR. she not only writes all of her songs (and most of the time, without another writer) but produces them too, and does the editing for them. the only “handling” I have ever noticed about swift is that she had a good amount of money to start with because her dad had money
she handles much more of her career than miley does and writes much more of her material (and has even written material for miley)
but if you can write, sing, and produce good songs, doesn’t that mean you have talent (especially when the songs are not just electro-pop)??
It would suggest you are talented at songwriting, vocalization and production. But those are not the only factors that go into Talent in this context, and lack of one or more of those factors doesn’t disqualify you from the ranks of the Talented.
You’re prejudging the answer by narrowing the scope of the inquiry. I don’t know much about the music business, but I do know the rise of the "singer-songwriter " is a relatively recent phenomenon, and there are many, many Talented people working in pop music, even electro-pop.
I am not saying electro-pop doesn’t take talent.
It was the first genre that I could think of where actual singing ability does not factor in.
there are many types of talents in the music industry but the whole point of this, is that miley cyrus IMO has less than people think.
she is managed by talented people. and has the backing of disney.
T-Pain is on a boat. You’re not. He doesn’t need talent.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 20, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I know you have at least one talent: inducing massively large threads.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 20, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
No, it was just large. You have made it massively large.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
Richard Thompson actually does a kick-ass cover of “Oops, I Did It Again.”
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 20, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
That entire Thompson album was knock-out incredible. Rolling Stone (I think) asked him to do an album of Music of the Millenium, and he obliged. They weren’t expecting Gregorian chants.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 20, 2010 9:37 PM EST up reply actions
Close. Rolling Stone asked him to list the best songs of the millennium leading into 2000, so he went back into music history and listed what he thought were the best songs of the millennium. IIRC, he was the only one who took them quite so literally and Rolling
Stone ended up not using his list, so he decided to make it into a show. The resulting album was a recording from the show, which he still does occasionally, often with singer/songwriter Judith Owens (Harry Shearer’s wife).
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 20, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks to both of you for not letting my blatant misrepresentations stand.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 21, 2010 6:11 AM EST up reply actions
OK – further checking of the InterTubeZ indicates that it was Playboy and not Rolling Stone.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 21, 2010 8:03 AM EST up reply actions
a clear-voiced young man, instead of auto-tuned Britney, and released that song on an independent label, imagine how well it would sell.
I remember arguing in college that if someone like Billy Joel had released the Backstreet Boys “I want It That Way” in 1987 it would have gone down as a classic pop record.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
Except for that little lyrical problem …
According to then-member of the Boys’ backing band, Tommy Smith, the released version is the “original version”; the alternate version was recorded because the chorus of the released version did not make sense.
Well, again, I respect you for having your opinion and knowing that it’s only yours.
The faux hipster charge isn’t for disliking something. It’s for proclaiming that it manifestly “sucks,” despite copious evidence that a whole lot of people don’t think it sucks. Where the hipster jumps the shark is on Raymond. Thousands of people work in television, and all but about six of them (David Chase, Jerry Seinfeld, David Simon … that’s about it) would love to have been involved in that show.
Now, again, it may not be to your taste, but its producers had fistfuls of awards dumped on them by critics and peers alike, not to mention hardly any other (non-reality) show was as popular. And yet certain people will presume to condemn it, as though they really have something to offer on the matter, other than their own entirely amateur opinion. Ditto for Friends and Spielberg’s entire career.
As a final note, I honestly feel that a lot of these folks are missing out on stuff they might really enjoy, had they not become so wrapped up in a cultural agenda that is frankly just bourgeois and fatuous — and not the least bit sophisticated. (Or as joeee points out, “just as easy to peg in market research.”)
In other words, hipsters, if you’d get over yourself for a minute, you might enjoy Raymond (and that show is just one totally arbitrary example) even if it isn’t as edgy and uniquely awesome as Arrested Development or The Wire. The extremely slow rise of Craig Ferguson is evidence of this. He isn’t edgy, and he’s got no cultural cachet, but eventually, people are going to have to admit that he’s funny. (I wonder, are LGTers more open to him because of the Drew Carey connection?)
I would just like to put the message out there that there’s nothing cool or sophisticated about rejecting popular entertainment. It is, in fact, grotesquely anti-artistic to do so, because you’re prejudging someone’s work based on entirely non-artistic attributes. A real appreciator of any form of art knows how to judge something on its on merits and on its own terms.
Beyond that, as a viewer, have the wisdom to recognize that you have very little basis for figuring out whether someone sucks at what they do. Entertainment is extraordinarily competitive, and while it’s hardly an artistic meritocracy, it is very tough to get and keep any high-profile gig without (in some way) being good at it.
And Glee.
Is “Don’t Stop Believing” still #9 on iTunes downloads?
I've really got to change my signature.
Don’t Stop Believin’ is Journey’s 15th best song.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Jan 21, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yep.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 21, 2010 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
I didn’t know they only had 15 songs.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Jan 22, 2010 3:07 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Who doesn’t love this video, at least ironically so?
It’s art, man.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 21, 2010 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
So tell me: why did Richard Jeni blow his brains out?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 19, 2010 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Like I said, I don’t think Letterman nor Conan are anywhere near the tops of their respective games anymore. In my taste (better Jay?), at least these two guys had times where they were very entertaining. And have their moments now. Leno doesn’t have any good moments anymore, and I don’t think he ever had a consistently entertaining show.
But my DVR is dedicated to only one late night show:
Craig Ferguson. Craig Ferguson.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
My DVR is dedicated to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They’re both much funnier than any of these guys.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 12:18 AM EST up reply actions
I do like them. But Stewart is about 8 minutes of actual comedy and the rest is up to the other “reporters” and whoever the guest is.
I got burned out on Colbert.
Ferguson basically just talks for an hour and it is usually hysterical. It doesn’t matter who his guests are, he’ll make the interview funny and entertaining. I don’t like his skits, but they are few and far between.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
I actually think Stewart does a great job with his interviews, especially when it’s someone who he disagrees with. He asks tough questions and I honestly think he does a better job than most real newspeople. I learn more by watching his show than any other news channel most days.
And I can’t get enough Colbert. He is just so spontaniously funny and it’s great satire.
I actually have never watched Ferguson so I’ll have to check him out some time if he’s really that good.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with you on Stewart. I just don’t classify it as pure comedy. I do DVR the Daily Show, but not to laugh as much as to get riled up. [politics deleted].
I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with Craig.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
Stewart’s comedy like Mark Twain and Will Rogers. He’s a brillant political satirist who relies on his subjects for most of the jokes. Brillian, just brilliant.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Mine as well, although I have it set to start recording 7 minutes early in order to catch the musical act on Letterman.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 19, 2010 8:09 AM EST up reply actions
You’re going to notice a lot of overlap between his memoir and novel. I read the memoir first, which ruined the novel a bit for me at times.
by Fundamentals on Jan 16, 2010 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe its because they think Talbot has that much upside and they didn’t think they’d be able to get someone with that type of upside midseason.
I just wanted to believe.
Yes. Our new friend Mr. Ross perhaps needs to spend a little more time reading, a little less time posting.
by Jay on Jan 15, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
the implication is he will almost as good as shoppach, but will be less money (if Frost is correct). yes he has less power but hits for a little better average. I do not like either honestly and would rather see toregas called up but I guess they do not see him being major league ready.
I think it’s probably more of a depth thing. They want Santana to have a good long time to work on his game-calling in Columbus. They don’t want him called up just because Lou Marson has a minor injury.
But would Shoppach even get most of the playing time that clearly seems necessary for him to excel enough to get traded at a high return? If what happened at the end of last season is any indication, it seems to me that they were committed to Marson starting at catcher and Shoppach would clearly be way overpriced to be a backup on a rebuilding team.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 16, 2010 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
Our hot stove action has finally reached “tea light” level. Will we reach “Sterno” before pitchers and catchers report?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 15, 2010 3:20 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Ummm….what? And more importantly, why?
He stopped throwing out baserunners in 2007. Isn’t Toregas the best defensive catcher in the system? Can 38-year old Mike Redmond really top that? And if pennies are that tight, why spend $450K above league minimum?
I guess $850K and Wyatt Toregas’ soul is the price to acquire all the secrets of the Minnesota Twins
I guess if you’re going to make the analogy, Lou Marson is Josh Bard and Mike Redmond is Tim Laker, the veteran backup catcher who imparts his backup catcher wisdom to a future backup catcher.
And hopefully Kelly Shoppach is Einar Diaz, if you catch my drift.
(to be blogged on as “All My Catchers”)
I too have hopes that Mitch Talbot turns into one of the most feared designated hitters in the AL for a four year stretch.
I kinda got the drift of the whole thing.
I do feel that marosn has more upside than bard. he showed more ability with the bat in the minors, a very good eye, and a little bit more pop. in general though, bard was not amazing coming up and neither is marson. he is slightly younger, slightly more athletic and more patient at the plate. that being said, he will never be a star (marson) but he will be a very servicable catcher…
With that said, I do understand your analogy.
I know that Duncan and Kearns and Redmond are low cost signings but, how does the saying go: “A million here, a million there and sooner than later it starts to add up to real money”. Unless there’s more than meets the eye, I especially don’t get this one.
No millions are being thrown around. Duncan and Kearns are minor league deals. Somebody is going to have to fill those positions in AAA. If they make the 25-man roster, Duncan probably gets league minimum and Kearns may get something more, like $600-$800K, unless he had to settle for less. Rather than pay a guy $12K a month in AAA, perhaps Duncan and Kearns are getting, at most, $18- 20K per month. And I doubt they’re getting that. Honestly, at most, it’s a $6K per month expense for six months for each player, or $72K total.
The Redmond signing is the one that costs money. It’s guaranteed $850K at the major league side. It’s a $450K expense above paying Toregas $400K. He’ll get something closer to $80K at AAA, which is about what it’d cost to sign any AAA depth catcher.
So yea, these three moves cost, in real dollars, somewhere around $500K, with most of the cost coming with Redmond. The confusing part is not the cash, but the availability of somebody who’d probably do just as well as Redmond for half the price.
I’m on board with this, because character wins. If the Tribe’s regulars had as much character as Alex Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mariano Rivera, this winning thing would be a lot easier.
by xrickx on Jan 15, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I’m not a big believer in team chemistry, intangibles clubhouse presence and type of stuff, but something can be said for having Redmond over Toregas due to his experience. Not only could it benefit a young pitching staff, but also our young catchers. I know we have Sandy for that as well, but I can see some of the positives Redmond might bring.
I would’ve been fine with Toregas as the backup catcher as well.
Btw … BA ranked Santana as the best defensive catcher, not Toregas. Not sure how accurate that is, but surprising nonetheless.
I still want to know how veteran catchers benefit young pitcher staffs?
What the hell did veterans Victor Martinez and Kelly Shoppach do in 2009?
Well, given their experience working with pitchers perhaps they pick up more mechanical flaws during games or help them fine tune pitch selection.
I guess they can indirectly influence a young pitching staff by working with the young catchers as well. It’s far from scientific and maybe I’m completely wrong, but for some reason it feels like Redmond could be a factor of stability for some of our young arms.
I very much agree. even though I feel we overpayed a little for a guy that is over the hill, he has definitely been around. he has caught for pitchers such as AJ Burnett, Josh Beckett, Ryan Dempster, Brad Penny, Carl Pavano, Dontrelle WIllis, and Braden Looper in Florida (and won the world series), and Santana, Lohse, Carlos Silva, Scott Baker, Jesse Crain, Kevin Slowey, and Nick Blackburn. His teams also made the playoffs a lot.
While I am not giving him credit for developing all of these pitchers (it would be dumb to say) what I am saying is that I do agree with you. Redmond has been handling young staffs his whole career. they do relatively well. He seems to be able to handle pitchers well and is the kind of veteran presence that can alway help a locker room. his value is not based in stats (especially his leadership value) but he has been around the league, he is older, and has even made it to the top (winning the world series) so his mentality will bring a lot to the indians and possibly help our younger players develop…not just skill wise.
Come on. There are a thousand intuitive reasons why a veteran catcher would assist a young pitching staff. He has more familiarity with the particular hitters in the majors. He has more general familiarity with what it takes to get major league hitters out. I mean, Redmond has been a professional catcher since 1993; Toregas, since 2004. Redmond’s worked with Brad Radke and Johan Santana and Josh Beckett. The best pitcher Toregas has dealt with is Kerry Wood, and probably for four innings.
Look, Shoppach is gone. The question is, Toregas or Redmond (and, to a lesser degree, Chris Gimenez). Meanwhile, the Indians’ starting rotation consists of a post-TJ guy, a head case, and, after that, something like a year and a half of combined major league experience, plus Sowers.
I’m as saber-headed as the next guy. But for once, let’s shift the standard of proof. The conventional wisdom is that the more you catch major league pitchers, the more qualified you are to work with major league pitchers. Why is this not true?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
I missed this the first time around. Definitely agree.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 9:00 PM EST up reply actions
maybe from a sabermetrics sense but it can help in the locker room. guys with a good locker room presence can help even though their production doesn’t show up on a stat sheet. that is the kinda guy redmond has been.
How, pray tell, can someone help a team win a game in a way that doesn’t show up on a stat sheet? “Knowing how to win” is a media fallacy that has no place in intelligent discourse.
so all intelligent discourse is things that show up on stat sheets?? that all things that matter is the stat sheet?? are players just mechanical beings functioning through algorithms?? what redmond adds is veteran presence which is not a media fallacy. it might be on some teams, but what the indians have is one of the youngest teams in the league, with one of the younger managers. it is good to have a veteran presence b/c of all the skills they have picked up in their time in the league. these are small things that don’t show up on stat sheets but do help younger players survive in the majors.
I agree with you, but only at this price tag.
Veteran presence may be worth something, but it’s important that we keep it in perspective. It’s nice, but it’s not as important as scoring runs and preventing runs. It’s not quantifiable, and catcher defense is also not quantifiable. Having said that, I’ll take the guy with the better defensive reputation over the guy with the better clubhouse reputation.
I think there is some discomfort with your argument only because it’s been used to justify contracts literally 50 times larger. But Redmond is barely more significant than a minor league contract. When you’re spending 850K, you’re obviously not really concerned with statistical productivity.
I agree. I would not justify veteran presence for that large of a contract that it has been used to justified but for a 850k contract, you are basically paying for a major league backup (a tim laker type). obviously redmond isn’t that great but i just feel that with that minor of a contract, it isn’t a bad deal.
How, pray tell, can someone help a team win a game in a way that doesn’t show up on a stat sheet?
There are many ways, from seagulls to Jeffrey Maier, to win games that never show up on a stat sheet.
Jose Lopez on Opening Day 2007, refusing to get into the batter’s box, thus forcing a delay.
Though those things did show up in the stat sheet as an RBI single and a HR, respectively.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
ok, so maybe Redmond should be the head case’s personal catcher?
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
I almost want to give them back. It was a cheap imitation of woodsmeister’s.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
The sum of his recs is what matters, not your personal distaste for how he gets there.
by cleveland teamer on Jan 17, 2010 9:24 AM EST up reply actions
I made a nice little excel spreadsheet, but I don’t know how to post it here.
Sample size issues, but look here:
Nick Blackburn
Better rate stats with Redmond, but Mauer is hurt by flukey high BABIP 30 points higher. Better K/BB with Mauer.
Scott Baker
Very similar BABIP, everything favors Mauer.
Kevin Slowey
Everything favors Mauer. Redmond hurt by flukey high BABIP, but Mauer still with the better K/BB rate.
Brad Rake
Close rate stats. Redmond hurt by flukey high BABIP, but Mauer, again, with better K/BB rate.
Glen Perkins
Favors Redmond, but Mauer hurt by higher BABIP. Yet Mauer, still, with better K/BB rates.
Small sample, but what have learned?
I’ll be damned if we’ve learned that Mike Redmond’s veteran leadership did anything to help him guide the young pitchers during the game. And should we give Joe Mauer credit for getting all of these guys to walk fewer and strike out more batters?
I have no doubt that Mike Redmond can be an on-field coach of sorts. But say that and only that. We can’t assume that his veteran status automatically imparts statistical superiority. I said I hate your logic, and I still do. I can’t say for certain that Mike Redmond doesn’t help, but I wouldn’t say for certain he does help. And if we’re looking at these splits, crude as they may be, it leans more toward the “doesn’t help” than the “helps.”
And if the Indians so strongly lean on that flimsy crutch, they’re in trouble.
by xrickx on Jan 16, 2010 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think that disproves anything, because I’m not talking solely about his ability to call a game. Even then, a lot of it would show up in things like the pre-series planning meeting. This is allegedly why Boston still keeps Varitek around even though his on-field value has diminished. Even if a guy catches once a week, if he’s good at game planning hitters, if he knows a lot about the strategy of pitching—it should show up for ALL the pitchers’ innings. What good would it be if he only affected the pitching staff on day games after night games?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
If we’re resorting to anecdotal evidence, how about the knock that Varitek insists on fastball after fastball to give himself a better chance to throw out runners? Given the choice, Boston would not have Varitek on that team. His previous four-year deal wasn’t pretty, either. But they have the money to waste and had won a ring. In most markets, he’d be long gone.
Any why would Redmond get credit for pre-game planning? What if Mauer is the one who’s set out the plan? What if pitchers shake off Redmond until he puts down the signs they’re used to using with Mauer
My point is that you guys continue to cling to some whimsical notion. I appreciate the signing for the fact that it brings another outside perspective to this pitching mess. And I think that’s where you’re going. But what it mostly brings is a guy who still swings it against left-handed pitching who is willing to start 40 games and not complain about it.
It could be Mauer, for all I know. I know nothing about it… but neither do you. This is exactly my point. Everyone’s so contrarian here all the time about the “conventional wisdom.” Sometimes, like with the strikeout discussion, we can prove the conventional wisdom is wrong. This, we can’t. So with no evidence one way or the other, I’m willing to take the CW at face value. I’m completely OK with this signing. Sorry, Wyatt.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
This is not an old-school vs. new-age debate. This isn’t like showing that a batter can be productive despite high strikeout totals, if that’s the debate you referenced above?
The position you continue to advocate is one best characterized as wishful thinking and unsubstantiated, subjective valuation to justify a player acquisition by the team you support. You can’t take that position and put it on the coattail of using statistics to disprove conventional wisdom. You’re doing exactly the opposite – taking a convention viewpoint, one unsupported by any statistical evidence, and claiming it’s possible proof because, well, you just don’t know…
Again. I’m not saying what you want to be true isn’t true. There’s just no proof that it is. And in this day where teams and private entities are finding ways to value everything, I’ve seen nothing suggesting that a veteran catcher is better to develop a pitching staff.
Veteran catchers get these kind of jobs because:
1) You won’t hear him complain about sitting on the bench 120 games per year.
2) You aren’t stunting his development by letting him rot.
3) You have some approximation of his offensive contribution, even though his limited playing will result in a small sample size.
4) You have some approximation of his defensive skill.
I want Redmond to help improve the pitching staff. But I’m not sure Mike Redmond can better influence the pitching staff than Tim Belcher, Scott Radinsky, Sandy Alomar, and, most importantly, the pitcher’s themselves.
by xrickx on Jan 16, 2010 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
shouldn’t the question be if he can better influence the pitching staff than Wyatt Toregas?
I’m usually extremely stats driven when it comes to player evaluation, because I believe that’s the right way to go about it. However, I can see the benefits of a Mike Redmond and that his value isn’t always possible to quantify. Not saying I believe him bringing a “winning mentality” or leadership skills make him a better player than most candidates, but I can see his experience being a positive for our young pitching staff. Perhaps that experience is negated by the fact that he costs twice as much as Toregas … who knows, but I’m not opposed to Redmond getting the job over Toregas just because he’s more expensive (if that makes any sense).
You can’t take that position and put it on the coattail of using statistics to disprove conventional wisdom. You’re doing exactly the opposite – taking a convention viewpoint, one unsupported by any statistical evidence, and claiming it’s possible proof because, well, you just don’t know…
Again. I’m not saying what you want to be true isn’t true. There’s just no proof that it is.
I think you misunderstood me. That’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m arguing that if you’re going to challenge the conventional wisdom, the burden is on you. That’s why I brought up the strikeout thing—it’s a case where the CW was proven wrong. We don’t know—we can’t know—so I’m going with the accumulated opinions and experience of people who know baseball better than I do, especially since it’s intuitively appealing.
And in this day where teams and private entities are finding ways to value everything, I’ve seen nothing suggesting that a veteran catcher is better to develop a pitching staff.
Other than their continued employment, even though rookies and pre-arb players like Toregas are cheaper options.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 9:07 PM EST up reply actions
It feels good to get tangled up in an LGT debate again. It feels like I’ve been doing nothing but drive-by one-liners since the Martinez trade.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 9:09 PM EST up reply actions
And if the Indians so strongly lean on that flimsy crutch, they’re in trouble.
Of course they’re in trouble. But guess what? 2010’s in the bag. Let’s help prepare these pitchers for 2011.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think he will automatically impart statistical superiority. to think that would be dumb.
I am just saying that he has played with a lot of young players (including a young joe mauer). he has been around the league and has been to the mountaintop of winning a world series. he doesn’t put up fancy numbers but his attitude can be a plus. I never even says it will completely help for certain. I am saying that he is a veteran and has that veteran presence. the indians are a very young and very directionless team.
You seriously think a 38 year old backup catcher with a good attitude is what this team needs? The fact that he has been to the World Series has absolutely no bearing on whether this was a worthwhile signing.
so you would rather us have another player with minimal experience?? the little amount of MLB experience on our team is astounding, and you want to make them younger?? I don’t know if you have ever had a mentor but it works in a lot of situations. mentors are great if they have been through the same thing and can help you get through them…there is more than box scores…get your head out of sabermetrics and actually wake up and take a look outside.
Thanks, I’ll be sure to look outside tomorrow. There is nothing meaningful in the game of baseball that is not statistically reflected in some way or another. A backup catcher with a 57 OPS+ and a Eqa of .210 does nothing but cost the team outs. Mike Redmond is a bad baseball player.
this is your problem.
baseball is a game played by PEOPLE not by ALGORITHMS and NUMBERS. yes, stats do something but there are things that cannot be quantified in stats. how about veterans mentoring young players. how about players being leaders in the locker room. these things can contribute to wins because they help PEOPLE play. these things however do not show up on stat sheets.
I would not call mike redmond a bad baseball player (because stats are not the whole story). he isn’t anything special but he definitely isn’t bad. he is the kinda guy that would be useful for the indians (especially at that cost).
the game isn’t played by stats line couldn’t be more trite.
and your inconsistincey is comical. you wasted no time declaring shoppach “bad”. now you’re spending a lot of time defending redmond as “not bad” – both, by all accounts on the basis of your gut and nothing more.
I am not saying anything on gut.
shoppach was not that much of a veteran. he did not have a ton of MLB experience whereas redmond does. redmond’s value is not in statistics (whereas it is for shoppach). who is our most experienced catcher outside of him? marson with 45 games of experience, just barely over 1/4 of a season. our team is even less experienced at position players than the pirates who are always trading away experience…and it is amusing how because he isn’t much of a run producer, all the sabermetrics people criticize redmond and say he is horrible. before this year’s signings, our most experienced player was peralta (or sizemore). both players are young and on other more experienced teams would not be considered veterans really but are veterans on this team.
it is laughable how the sabermetrics people want to say we cannot have older players with mediocres OPS+ and we should stick with young, unproven guys and give them no leaders in the locker room
Shoppach was Cliff Lee’s personal catcher the year he won the CY. Does that sound like a “bad catcher” to you?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
did he make cliff lee win the cy young???
that is what it sounds like you are saying…that shoppach deserves some of the credit….lets all praise the catcher of every Cy young winner b/c we all know they were responsible.
No, what I’m saying is: if Redmond has shown that he is “not a bad catcher” by catching/metoring all those pitchers you’ve mentioned, doesn’t Shoppach win a coupla points for catching/mentoring Cliff?
BTW, I’m with you on this one point: there are aspects of playing baseball that don’t show up in the stats sheet. Good luck selling that here.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
That was me that mentioned those pitchers. I have no issue with Shoppach—I was comparing Redmond to Toregas.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
Truth is we could sign Mauer tomorrow and not get to the play-offs. This club needs a hell of a lot more that a back-up catcher – veteran or otherwise.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Are we disagreeing? I’m confused.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
true…I will give him that i guess…my point was more that the pitchers redmond were younger, unproven guys, whereas lee was a proven guy who had injuries and fell off the wagon but you make a very valid point.
still haven't been able to sell it.I love sabermetrics but I just see things for what they really are.
well, he should have been clear then…I thought he and I were on the same page…and can’t he speak for himself? you are not him so I would like to here from him too that it is sarcasm.
You are right, no one here believes that anything outside of the stat sheet matters.
Very astute observation. Your judgment should not be questioned going forward.
You really thought he was serious with those two comments? You thought he actually meant that nobody should question your judgement ever again? If so, you are quite gullible.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Shoppach helping Cliff win the Cy Young is essentially the same type of claim as your saying the team desperately needs Redmond’s veteranly leadershipness.
baseball is a game played by PEOPLE not by ALGORITHMS and NUMBERS… because stats are not the whole story
That’s like saying that it’s stupid to say that Abe Lincoln was the 16th president because history is experienced by PEOPLE not by ALGORITHMS and NUMBERS.
Stats tell the whole story. Someone got x number of hits, we scored x number of runs, our record was xx-xxx at the end of the year. No matter what contributed to these things, they tell you exactly what happened when the year is over. To suggest anything else is innately fallacious.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
wow…i guess I cannot even talk to you…
saying statistics tell you everything is like you can judge the worth of anything just by the numbers that support it.
Honestly, if you believe this, there is nothing that I can say because I cannot argue with someone so blind to reality. I have read moneyball. I understand sabermetrics. I also understand that players do not always hit according to past trends and future projections. yes, there are many things that can be told with statistics, but if statistics are the whole story, then there is absolutely no human factor. to assume THIS is fallacious.
I haven’t read Moneyball, so I’m not sure we can relate on this one. Suffice it to say, I’m not blind to the realities of what makes baseball happen. To say that I am is to miss the whole point here. You have demonstrated that your grasp of sabermetrics is not as dominant as you like to believe it is.
If a guy gets one hit every five at bats, he is a .200 hitter. If he gets those hits because of veteran leadership, a good clubhouse, a young/old manager, a veteran/rookie hitting coach, or a host of other factors, it doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, he hits .200. Stats tell me that. The rest is noise.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
how about the idea that we are talking about people…people here do underestimate the human element of baseball. while you do not see it show up on stats and you cannot track how it affects statistics, someone would be making ridiculous assertions to say it has no effect and no merit.
Well, thank goodness we have you here to explain to us the human element of baseball, because I’m sure you’re an expert on that.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
while you do not see it show up on stats and you cannot track how it affects statistics,
Exactly. All you can track are the statistics, the actual performance of the player or the team. Therefore, the stats are all that matter. They are the end, the means are, ultimately, inconsequential.
Chuck, you should create one fanpost about your ideas, and leave them there. Don’t start an argument on the same topic in every single thread.
Better yet, let’s all have our own individual fanpost manifestos, then nobody has to do any commenting at all.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Jan 18, 2010 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think you got my point. Chuck doesn’t have to say that Shapiro sucks because the Indians were in place last year in a thread about Mike Redmond.
Pretty sure I didn’t say anything of the sort in this thread. In fact, I don’t believe that Shapiro “sucks”, I just don’t think that we can gets us a WS trophy is all..
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I know you don’t think Shapiro sucks. You think he’s a competent GM but not good enough to win a World Series for the Indians, so he should be fired. I summed up your opinion in hyperbole because it was faster to type “sucks.”
And that’s where you were going when you brought up the evaluation of team performance. You don’t have to poke the bear in every thread.
See I don’t mind the assertion that Shapiro can’t get us to a WS, this is a legitimate concern. It’s when we go off comparing him to Dayton Moore because of how we finished in 2009 that bothers me.
junky, how can it be that you stayed away from this site until last June? You practically live here now. You smell like the place, and it smells like you. Well, you and Andrew’s socks.
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Jan 19, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You seriously think a 38 year old backup catcher with a good attitude is what this team needs?
Is there something this team needs more than that, at this low of a cost?
The fact that he has been to the World Series has absolutely no bearing on whether this was a worthwhile signing.
I agree only because he very likely won’t be accompanying us to the postseason, in this season or any other.
I do agree with that. we likely won’t be going to the postseason…but the positive presence and the experience of playing in the league for as long as he has is definitely not a bad thing.
honestly, it is annoying arguing with people that just see baseball as algorithms and numbers. I have seen accountants with more of a grip on reality than some sabermetric freaks on here.
after arguing with some of the people on here, I would tend to disagree. My uncle is an accountant and at least he is somewhat in the real world. if someone truly thinks that stats or everything in baseball and the whole game is just one big algorithm then they are living in a fantasy world that rivals WOW. yes, a lot of it is stats, but to completely eliminate a human factor takes the humanity out of the game. I was commenting on someone who was saying b/c experience does not show up in OPS+ Eqa, it is a nonfactor and a player with experience on an inexperienced team has absolutely no value because he cannot calculate it in statistics
I am a rationalist and a realist in life. I like sabermetrics as much as the next guy but I am not stuck in that box. I can think outside of the box of sabermetrics. it seems like some people cannot comprehend something exists if it doesn’t have a statistical value.
I am curious why you think accountants don’t live in the real world, but that is a separate discussion.
I was saying that they are more in the real world than some sabermetrics obsessed people. There are definitely some accountants who don’t have numbers as their life. I could have used a better example…accountants are just the fall-back example
I understood what you were saying. You were implying that among the bottom rung of people in the real world lie sabermetric-oriented baseball fans and accountants.
My conclusion is that you think people that like numbers are not “living in the real world.” Probably based on your opinion of your uncle.
This is, quite frankly, insulting and shows a lack of knowledge of your audience. No one is talking about eliminating humans from the game, we’d all just play video baseball if that were the case. What I’m saying is that the value of leadership and mentoring is vastly overblown and does not make up for the fact that the person offering these things is one of the worst players in baseball at his position.
Let me put this simply, Mike Redmond will cost the Indians runs and wins every single time he steps to the plate. He will not add those back by sitting around offering pithy veteran sayings to the younger players we have. Talent wins games, experience has very little to do with it. Young, inexperienced teams are very capable of winning the WS. Why? Because talent is what does it, not some mythical leadership quotient that miraculously scores big runs when they matter.
by Brad D on Jan 17, 2010 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
by your logic, a team of the top 18 year old prospects should win a WS because they have the talent…
my point is that redmond comes cheap, will not mind only playing a few games, and adds experience at a position where the ppl on our 40 man roster that play it have a total of about 80 games of MLB experience…WIthout him, we would have gone into the season with marson as our most experienced catcher.
he might be a slightly below average player offensively at his position, but I doubt that the limited amount of time that he will play will actually cost the indians runs or WINS…he doesn’t cost us wins by sitting on the bench. he is going to be doing a lot of that.
even the most talented teams do not always do well. talent alone does not win games. talent helps but the right attitude on and off the field helps a lot too. I think the mets are a very talented team…why don’t they win the world series every year?? because there is more to baseball than talent and producing statistics. if that were so, then all of the Yankees teams from 2001-2008 should have all been winning world series’
by your logic, a team of the top 18 year old prospects should win a WS because they have the talent…
Could explain this statement to me, because I can’t figure out how fwembt’s logic means that a bunch of 18 year old prospects should win a WS?
Don’t you know that 18 year old prospects are the most talented players in the whole world?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
We’re talking about baseball players and women here right?
by hans on Jan 17, 2010 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I was just saying that talent really isn’t everything. he was just saying that the most talented team succeeds when this isn’t always true. experience does help. this is why prospects usually take around 3 or so years to make it to the majors.
Ability plus luck equals championship. That about sums it up, really.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
plus experience…you cannot just throw a bunch of raw rookies with tons of ability and some luck, and make a winning team. some teams are won by younger teams that have a lot of ability, but a vast majority of players on those teams have at least 3-4 years MLB experience.
Of course you’re not going to win a World Series with a bunch of rookies, just like you’re not going win a World Series with a bunch of experienced 35-40 year olds. So what’s your point?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
That was in an era when age and salary were not closely correlated. You couldn’t put together a decent team of players in their 30s anymore without spending $150 million or more.
Just go ahead and try.
And he has it.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 18, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
the Indians almost had it for a while. if they kept blake, and CC and Lee, they would have a team with most of the players as veterans and would be a good team and the salaries would be less than 150 mil
what guy???
If you read what I was commenting on, it was about how you cannot build a team of veteran players for under 150 mil and be good.
I think he means “that guy who thinks all we needed to do was hold onto Blake and CC and Cliff, and that that was a viable option.”
I am not saying that we should have, but you were arguing that it is impossible to make a team of veterans in their prime for under 150 mil. I was saying it to say it can be done.
I do see the difference, even if fwembt doesn’t.
We were talking about guys in their 30s, though, and nearly all of our 2007 core is still not 30.
I think it’s correct that we could have held the 2007 roster together, with reinforcements from the minors, if only we’d been able to spend another $70 million every year.
I liked that article. Key sentence:
As the examples listed above prove, the key to winning baseball is not the players’ ages but their talent.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Which is what we’ve been saying the entire time.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
that pure talent and ability does not a world series win make. the point I am arguing against is that experience itself does not matter and all that matters is pure ability.
a vast majority of players on those teams have at least 3-4 years MLB experience.
A strong majority of players on every team have at least 3-4 years MLB experience.
Every horrible team in baseball is chock full of experience. Who wants to dig up some examples?
Ask the Tampa Bay Devil Rays what a bunch of “raw rookies” (which I guess by your definition includes guys with 8 major league seasons and 160+ HRs like Travis Hafner or guys with 6 major league seasons, including 3 All Star games like Grady Sizemore or 32 year old pitchers that have been in the league for 10 years, have 125 decisions and 1000 IPs) can do.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 12:16 AM EST up reply actions
the last player, of course, is Jake Westbrook. (See also, Kerry Wood and Mark Grudzielanik.)
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
I never said that these guys Didn’t have MLB experience. I was just pointing out that the signing of redmond was not a horrible deal that will cost the team wins everytime he plays (which was said at one point).
I never said that these guys Didn’t have MLB experience.
Yes, you did. Just for fun:
but what the indians have is one of the youngest teams in the league, with one of the younger managers.
if he can add some veteran leadership to one of the youngest teams in baseball.
our team is even less experienced at position players than the pirates who are always trading away experience
the indians are a very young and very directionless team.
so you would rather us have another player with minimal experience?? the little amount of MLB experience on our team is astounding, and you want to make them younger?? I don’t know if you have ever had a mentor but it works in a lot of situations. mentors are great if they have been through the same thing and can help you get through them
before this year’s signings, our most experienced player was peralta (or sizemore). both players are young and on other more experienced teams would not be considered veterans really but are veterans on this team.
Those were your quotes. You seemed to ignore the fact that the Indians have a handful of players that are very experienced.
Grady Sizemore has played in more MLB games than Mike Redmond. Has about 1000 more MLB ABs, actually. And more minor league games too.
Same with Jhonny Peralta. And Travis Hafner.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I didn’t talk about them…so because I decided to talk about our younger players I was saying they don’t exist?
The truth is, that peralta and sizemore though are younger players. the term veteran is so subjective because there is no line that has been established to say “beyond here, you are a veteran”. to me, peralta and sizemore are borderline veterans. it is subjective completely if they are or aren’t.
my point was more the whole point that I have made on here, is that the signing of redmond isn’t bad and doesn’t significantly hurt the team…plus having another veteran in the locker room can be a plus
I do know that we have veterans on the team.
my point was more the whole point that I have made on here, is that the signing of redmond isn’t bad and doesn’t significantly hurt the team…plus having another veteran in the locker room can be a plus
But this point is severely undercut when you realize that there are a handful of veteran guys on the team already. Everything I quoted above is how you were forming that argument. “The Indians are SO young, they NEED more veterans.” That argument falls on its face when you understand/admit/realize that the Indians aren’t as young as you made them out to be.
And there is no reasonable definition of veteran that wouldn’t include Sizemore, Hafner, Peralta, Westbrook, or Wood.
You were either intentionally misleading with those quotes, or you were unaware or ignoring a central flaw in your argument.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I agree that the idea that Redmond will cost the team wins is overstated at best. I mean, he’s taking playing time away from Wyatt Toregas, exactly how many wins could that possibly cost us?
I think the mets are a very talented team…why don’t they win the world series every year?? because there is more to baseball than talent and producing statistics. if that were so, then all of the Yankees teams from 2001-2008 should have all been winning world series’
No, it’s because luck plays a very important role in a short series so the most talented team won’t always win. The best team usually doesn’t win the World Series, in fact, if you look back through history, because winning the WS is a very difficult thing to do.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think by “talent” he pretty obviously meant developed talent, or skills, not just raw talent or potential talent.
By turning the conversation to that ridiculous example, you merely avoided the real question.
I do agree that developed talent is important, but talent develops through experience. No inexperience player I would say has true developed talent.
he is saying that talent is the most important thing and experience does not matter. experience does create developed talent.
Talent gets developed primarily in the minors. It doesn’t take much experience if you have the talent.
Again, look at young teams like the 2003 Marlins, the 2008 Rays, those Athletics teams from ten years ago. They got the experience they needed in the minors.
How much experience did Evan Longoria need?
Then what the hell is Santana doing in Columbus? Christ if the kid’s half as good as advertised he should be batting 3rd and getting 600 ABs on this team.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Is it possible that Redmond could teach him how to “call a game”?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
yeah…its not like he has never worked with developing pitchers before…oh…he has…
oh its not like he was never the backup to a budding young star at catcher…oh…he was…
It’s possible, but neither you nor I know. They don’t want him learning in the majors at this point, and even aside from development concerns, I think you know the financial aspect.
I do agree. I would love to see santana up but he is probably in AAA b/c of financial reasons. he would probably be as good as marson…maybe better.
he would probably be as good as marson…maybe better.
Highlighted without comment.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
The 2003 Marlins? I heard they had a pretty good backup catcher.
OK, I’m not even sure what my point is anymore.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
but guys come up with talent developed in the minors and bomb sometimes. some guys can come up and be superstars but most can’t. those who cannot, need major league experience before they can be good.
most of those guys on the rays team were young yes…but they also were brought up to the majors young. upton was up at age 19. take away longoria, and most of them had at least a couple years of MLB experience.. not a ton, but not completely MLB inexperienced. some, like baldelli have enough MLB experience where you can call them a veteran.
on the ’03 marlins. take away Miguel Cabera, who was technically a bench player and played in less than 50% of the games, there is only one player on that team without at least 3-4 years experience that played a significant role. that was dontrelle willis.
I do not think you need years and years of experience, but if just about all your players are talented and have at least 4 yrs of MLB experience, you will be great (as long as they work together well)
some guys can come up and be superstars but most can’t. those who cannot, need major league experience before they can be good.
This is simply factually untrue. Most “who cannot” when they come up are never going to be good. A few are going to develop with experience and physical maturity.
Having said that, most of the Indians roster is 26 or older. At that point, the experience really is moot for the most part.
that might be true, but at the same time, they do not have major league experience so it is still possible an experienced guy can help.
This is factually true. even some good players struggle their first year. it is not like ‘you have it or you don’t". most players do not play like evan longoria their rookie year. some rookies come in with a splash and do nothing, others develop with experience. there is no set rule because every player develops differently…but most do not come out hot like longoria. some stars do end up developing over time. Jim Thome was pretty much mediocre in the first 3 seasons he played in until he developed. victor had an OPS+ below 100 his first 2 years and didn’t develop any power till his third.
You’re talking about Jim Thome, who was called up for about five weeks in each of his first three seasons?
And Victor Martinez, “in his first two years,” meaning when he had a total of 210 PA, which is like one-third of a season?
Do you have the slightest idea how stupid that is?
Both guys were stars from their very first full seasons in the majors. There are probably some good examples of the point you’re trying to make, but those two guys are TERRIBLE examples!
I wouldn’t call them terrible examples.
Those guys didn’t catch fire in there first action up in the bigs. maybe they weren’t the best examples though.
but not every star, starts out playing like evan longoria. most superstars do, but a good amount don’t.
I wouldn’t call them terrible examples.
The rest of us would.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Jan 18, 2010 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
well that is your opinion. you are entitled to your opinion but it is still an opinon. terrible is a very subjective word. to try to pass what the rest of you think on this as objectivity is ludicrous.
- Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
- Everyone is not entitled to his or her own facts.
- Not everyone’s opinion is an informed or well reasoned opinion.
- Among the many opinions everyone is entitled to is the opinion that your opinion is stupid.
by Jay on Jan 18, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
“Catching fire” is a nonsense standard. Everyone should know that you can’t assess how good a player is based on 100 plate appearances, or even 300. Those first exposures to the majors were not meaningful samples on which to assess, at least statistically. For all you know, they were hitting the crap out of the ball, and all the scouts wrote it down, but they just had some bad luck in those first runs.
See Schmidt, Mike for an example of a guy who struggled in his initial exposures to the major leagues and then put it together in a big way.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 19, 2010 9:12 AM EST up reply actions
bross, you are completely ignoring the point. Players need a couple years in the majors to develop their full potential. So yeah, they need a little experience. But they get better when they have experience, not when their friggin’ backup catcher has experience.
but the catcher having experience can help foster them…
I don’t know if you have ever had a mentor…that is in some ways they are hiring redmond to be. If you haven’t had a mentor, they are very great. I had one that went through similar things in life as me and it really helped me.
I’ve had a mentor. He was arrested for murder. Funny story, actually.
Like that guy, we have no idea whether or not Redmond is a good mentor.
1. Just have to ask you if you were being serious about your mentor
2. maybe their isn’t definite proof but he quite possibly was a mentor to Mauer.
So because you had a mentor that means Mike Redmond will help David Huff? I’m missing something in there.
I had a mentor when I was struggling as a college freshman; he really helped me out. Sadly, I still threw 78-80. Despite his amazingness as a mentor, I still lacked the requisite talent for it to make much of a difference.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Actually, much to my coach’s chagrin, I didn’t give up at all. Four years later, it turned out that, despite my mentor’s efforts, my grit, hustle, and determination, the fact that I got there early and stayed late, my transition into the mentor role for the young guys, my knowledge of the game, my knowing what it took to win, my low impact on the scholarship dollars available, my having been to the mountaintop, and my willingness to sit that bench without griping, I just wasn’t very talented and therefore not much of a contributor to what our team did.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
In the pen, but I never took one to the game mound. For every good one I threw, two were belt-high pies.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
that the person offering these things is one of the worst players in baseball at his position.
I’m sure fwembt that you’re aware that some of the most successful hitting coach’s in baseball couldn’t OPS over .400.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Not to mention, how does Redmond’s hitting ability affect his ability to mentor pitchers? The guy’s going to get 150 at bats for a 90 loss team. Who cares if he slugs .350?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
i doubt he will get that many, and I do not think the indians will definitely get 90 losses (though my prediction is about that).
If he’s healthy and not completely miserable, he will easily get 150 AB. Almost all backup catchers get that many or more. We practically rode Victor into the ground, but Shoppach still got 150+ AB in 2007.
bross, let me spell out my views. i think leadership does exist, and is useful. I think that, so far, we have no way to measure leadership and its effects. As such, we have no idea if Mike Redmond is a leader, unless you consider naked batting practice a symbol of leadership. For all we know, Mike Redmond is a prick who passive-aggressively brings down his teammates.
In short, to justify signing Mike Redmond based on his leadership is dumb.
by Chemo on Jan 18, 2010 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t justify the signing based completely on leadership. there are a lot of reasons it is smart.
he is cheap
he won’t complain about little playing time
he doesn’t have to hit a lot to play on the team
although some here don’t think it is important, the fact that he has a lot of experience at a position where we have almost none (and not a ton of elite talent either) has some value
and mostly, he is fairly cheap for a backup.
yes. santana is very good…I think you misinterpreted what I said. I said not a ton of elite talent. santana is just one guy and besides him, are catchers are pretty pedestrian at best when it comes to talent. I like santana but I wouldn’t categorize him as an elite talent (yet). he has the potential, but I do not see him as elite. I see him as a very good player, but my classification would not be to say he is elite.
At the risk of starting another dumb argument, who do you think is an elite catching talent if not Carlos Santana? Joe Mauer and nobody else?
For all we know, Mike Redmond is a prick who passive-aggressively brings down his teammates.
Highly unlikely, given the Indians’ (arguably excessive) due diligence on character, especially as pertains to role players.
There are also a thousand of intuitive reasons a big chunk of metal wouldn’t float, but we call it a boat and it works.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
True. Of course, someone actually proved it was possible. I’m still waiting for someone to prove this wrong.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
Let’s see, how many variables are there in the “floating” analysis? There’s the density of the boat and the density of water. Can you think of any more, cuz I can’t.
There’s a hell of alot more variables – both sensible and insensible – in analyzing any human endevour. I get what you’re saying, but you’ve reduced the metaphor to the point were in no longer applies
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Ah, the old floater metaphor. Perfect for this thread.
by Jay on Jan 17, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There’s a hell of alot more variables – both sensible and insensible – in analyzing any human endevour.
I think this is the point here. If experience existed in isolation, we might know how much good it does us. But when experience is part of the total package, it makes a difference whether you’re getting Mike Redmond or a perennial all-star. Mike Redmond is not a good hitter; don’t try to sell us a bill of goods on how his ability to nurture a young pitching staff and Carlos Santana somehow wholly replaces that in our efforts to win games, because it just can’t be proven. But hey, maybe the fact that it can’t be proven is what makes it so attractive to the people making the case.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
A long time ago I usta hear old school docs talk about “the Will to Live” and I thought, “what a bunch of boneheaded hocus-pocus”. After a while, when a lot of folks lived who shoulda died and died who shoudda lived, I began to wonder if the old timers were right or not. To this day I can’t tell you if they were or weren’t.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m not sure where this fits into the conversation, but I 100% agree with you on the “will to live” issue. A lot of my friends are old people, and you can kind of get a sense for who is ready to pack it in and who isn’t going out without a fight. I’m not saying that wanting to survive can single-handedly keep a person alive, but it is a real element in how long people stick around. What all this has to do with Mike Redmond is beyond me.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
I tend to believe that will to live has a real effect, sometimes a decisive one. Then again, I know a 96-year-old who doesn’t seem to care at all whether she lives or dies, and she keeps getting seriously ill — including a couple of the really bad you-should-have-died-yesterday illnesses — and then recovering. It’s like she’s just lousy at dying.
Yes really. You need to have some experience in the subject.
Patients do display “the will to live” and it does effect their out come. Example: one of the most common cause of death among post-op geriatric patients is pneumonia. To help reduce the incidence of this complication surgeons often have post-op patients blow into a water filled device to both exercise and expand the patient’s lungs. Some – those who have accepted “the inevitable” – don’t work at this exercise with this device very hard. Some – those with a profound “will to live” will blow the hell out of it as often as they can. Which group do you think has the better servival rate?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Ok. That I agree with.
The discussion had previously, in my mind, been veering close to a mythic “will to live” force, as opposed to “not following the procedures designed to help you live.”
Gonna have to call in the big guns on this one, but I’m pretty sure 99.99% of neuroscientists think that body and mind are linked. As in, a will to live makes you live longer. Like actually a “mythic force.” Ya gotta abandon the hope that you will “only believe what you can quantify.” Not everything is like the first time you found out clutch doesn’t exist.
Isn’t that why so many people die in retirement?
I thought people died in retirement because retired people are old.
by Chemo on Jan 20, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was just making a quip, but that’s an interesting study. Thanks.
I don’t think it proves that “will to live” was the cause, though. I mean, maybe some of those people retired early because they had reason to think they weren’t going to live much longer. Or maybe there’s some other causative factor that I can’t think of off the top of my head.
Christ, I can’t even spell “survival”.
Here’s how this applies to baseball. Guys who are driven – have “the will to win” – will run that extra lap in the off season, pass up that second piece of pie, run those stadium steps one more time. Attitude, dude, attitude.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I had to blow in that damn thing many times. It was a pain.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 20, 2010 8:39 AM EST up reply actions
all I am saying is that his value is not all in his stats. he has handled some great young pitchers, and I know he doesn’t deserve all the credit (far from it) but he has always been a good veteran presence on a team. in that regard he is similar to casey blake. when blake came up he was already like a veteran, because he came up later in his career. Now casey blake was a much better hitter than redmond ever was. the point I am making is that both guys were great leaders and this is something that does not show up on a stat sheet. Anderson Varejao was one of the best defensive players in the league b/c of his drawing charges, but his defensive stats weren’t great. bruce bowen doesn’t get a lot of steals. does derek fisher put up huge stats? these are guys that make an impact not on the scorecard (fisher is a great leader on the lakers). you can’t quantify great leadership and a good locker room presence on paper. these are things redmond has. you also cannot quantify a winning attitude and knowing what it takes to win a world series. these are his strong suits and they make him at least worth his salary.
you also cannot quantify a winning attitude and knowing what it takes to win a world series
You know why you can’t quantify that? Because it’s a media creation that has no bearing on the actual game. Shane Spencer won a World Series and John Rocker went to one, let’s go get them as well.
“Winning attitude” and “knowing what it takes to win” are lazy and useless analysis crutches.
I know what it takes to win a World Series — you have to win 4 of the 7 games.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 16, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I am not even using as a crutch. the guy is a veteran who has a veteran presence…maybe in this age of sabermetrics where all baseball is, is an algorithm played by machine-humans, but it is a game played by a team. a team that almost becomes a family. maybe he won’t do anything great, but are you saying, it is dumb to get a veteran onto one of the youngest teams in the majors? I like this coupling with signing mark whats his name (i hate trying to spell his name). while these guys might not be amazing players, they have been in the big leagues for a long time and they know the tricks of the trade. experience is valuable with this extremely youthful team.
You do know, we’ll have three guys turning 33 next year and a bunch of 28-year-olds … right? It’s not all kids.
but are you saying, it is dumb to get a veteran onto one of the youngest teams in the majors?
We aren’t that young and I’m saying that his ascent to the mythical mountaintop has not one thing to do with his value as a baseball player. Talent wins games.
while we might not be “that young” in relative terms we are a fairly young team. also the indians are also an inexperienced team. we have a lot of nice players but they do not have a ton of MLB experience (except for a few exceptions). in general, we have a lot of inexperienced pieces and I don’t see how you can object to getting a guy with experience…
I don’t object to Redmond. I object to lazy and brainless analysis that says this was a good signing because he has been to a World Series and is old. Mike Redmond is an aging backup brought on to avoid using Wyatt Toregas and, to a lesser extent, Chris Gimenez. If Mark Shapiro has suddenly become so stupid that he now signs people because they “know how to win,” I’m out.
he has major league experience and for that cheap, that is not a bad thing. our team is very green. there is not a lot of MLB experience on it and I would rather have a veteran backup than toregas or gimenez because I want someone who has more than 70 MLB at bats (the average between the two of them).
our starting rotation has 364 total starts between them. that is about 73 per starter or a little over 2 yrs starting on avg. this is if westbrook can be healthy and fausto doesn’t flame out again. without those guys, players average about a year starting each (not a lot) and both of those guys are big question marks.
our bullpen players (besides closer) average about 100 career innings pitched each. that is about 2 years experience. yes our closer is experienced but he isn’t that good…plus he only has pitched 2 yrs as a closerand is pretty much washed up.
take away redmond and kearns (who don’t show on the depth chart yet…so we’re basically talking last years team) the average player on the depth chart has played in about 250 games. that is not even 2 full seasons. we have a catcher starting with only 45 total games played, a 2nd baseman with 121, an outfielder with 52. we are giving significant playing time to guys who are very green. the players also average 700 total career at bats. as the indians roster is right now, valbuena is almost a veteran. choo is a veteran in the outfield but he is still young.
I was looking at the pirates roster, a team constantly trading away guys with experience, and their position players are definitely much more experienced on average than ours (though their pitching staff is a little less experienced).
I don’t mind getting him to avoid playing toregas and gimenez. they are nice players but I would rather have another veteran presence in the locker room, especially at catcher. the only position we are younger at than catchers is left field (depth chart is laporta, brantly, gimenez).
I don’t mind signing a veteran at a position where are most experienced player hasn’t even played in 50 MLB games (marson) the average amount of experience is 21 games, 57 at bats for a career. I don’t see how you can object to bringing a guy in that has experience when our team has basically none.
Frightening how? We’re highly unlikely to contend either way. What is the “frightening” thing that could happen if we don’t have Redmond’s experience on the roster?
Maybe it was a bad word to use. It is just surprising how inexperienced our team is.
we also have a fairly inexperienced coach so guys with experience can only be a plus…but I don’t think of redmond that much that we will be hopeless without him.
The fact is that the many of the guys we’re relying on to win our next WS are in the minors. My guess is that Redmond won’t even see them after ST.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Disagree. To contend in the next few years, a few of the Huff/Carrasco/Talbot/Rondon/Masterson/Carmona/Laffey cohort have to pan out.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
Geez, it must be the time difference. I also agree. If we’re going any where in 2012 at least three of those buys hafta have an ERA+ of 1.3 or better. As it stands now, we’ll be lucky to finish in front of the Royals, with or without Redmond.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I disagree on your assumption about where we will finish. While we lost lee and victor, we technically didn’t have them the whole year. we also have sizemore back healthy and Hafner for a whole season. Laporta can contribute and whatever marson gives us will be better than shoppach did last year. asdrubal is just skyrocketing and valbuena will probably get better. plus we have westbrook coming back healthy.
I know we lost 2 big players but with the way the younger guys will improve, plus the guys that returned, we should actually do slightly better than last year.
plus, we should have won more games last year. by the bill jamesian pythagorean expectation that predicts records, we should have won about 5 more games.
Bill James is a hack.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 17, 2010 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I would not go that far. my point is more that, a team with the run production that the indians had would be projected to win about 72 games (whereas the royals were projected to only win 66 from their 2009 total production). oftentimes, if a team has less wins than projected, they end up with more the next year. they almost always increase their wins. This is by no means an exact science, but I couple that with the fact that I feel that the team is actually improved from a year ago.
I do not think bill james is god like some people here seem to think, but he is not a complete hack IMO.
… with two championship rings, who revolutionized the industry and will be in the Hall of Fame someday.
I dunno if he will be in the HOF (athough I would not mind it)
he did revolutionize the industry…
Did he actually receive championship rings for the red sox wins??
(and what will the consensus be on those red sox now that we know Papi and Manny juiced).
yes. that is true, but would the red sox made it that far without manny and papi? No. they might have not even made the playoffs without them (or without them being on steroids). the single driving force behind the sox was the middle of that order and the clutch HRs by Papi.
I am not saying the rings should be taken away, but how legitimate are they really?
100% legitimate.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
maybe…but at the same time, people may question them, because boston would not even made it to the WS without the hitting of papi
If you take the best two hitters off of any team then they’re not going to win the WS. So what’s your point?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
how much of Papi winning them that WS was him and how much of it was juice…these are legitimate questions…
How many teams that would have knocked off a clean Red Sox squad would have done so if they were clean? That is also a legitimate question, and probably more germane to the discussion.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Right. Saying the Red Sox had an unfair advantage assumes that they were the only team with players who were using steroids, and we know that’s not true. We can safely assume that every team had players using steroids.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
The known guys include Manny, Ortiz, Byrd and Betancourt.
Manny and Ortiz contributed more than Byrd and Betancourt, of course, but for the 2007 season alone, the difference was only 2.7 WARP.
You’ll also note James did his HoF “analysis” for a team with a $120M+ pay-roll. He gets the Royals a trophy – then I’m impressed.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
If James gets to Cooperstown (and I think he should be there) it won’t be for his role as senior advisor on baseball operations for the Red Sox.
If the Royals hired Bill James, we’d all be impressed.
by Jay on Jan 18, 2010 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Rany and Poz rec.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 18, 2010 9:00 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t see how you can object to bringing a guy in that has experience when our team has basically none.
Because experience doesn’t win games and doesn’t nothing to make the team better. Redmond is old and bad, how is that so hard to grasp?
Maybe we should sign Johnny Bench; he’s an old catcher with plenty of experience and he “knows how to win”. I’m sure he will help the Indians win baseball games just by his veteran presence alone.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
I heard Bench called fastballs just to throw players out.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
I was playing off something Rick said earlier. I believe I have heard this criticism about every great defensive catcher in my lifetime.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 17, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
if we don’t have to play him that much, then fine.
I doubt if redmond will even play as much as he did last year. I think he might play about 25-30 games and have about 100 at-bats…
year 100 at bats will totally kill our season…
Really, that’s fine!?!? You want to sign a player who has been retired for 25 years as long as he doesn’t have to play much?? And you expect people to take you seriously?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 8:51 PM EST up reply actions
Every time Mike Redmond steps to the plate he costs us the ability to score runs and win games. When was the last time he had a positive wRAA? He’s one of the very worst in baseball at what he does. He can’t throw people out, he can’t hit, so what does he do that helps win games?
Can’t Sandy Alomar do that? He certainly has plenty of experience, and the best part is we don’t have to waste any at-bats on him. Isn’t that what coaches are for, anyways . . . to teach young players?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 1:10 AM EST up reply actions
so the most inexperienced teams are good?? talent is everything? this is just a dumb theory…you keep saying he is old and bad…how hard is it for you to grasp that there is more to baseball then numbers and talent honestly, ask Mr. Moneyball Billy Beane. he was an elite prospect that didn’t pan out. if talent is everything like you say it is, then why do so many first rounders in the draft that come straight out of HS flame out?? is it because they aren’t talented? no, it is experience. Collegiate draftees have been proven to be less risky…because they have more EXPERIENCE, not more TALENT.
talent alone doesn’t win games either. experience alone doesn’t. you need a balance. you need a talented team that has experience. the indians have talent but no experience. talent does not automatically lead to production. production doesn’t always guarentee wins.
Wow, you are completely missing the argument.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
I do not see how I am. the guy I am arguing with insists that talent is everything. I am saying you need a balance between that and experience.
And this is precisely the point. Baseball wins do not come all that much from experience. It’s at least 90% talent and at most 10% experience. Some very smart baseball people would tell you it may be 99% talent.
We’ve seen some awfully good, awfully young teams over the past 15 years.
raw talent doesn’t do anything. 90% i would agree is developed talent (like sizemore). guys do not just pop up with developed talent. they get developed talent through experience.
raw talent will not win you any world series’. developed talent will win you some but right now, the indians are mostly just raw talent.
Here’s what you’re missing: all the experience in the world won’t make you a good ballplayer if you didn’t have enough talent to begin with.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
but all the talent in the world doesn’t make you a good ballplayer if you don’t have the experience. there is a balance somewhere and it is not 100% of either. I will say it is more talent than experience though.
This is just wrong. The talent is what makes you good. Experience is a just a way of measuring how long you have played.
With all due respects to Chemo – indulge me here for a moment. Is LeBron James a better basketball player today than he was in 2007 or not?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
there are many guys who have tons of talent that flame out in the minors. they have the talent, they just don’t have it “between the ears”. a lot of that between the ears stuff can come from experience. experience can foster a knowledge of the game. this isn’t a 100 % thing b/c guys with experience can have little knowledge, but experience does help in that aspect.
but all the talent in the world doesn’t make you a good ballplayer if you don’t have the experience
That is completely wrong. There are plenty of examples of baseball players who were great from their very first game in the majors. They had no experience (since you seem to be only talking major league experience) yet they were great ballplayers right away. So your statement is completely false.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 9:52 AM EST up reply actions
Luck and ability. Nothing else. Experience is a complete crock. Miguel Cabrera was a 20 year old rookie when the Marlins won the WS and he crushed the ball all year and in the playoffs. Ability and luck.
i would not say he crushed the ball all year but he was pretty good for a rookie. he also had a lot of protection in the lineup. when teams have to worry about mike lowell, derek lee, pudge, and juan pierre, they tend to forget about rookies.
also, there are those special few that have the talent to be a superstar in the league that can succeed right off the bat. they do get better with experience but their talent is so superior that they can succeed right away. very few baseball players are like that.
Good Lord, you think they were more worried about Juan freakin’ Pierre than Miguel Cabrera?
I don’t think it took too long for clubs to figure out he was one of the main guys who was going to beat you if you let him.
You know what Anderson Varejao, Bruce Bowen, and Derek Fisher all also have in common? They’re basketball players. This is a baseball discussion. That’s like saying Al Unser, Jr. could be a great fighter pilot because he won the Indy 500. They’re roughly analogous, but not really the same at all.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Hey, Eric Byrnes was DFA by the Dbacks. He’ll be available for the league minimum, since nobody is touching that $10M salary on a waiver claim.
Eric Byrnes or Austin Kearns?
Both are plus defenders on the corner green. Byrnes has more speed and a higher .ISO the last four seasons. Kearns morepatience. Kearns is four years younger.
Definitely Kearns. There’s still a tiny, but non-zero chance, that he can become a good major league corner outfielder. I think Byrnes is toast.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 16, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
When Byrnes played for the Orioles Jim Palmer said that he “plays like his hair is on fire.” He really does.
by ken from alexandria on Jan 17, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
This is bogus. How can peanut butter not be on the list of toast toppings??
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Jan 18, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Stupid Brits!
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 19, 2010 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
However, they did invent Mushy Peas.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Jan 20, 2010 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
I watched Byrnes play a lot the past few years
Watching him last year befor ehe got injured was painful..
Yes he’s finished.
Blogging Suns Basketball. Twitter: @willcantrellphx
by Wil Cantrell on Jan 17, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
