I joined Plundo and his father-in-law for a ballgame between the Akron Aeros and the Altoona Curve, here in beautiful downtown Altoona. The Blair County Ballpark is a very nice place to see a game, with clean facilities and a friendly atmosphere. At one point during the game, a gentleman who works for the team came by with a trash bag and asked if he could take any trash for us. That's a team that cares about their ballpark.
But more compelling than this was the fact that the game was at 10:30 in the morning. It turns out that many local elementary, middle, and high schools sent groups to the game, and in fact the entire upper section was almost completely filled with these guests. Of course, being corporate fat cats, the three of us sat in the first row right next to the home dugout.
But yeah, 10:30 AM. This means that we were under the sun for the brightest part of the day, prompting a double-dose of sunblock on my part that feels like it missed a few spots. My face has that dry, warm feeling you get when you apply sunscreen while you're sweating. It's not bad, but I'll definitely be feeling it for a couple days.
The Curve won the game (take that Mandi), and we got to see a home run. Well, we had the opportunity to see two, but Plundo and I were walking back from the lemonade stand when the second one was hit, and honestly, the crowd didn't react enough for us to even realize what was happening. I think that's one of the weaknesses of a day game: it's very easy to lose the ball in the sun and then not realize when the ball leaves the park.
It was a good time, I forget sometimes that minor league baseball is pretty fun. It's great fun being so close to the action (and having to only spend 10 bucks to get there).
Friday, June 1, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
StarCraft II
So StarCraft II is coming out, and I've been thinking about how to feel about it. I mean, I enjoyed the original StarCraft during its time, and I've been delighted with the improvements from WarCraft II to WarCraft III. Not to mention the fact that Blizzard hasn't made a bad game that I've ever seen. Logic says that the next iteration of StarCraft is going to be a hit.
So why am I feeling unsure about how this thing comes through? I think part of it is that I just don't have the same interest in the science fiction world as I do in the medieval fantasy world. I like the Star Treks and Star Wars, but I like the Lord of The Rings a lot more. A lot of StarCraft II's appeal for me is going to be dependent on how they handle the "interstellar" concept. Are there going to be space battles, or just battles in the air slightly above the ground? While I'm sure that'd be fun, it wouldn't really be any different from WarCraft III if you just changed the graphics.
That's what I want, I guess. I want a game that's truly different from what I've already played. I don't expect to buy StarCraft II when it comes out, but I'm happy to check out a demo before committing to waiting until it's $30 for the battle chest.
So why am I feeling unsure about how this thing comes through? I think part of it is that I just don't have the same interest in the science fiction world as I do in the medieval fantasy world. I like the Star Treks and Star Wars, but I like the Lord of The Rings a lot more. A lot of StarCraft II's appeal for me is going to be dependent on how they handle the "interstellar" concept. Are there going to be space battles, or just battles in the air slightly above the ground? While I'm sure that'd be fun, it wouldn't really be any different from WarCraft III if you just changed the graphics.
That's what I want, I guess. I want a game that's truly different from what I've already played. I don't expect to buy StarCraft II when it comes out, but I'm happy to check out a demo before committing to waiting until it's $30 for the battle chest.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
A Pitching Revolution?
After watching Nate Robertson give up one hit through three innings a few weeks ago, I started to get pretty excited. A good outing from (the uncharacteristically strong so far this season) Robertson could really have bolstered my struggling pitching staff. Unfortunately, Robertson and the usually offensively challenged Seattle Mariners had other plans. By the time the fifth inning had ended, Robertson had been chased from the game, surrendering 6 runs and 9 hits over an inning and two-thirds.
While Robertson is by no means the reincarnation of Cy Young, he does have decent stuff and can get major league hitters out. Unfortunately for Nate, he was bitten by two "gotchas". First, it's tough in any sport to "lock it in" for a long period of time. Despite a rain delay, Robertson started the game focused and breezed through the Mariners lineup, but barring a truely special performance, that focus will wane sometime during the game. It's just too hard to be fully focused for over two hours every time a starter takes the hill. The second "gotcha" is that the more pitches a major league hitter sees against a pitcher, the greater the hitters chance of success. Despite being stymied for three innings, the Mariners used what they had seen from Robertson in their first at bats to go 9 for their next 16 and send Robertson to the showers. While I am certainly not a hitting coach, I bet seeing Robertson's release point and fastball during innings 1-3 lead to the Mariners success in innings 4 and 5.
Statistically there is definitely a drop off the second time a pitcher faces a lineup. Of the top 20 pitchers (by ERA as of 4/14), the average ERA increased from 1.10 the first time through the opponents lineup to 2.07 the second time. In fact, the only pitchers to significantly improve the second time through the line up were Josh Beckett and Brandon Looper, while 11 of the top 20 saw their ERA increase by over 0.9. Another example is John Smoltz. In the three years preceeding his move to the bullpen (and throwing out 2001 when he both started and relieved), Smoltz had an ERA of 3.04. During the three years that he was a closer, and following Tommy John surgery, his ERA dipped to 2.47. Of course upon his return to starting, Smoltz's ERA rose to 3.43.
Since baseball is a game of statistics, why would a manager allow his pitcher to remain in a situation where the advantage begins to slide toward the hitter? The answer, I suspect, is "that's how it has always been done." In the days before Tommy John surgery, pitchers regularly pitched 40+ games a season and often times did so while pitching complete games. Why would a manager send one guy to the hill that often? My guess is that there were fewer athletes with the ability to retire hitters in those days, so as a manager, you sent your stud out there as often as possible. These managers rarely used set-up men, closers or left handed specialists, mostly because the guy that started the game was the best for all situations (or at least perceived to be so). Today that is no longer the case, we know lefty-lefty match-ups tilt the odds toward the pitcher and that a closer has a better chance of getting the last three outs of ballgame than a starter who has already gone 8 innings.
Ok, so where does this revolution come in? If a pitcher is most effective the first time through a line up, why let them face the line up a second time? I propose using a "team of starters", three guys who pitch every three days and never face a line up for a second time. I predict this would be the best of both worlds, the "team of starters" would work on a set schedule, but would only be asked to focus in for three innings at most. Ideally a "team of starters" would be made up of a hard throwing righty, a crafty lefty and a guy who throws strikes (or a knuckleballer, those guys always screw up hitters). The idea would be that a hitter would be facing something completely different in his second at bat than he was in his first, increasing the pitchers chance of success.
Obviously this theory has some flaws. First a team would need nine "starters", teams have a hard time finding five quality starters, so nine might be a stretch. It also means that they would only have four additional bullpen spots. Any breakdown by the "starters" would require an effective mop up reliever. Second, it would cut number of innings that a manager would use his elite pitchers (of course those pitchers would be more effective and would effect more games). I'm guessing that a manager would be willing to pitcher his number one guy a little bit less to see his team give up 0.50 less runs per game.
While Robertson is by no means the reincarnation of Cy Young, he does have decent stuff and can get major league hitters out. Unfortunately for Nate, he was bitten by two "gotchas". First, it's tough in any sport to "lock it in" for a long period of time. Despite a rain delay, Robertson started the game focused and breezed through the Mariners lineup, but barring a truely special performance, that focus will wane sometime during the game. It's just too hard to be fully focused for over two hours every time a starter takes the hill. The second "gotcha" is that the more pitches a major league hitter sees against a pitcher, the greater the hitters chance of success. Despite being stymied for three innings, the Mariners used what they had seen from Robertson in their first at bats to go 9 for their next 16 and send Robertson to the showers. While I am certainly not a hitting coach, I bet seeing Robertson's release point and fastball during innings 1-3 lead to the Mariners success in innings 4 and 5.
Statistically there is definitely a drop off the second time a pitcher faces a lineup. Of the top 20 pitchers (by ERA as of 4/14), the average ERA increased from 1.10 the first time through the opponents lineup to 2.07 the second time. In fact, the only pitchers to significantly improve the second time through the line up were Josh Beckett and Brandon Looper, while 11 of the top 20 saw their ERA increase by over 0.9. Another example is John Smoltz. In the three years preceeding his move to the bullpen (and throwing out 2001 when he both started and relieved), Smoltz had an ERA of 3.04. During the three years that he was a closer, and following Tommy John surgery, his ERA dipped to 2.47. Of course upon his return to starting, Smoltz's ERA rose to 3.43.
Since baseball is a game of statistics, why would a manager allow his pitcher to remain in a situation where the advantage begins to slide toward the hitter? The answer, I suspect, is "that's how it has always been done." In the days before Tommy John surgery, pitchers regularly pitched 40+ games a season and often times did so while pitching complete games. Why would a manager send one guy to the hill that often? My guess is that there were fewer athletes with the ability to retire hitters in those days, so as a manager, you sent your stud out there as often as possible. These managers rarely used set-up men, closers or left handed specialists, mostly because the guy that started the game was the best for all situations (or at least perceived to be so). Today that is no longer the case, we know lefty-lefty match-ups tilt the odds toward the pitcher and that a closer has a better chance of getting the last three outs of ballgame than a starter who has already gone 8 innings.
Ok, so where does this revolution come in? If a pitcher is most effective the first time through a line up, why let them face the line up a second time? I propose using a "team of starters", three guys who pitch every three days and never face a line up for a second time. I predict this would be the best of both worlds, the "team of starters" would work on a set schedule, but would only be asked to focus in for three innings at most. Ideally a "team of starters" would be made up of a hard throwing righty, a crafty lefty and a guy who throws strikes (or a knuckleballer, those guys always screw up hitters). The idea would be that a hitter would be facing something completely different in his second at bat than he was in his first, increasing the pitchers chance of success.
Obviously this theory has some flaws. First a team would need nine "starters", teams have a hard time finding five quality starters, so nine might be a stretch. It also means that they would only have four additional bullpen spots. Any breakdown by the "starters" would require an effective mop up reliever. Second, it would cut number of innings that a manager would use his elite pitchers (of course those pitchers would be more effective and would effect more games). I'm guessing that a manager would be willing to pitcher his number one guy a little bit less to see his team give up 0.50 less runs per game.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Lure of the Can't-Miss Prospect Pitchers.
From the outside looking in, it should've been all too easy for me. I'd won back to back fantasy baseball titles, had arguably the best 8 keepers coming into this season, owned the three top picks of the 5th round in this years draft, to acquire quality pitching. So where did it go wrong, why did I feel the need to reach for the "can't-miss prospect" when seemingly all that my team needed was quality non-flashy veterans?
I think that some of the allure of playing fantasy sports, especially keeper leagues, is that you want to go out and grab that gem athlete. The next Johan Santana or Barry Bonds or Kevin Garnett, or Peyton Manning. It doesn't matter that you're sitting there with a very formidable line-up, you want "the next big thing" to be on your roster and not somebody else's. For instance, take the SexyParties' first title season of 2 seasons ago. Mid-season acquisitions of Ryan Howard and Zach Duke were catalysts on the way to a title. And if such players are not kept, they should in theory, bring back picks or players by way of the draft. Thus, going out and getting a future star, for little to nothing, should benefit your team, if not now, than in the future.
Last season's top rookie pitching prospects coming into the year were Cole Hamels, Jered Weaver, Anthony Reyes, Francisco Liriano and Justin Verlander. Three of the five of these young gunslingers remained healthy and were kept coming into this current season, setting a huge precedent and lust for young arms. The 2007 season had a glut of young rookie arms available to owners. Matt Garza, Homer Bailey, Mike Pelfrey, Philip Hughes, Andrew Miller, Tim Lincecum are just some of the names that have already been on a Middle Earth roster.
Granted, hitting just one big-time player per year is worth it for a keeper-league, but the question about my team is 'Did I really need to take chances on these guys?' or 'Should I have left the meat market up to the other 11 owners?'. Currently, three rookie pitchers are taking up space on my roster, and so far this season, they have totalled a combined 0 innings pitches, with 0 wins, 0 Ks, and 0 saves. I suppose it might seem foolish to the perennial 10th place finisher that the team with the inside track on winning the league is wasting such roster space.
In the end, however, taking chances on guys like these and seeing them succeed (or even fail) is what makes this game fun. Looking at my eight keepers from last season, 4 of the 8 guys, (or 1/2 if you're good with fractions) were on my roster as rookies, and numerous players on other teams were dealt by me after successful rookie years. So, perhaps the rookie phenom isn't the way to win a title this year, but it makes that game more enjoyable, and hasn't failed me so far. So, be quick, fellow Middle Earth franchise owners, because chances are that I'm watching those can't-miss prospects that you're contemplating picking up, but don't fret, because if you miss out, maybe you can get them after the season for a 3rd round pick.
I think that some of the allure of playing fantasy sports, especially keeper leagues, is that you want to go out and grab that gem athlete. The next Johan Santana or Barry Bonds or Kevin Garnett, or Peyton Manning. It doesn't matter that you're sitting there with a very formidable line-up, you want "the next big thing" to be on your roster and not somebody else's. For instance, take the SexyParties' first title season of 2 seasons ago. Mid-season acquisitions of Ryan Howard and Zach Duke were catalysts on the way to a title. And if such players are not kept, they should in theory, bring back picks or players by way of the draft. Thus, going out and getting a future star, for little to nothing, should benefit your team, if not now, than in the future.
Last season's top rookie pitching prospects coming into the year were Cole Hamels, Jered Weaver, Anthony Reyes, Francisco Liriano and Justin Verlander. Three of the five of these young gunslingers remained healthy and were kept coming into this current season, setting a huge precedent and lust for young arms. The 2007 season had a glut of young rookie arms available to owners. Matt Garza, Homer Bailey, Mike Pelfrey, Philip Hughes, Andrew Miller, Tim Lincecum are just some of the names that have already been on a Middle Earth roster.
Granted, hitting just one big-time player per year is worth it for a keeper-league, but the question about my team is 'Did I really need to take chances on these guys?' or 'Should I have left the meat market up to the other 11 owners?'. Currently, three rookie pitchers are taking up space on my roster, and so far this season, they have totalled a combined 0 innings pitches, with 0 wins, 0 Ks, and 0 saves. I suppose it might seem foolish to the perennial 10th place finisher that the team with the inside track on winning the league is wasting such roster space.
In the end, however, taking chances on guys like these and seeing them succeed (or even fail) is what makes this game fun. Looking at my eight keepers from last season, 4 of the 8 guys, (or 1/2 if you're good with fractions) were on my roster as rookies, and numerous players on other teams were dealt by me after successful rookie years. So, perhaps the rookie phenom isn't the way to win a title this year, but it makes that game more enjoyable, and hasn't failed me so far. So, be quick, fellow Middle Earth franchise owners, because chances are that I'm watching those can't-miss prospects that you're contemplating picking up, but don't fret, because if you miss out, maybe you can get them after the season for a 3rd round pick.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Something's Gotta Give
I know. It's not going to last. I don't have a first-place quality team. Jimmy Rollins and Ian Kinsler aren't going to hit 40 homers apiece. Adam Dunn's batting average will dip below .240. This team will fall apart, and it'll be that much more disappointing because it really looked like we'd be in it right up to the end.
How do people deal with the rigors of being in first place, year-in and year-out? How do you do it, Plundo? I'm up 20 points on the next closest team, and I'm scouring the waiver wire for a "savior." Am I simply insane? Maybe this is why I've never competed in the past; I just don't have the head for it.
Chip, save me some room at the bottom. I'm comin' for you.
How do people deal with the rigors of being in first place, year-in and year-out? How do you do it, Plundo? I'm up 20 points on the next closest team, and I'm scouring the waiver wire for a "savior." Am I simply insane? Maybe this is why I've never competed in the past; I just don't have the head for it.
Chip, save me some room at the bottom. I'm comin' for you.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Golden State
I don't have a whole lot of new comments, I've been getting my face kicked in by school over the past week. However, I felt like I just had to comment on the Golden State/Dallas series. I mean, wow. Baron Davis is playing like a man possessed, and the whole team just knows they can win games. Stephen Jackson, despite being a loose cannon - and he is most definitely that - can absolutely play basketball; he's only a notch below guys like Paul Pierce and Tracy McGrady. And what's great is they're just a fun team to watch. Tossing up crazy shots and knowing, just knowing that they're going in. Dallas got jobbed, this was a tougher 8 seed than anyone's had to face in the NBA playoffs.
By the way, are the Pistons from some other, higher league than the NBA that we don't know about? It seems like nobody has any business on the court with them.
My prediction is still Suns/Pistons with the Suns winning it all, but a Warriors/Nets final would be just fantastic. Here's hopin'.
By the way, are the Pistons from some other, higher league than the NBA that we don't know about? It seems like nobody has any business on the court with them.
My prediction is still Suns/Pistons with the Suns winning it all, but a Warriors/Nets final would be just fantastic. Here's hopin'.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Is World of Warcraft a reasonable investment for the casual player?
I think you'll find that most World of Warcraft (or "WoW") players would tell you that if you can't invest at least an hour or two on most days, you're wasting your money on a subscription. And sometimes I think they're right.
But recently, since I'm right at the end of my semester, I've only played for a total of maybe 3 hours over the past two weeks. I don't feel like I'm wasting the money I've spent on my subscription (which at $14/month is rather paltry when measured against a single meal at Outback Steakhouse). I have a few characters at varying levels of accomplishment within the game, and they each offer different opportunities for gameplay. If I have all day, I can play with my higher level characters and undertake long, group-oriented quests. If I've got a few hours, I can use a mid-level character and complete a few smaller quests or a single run-through of a low-level "instance" (dungeon). And if I've only got an hour, I can hop online with one of my beginner characters and do an early quest, or use any character to peruse the auction house for valuable gear.
My point is that, as video game players, you are only restricted by the limitations you place on yourself. If you refuse to have any lower level characters after you've built up other characters, then it's your own fault that you have to set aside 5-hour blocks in order to enjoy playing.
We casual players are those who you stumble upon on your way to the top who don't know all the ropes, and maybe we take things a little more slowly, but we're the best teammates you could have. Because to us, it's just a game. So we joke and ask questions and maintain a level of politeness, because we know there's a person on the other side of that computer.
We also usually don't make the stupid mistakes like pulling aggro in an instance when we're underpowered. We are smart enough and sensible enough to be scared when we see that "Elite" designation for the first time. And we're happy to help when we can.
See you in Azeroth.
But recently, since I'm right at the end of my semester, I've only played for a total of maybe 3 hours over the past two weeks. I don't feel like I'm wasting the money I've spent on my subscription (which at $14/month is rather paltry when measured against a single meal at Outback Steakhouse). I have a few characters at varying levels of accomplishment within the game, and they each offer different opportunities for gameplay. If I have all day, I can play with my higher level characters and undertake long, group-oriented quests. If I've got a few hours, I can use a mid-level character and complete a few smaller quests or a single run-through of a low-level "instance" (dungeon). And if I've only got an hour, I can hop online with one of my beginner characters and do an early quest, or use any character to peruse the auction house for valuable gear.
My point is that, as video game players, you are only restricted by the limitations you place on yourself. If you refuse to have any lower level characters after you've built up other characters, then it's your own fault that you have to set aside 5-hour blocks in order to enjoy playing.
We casual players are those who you stumble upon on your way to the top who don't know all the ropes, and maybe we take things a little more slowly, but we're the best teammates you could have. Because to us, it's just a game. So we joke and ask questions and maintain a level of politeness, because we know there's a person on the other side of that computer.
We also usually don't make the stupid mistakes like pulling aggro in an instance when we're underpowered. We are smart enough and sensible enough to be scared when we see that "Elite" designation for the first time. And we're happy to help when we can.
See you in Azeroth.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Guitar Hero II
I never played the original Guitar Hero, but I heard good things. Then my younger brother went to a birthday party and played the second installment, and the next day asked me to swing him out to the local electronics store to buy the game. I was a little skeptical, but I see now that he was right on.
The whole package of the PlayStation 2 version of the game and the guitar is a little pricey at $79.99, but apparently the new guitar is compatible with the original game, so if you decide to buy both games, you only need to buy one guitar. The game is also playable with a normal PS2 controller, but really, if you're playing with the controller, you're missing the point.
When we brought home the game, my brother immediately set it up and created our band, "Silica," so named for the gel packets that came in the plastic wrap with the guitar. (On Saturday, Mark, Mike and I created the band "Cold Knee" after I placed my milkshake on Mark's knee). We hopped right in and started to play a few songs on "Easy" difficulty.
It was fun, but you don't get the sensation of actually playing the song when you play on Easy. It's sort of like in Perfect Dark, if you set the bots' AI to very low, and they'd shoot one bullet every five seconds, and half the time would be shooting it straight up into the air. It's fun to win and kill things, but you don't really feel like a secret agent.
We bumped up the difficulty to Medium, and it was definitely more gratifying. More challenging as well, but that makes it all the more sweet when you complete a song. As a member of "Cold Knee," we began to play through the Hard difficulty level, and I'll tell you, there's a definite jump. But getting the hang of things and playing Woman by Wolfmother and Monkeywrench by Foo Fighters was a real thrill. My wrist ached this morning, but I don't regret the rockin'. What I do regret were those last four wings. Oooh.......
The whole package of the PlayStation 2 version of the game and the guitar is a little pricey at $79.99, but apparently the new guitar is compatible with the original game, so if you decide to buy both games, you only need to buy one guitar. The game is also playable with a normal PS2 controller, but really, if you're playing with the controller, you're missing the point.
When we brought home the game, my brother immediately set it up and created our band, "Silica," so named for the gel packets that came in the plastic wrap with the guitar. (On Saturday, Mark, Mike and I created the band "Cold Knee" after I placed my milkshake on Mark's knee). We hopped right in and started to play a few songs on "Easy" difficulty.
It was fun, but you don't get the sensation of actually playing the song when you play on Easy. It's sort of like in Perfect Dark, if you set the bots' AI to very low, and they'd shoot one bullet every five seconds, and half the time would be shooting it straight up into the air. It's fun to win and kill things, but you don't really feel like a secret agent.
We bumped up the difficulty to Medium, and it was definitely more gratifying. More challenging as well, but that makes it all the more sweet when you complete a song. As a member of "Cold Knee," we began to play through the Hard difficulty level, and I'll tell you, there's a definite jump. But getting the hang of things and playing Woman by Wolfmother and Monkeywrench by Foo Fighters was a real thrill. My wrist ached this morning, but I don't regret the rockin'. What I do regret were those last four wings. Oooh...
Saturday, April 28, 2007
The NFL Draft
I enjoy watching the NFL draft every year, and this year was no exception. Seeing my two favorite teams picking LaRon Landry and Adrian Peterson back-to-back was definitely exciting; I think they'll both be exceptional NFL players.
But the day wasn't all flowers and butterflies. Listen, nobody likes commercials. When the commercials come on, I tend to look around for other interesting shows that I can switch back and forth from when watching the draft. I was delighted to find out that the new NFL Network is also carrying the NFL draft today, and switched to it a couple times. The problem here is that the NFL Network had commercials at the exact same times as ESPN's coverage. Did the NFL Network have to promise that to be able to carry the draft? If so, they made a horrible error. The only way you get my viewership is if you run your coverage while ESPN is on commercial breaks. That's how you catch me.
Besides all of that, it's got to be easier logistically if they run at different times. When ESPN is on commercial, the NFL Network can be asking Brady Quinn what his reaction is to being snubbed for Ted Ginn by Miami at number 9. Then, when the NFL Network goes to a commercial, ESPN can ask the same question. I just don't understand how this kind of thing happens. I want constant coverage, all the time. I am a product of the digital information age. Instant gratification is the name of the game. Fix it, NFL.
But the day wasn't all flowers and butterflies. Listen, nobody likes commercials. When the commercials come on, I tend to look around for other interesting shows that I can switch back and forth from when watching the draft. I was delighted to find out that the new NFL Network is also carrying the NFL draft today, and switched to it a couple times. The problem here is that the NFL Network had commercials at the exact same times as ESPN's coverage. Did the NFL Network have to promise that to be able to carry the draft? If so, they made a horrible error. The only way you get my viewership is if you run your coverage while ESPN is on commercial breaks. That's how you catch me.
Besides all of that, it's got to be easier logistically if they run at different times. When ESPN is on commercial, the NFL Network can be asking Brady Quinn what his reaction is to being snubbed for Ted Ginn by Miami at number 9. Then, when the NFL Network goes to a commercial, ESPN can ask the same question. I just don't understand how this kind of thing happens. I want constant coverage, all the time. I am a product of the digital information age. Instant gratification is the name of the game. Fix it, NFL.
I'm Sweet on Grady Sizemore
I can't help it. Over time, Sizemore has developed from a minimally important piece of my team to my number two keeper, just a pinch behind Miguel Cabrera.
Look at what he did tonight. I was watching the bottom line on ESPN News, and saw he stole a base. I said out loud to myself, "I appreciate it Grady, but I could really use a home run. Things have been a little light recently." I check in later, and he indeed picked up a home run, though of the inside-the-park variety. That means that he wanted to pick up that homer for me so badly that, even though he saw that hadn't hit it hard enough to clear the wall, he just hit the extra gear and flew around the bases.
Yes, that's right. I'm claiming responsibility for that Sizemore home run.
In other Riders of Rohan news, Jimmy Rollins picked up another home run, his 9th of the season. He hears me say that he won't keep up his torrid pace, and gets his bat into another pitch out of spite. Well, Jimmy, I say again you can't keep it up. Now punch another one into the bleachers.
Look at what he did tonight. I was watching the bottom line on ESPN News, and saw he stole a base. I said out loud to myself, "I appreciate it Grady, but I could really use a home run. Things have been a little light recently." I check in later, and he indeed picked up a home run, though of the inside-the-park variety. That means that he wanted to pick up that homer for me so badly that, even though he saw that hadn't hit it hard enough to clear the wall, he just hit the extra gear and flew around the bases.
Yes, that's right. I'm claiming responsibility for that Sizemore home run.
In other Riders of Rohan news, Jimmy Rollins picked up another home run, his 9th of the season. He hears me say that he won't keep up his torrid pace, and gets his bat into another pitch out of spite. Well, Jimmy, I say again you can't keep it up. Now punch another one into the bleachers.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Middle Infielders
For a long time, middle infielders were the bane of fantasy baseball teams. Second basemen and shortstops were like catchers are today. And getting a middle infielder who can hit like Utley was unheard of.
But times have changed. At second base, you've got Utley, Ian Kinsler, Kelly Johnson, and a revitalized Marcus Giles putting up really solid numbers so far this season. And shortstop is even more impressive. Three of the top five ranked players are SS: Jose Reyes, Jimmy Rollins, and Hanley Ramirez. You can find power, batting average, and run production at the two positions now, in addition to the steals you could always get out of them.
I happen to have Kinsler and Rollins, and I'm just loving this production. Will it hold up? Certainly not. But there's nothing wrong with enjoying the ride. Having the two guys tied for second in home runs (behind that bastard A-Rod) playing two traditionally weak positions is a nice little treat. For those of you with similar fortunes, enjoy. I drink to your success....as long as you're not in my league. If you are (Plundo), you can take your middle infielders and go straight to hell.
But times have changed. At second base, you've got Utley, Ian Kinsler, Kelly Johnson, and a revitalized Marcus Giles putting up really solid numbers so far this season. And shortstop is even more impressive. Three of the top five ranked players are SS: Jose Reyes, Jimmy Rollins, and Hanley Ramirez. You can find power, batting average, and run production at the two positions now, in addition to the steals you could always get out of them.
I happen to have Kinsler and Rollins, and I'm just loving this production. Will it hold up? Certainly not. But there's nothing wrong with enjoying the ride. Having the two guys tied for second in home runs (behind that bastard A-Rod) playing two traditionally weak positions is a nice little treat. For those of you with similar fortunes, enjoy. I drink to your success....as long as you're not in my league. If you are (Plundo), you can take your middle infielders and go straight to hell.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
What Do You Do When You Make A Bad No-Start?
Today, I decided that I wasn't going to start Orlando Hernandez against the Rockies in Shea Stadium, and Plundo chose to not start Scott Kazmir against the Yankees at Tropicana Field. Here are their lines:
Kazmir - 6.2 IP, 1 ER, 5 Ks, no decision
Hernandez - 7 IP, 0 ER, 5 Ks, no decision
In retrospect, we both should've played our respective starting pitchers. But we can't go back in time to change it, so what do you do?
I'll tell you what you do. You look back at the game, and figure out if you should've known better. Kazmir, for example, has put a lot of runners on base all year, and has yet to have one of his classic breakout games. In fact, even in this game, he gave up 5 hits and 2 walks, so it was by no means a shut-down performance. Plus, let's be serious here, it's the Yankees. There are maybe five starters in all of baseball that I run out against the Yankees. Scott Kazmir, for as good as he might one day be, is not one of those five. Benching Kazmir for this start was the right move, Plundo. Stick to your guns.
Now, let's look at Hernandez. El Duque has been decidedly better than Kazmir thus far this season, giving up only 1 earned run in three of his four starts before today. (Confusingly, it was his start against the Nationals in which he got tagged for six runs). Shea Stadium is a pitcher's park, which should cancel out some of the talent in Colorado's lineup.
So why didn't I start Hernandez? Because the Rockies tagged my "ace" Brandon Webb in both of his outings against them, and I got scared. There's no logic to that decision, and I paid the price. Lesson learned.
Holding strong in first place, by the way. But I've got to be more sensible about my starters if I want to stay here. Go Riders!
Kazmir - 6.2 IP, 1 ER, 5 Ks, no decision
Hernandez - 7 IP, 0 ER, 5 Ks, no decision
In retrospect, we both should've played our respective starting pitchers. But we can't go back in time to change it, so what do you do?
I'll tell you what you do. You look back at the game, and figure out if you should've known better. Kazmir, for example, has put a lot of runners on base all year, and has yet to have one of his classic breakout games. In fact, even in this game, he gave up 5 hits and 2 walks, so it was by no means a shut-down performance. Plus, let's be serious here, it's the Yankees. There are maybe five starters in all of baseball that I run out against the Yankees. Scott Kazmir, for as good as he might one day be, is not one of those five. Benching Kazmir for this start was the right move, Plundo. Stick to your guns.
Now, let's look at Hernandez. El Duque has been decidedly better than Kazmir thus far this season, giving up only 1 earned run in three of his four starts before today. (Confusingly, it was his start against the Nationals in which he got tagged for six runs). Shea Stadium is a pitcher's park, which should cancel out some of the talent in Colorado's lineup.
So why didn't I start Hernandez? Because the Rockies tagged my "ace" Brandon Webb in both of his outings against them, and I got scared. There's no logic to that decision, and I paid the price. Lesson learned.
Holding strong in first place, by the way. But I've got to be more sensible about my starters if I want to stay here. Go Riders!
Monday, April 23, 2007
FIFA 2006
I've played FIFA '07. I've watched it played. I appreciate that the graphics are very impressive. It's got a lot of nice features, and I'm sure it's enjoyable for those who've decided to make the switch, or for whom the 2007 version is their first soccer game.
But for me, it comes up short in enough key areas to prevent me from spending the money to get the new version. The manager mode offers far fewer teams and leagues to choose from, when part of the fun of '06 was being able to join all sorts of obscure leagues and bring the very worst teams to international dominance. Since when is it a good idea to reduce the complexity of a game in its next iteration? Also in the manager mode, the roster limitations aren't designated graphically. So when you're deciding whether to pursue someone in the transfer market or putting a player out there for transfer, you are held to some obscure number of required active players (which by the way seems to change depending on your league), not represented anywhere in the game that I can find. Thanks a lot, EA.
So you can take your FIFA '07. I'm riding '06 into the grave, me and 1 FC Saarbrucken. Me and Hadji and El Idrissi.
Chip, you were right the whole time. FIFA '06! FIFA '06! FIFA '06!
But for me, it comes up short in enough key areas to prevent me from spending the money to get the new version. The manager mode offers far fewer teams and leagues to choose from, when part of the fun of '06 was being able to join all sorts of obscure leagues and bring the very worst teams to international dominance. Since when is it a good idea to reduce the complexity of a game in its next iteration? Also in the manager mode, the roster limitations aren't designated graphically. So when you're deciding whether to pursue someone in the transfer market or putting a player out there for transfer, you are held to some obscure number of required active players (which by the way seems to change depending on your league), not represented anywhere in the game that I can find. Thanks a lot, EA.
So you can take your FIFA '07. I'm riding '06 into the grave, me and 1 FC Saarbrucken. Me and Hadji and El Idrissi.
Chip, you were right the whole time. FIFA '06! FIFA '06! FIFA '06!
Power Outage
Patience is a virtue.
After starting off on fire, my fantasy baseball team's power numbers have dwindled down to near-nothingness. Rollins added another dinger tonight, but Sizemore and Dunn have been silent for a week now. Sizemore I get; Dunn, I do not. It's not like I expected to lead the fantasy league in homers, but my blood-homer level is getting low.
See, here's the problem. Coming into this season, pre-draft, I had no bones about finishing in the bottom half again, not worrying about the standings and focusing on assembling the building blocks for a run in 2008. But then a funny thing happened: I came out of the gates on fire, and have been in first place since day 3 of the season. How do you sit in first place for three and not want to do what you can to stay there?
I expect that I'll be able to stay level-headed enough to not trade away my future studs for short-term solutions. But the longer I'm in first, the more real the temptation becomes. We'll see.
After starting off on fire, my fantasy baseball team's power numbers have dwindled down to near-nothingness. Rollins added another dinger tonight, but Sizemore and Dunn have been silent for a week now. Sizemore I get; Dunn, I do not. It's not like I expected to lead the fantasy league in homers, but my blood-homer level is getting low.
See, here's the problem. Coming into this season, pre-draft, I had no bones about finishing in the bottom half again, not worrying about the standings and focusing on assembling the building blocks for a run in 2008. But then a funny thing happened: I came out of the gates on fire, and have been in first place since day 3 of the season. How do you sit in first place for three and not want to do what you can to stay there?
I expect that I'll be able to stay level-headed enough to not trade away my future studs for short-term solutions. But the longer I'm in first, the more real the temptation becomes. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
Games are a little tougher to judge, because frankly I play a lot of games that I don't finish, but often I don't finish them like, ...
-
We're making progress! I've got kind of a reputation for being way behind on movies and shows, a reputation well-earned. Even with t...
