You ever feel like the entire day would go differently if just one thing had gone your way? I'm not saying that this is one of those days; I'm just tossing it out there.
So I drove to the East Side this morning, and here's why. Usually when I want to go home for dinner I just go back to my apartment after work and then drive home. That way I don't need to get up half an hour early. But this time I need to run an errand that just happens to be on my way to the East Side from work. Az everyone knows you need to leave an extra few minutes to account for traffic, az I left around 7:45 from the Heights. Traffic traffic traffic... yada yada yada... and I get off the FDR southbound at 96th Street. Everyone knows that it's a horrible intersection over there because you have traffic going in like 19 directions:
1. Southbound going through to York Avenue.
2. Southbound making a right onto 97th Street.
3. Southbound making a right onto 96th Street.
4. 96th Street making a right entering southbound.
5. 96th Street going straight entering northbound.
6. Northbound going straight onto 96th Street.
7. Northbound making a left towards York Avenue.
Anyway, they have a pretty clever traffic light sequence, but it's still a ridiculous place to be. Az they had a couple of traffic cops there directing cars this morning, and as my light turned green, there was one car making a left towards York Avenue, which prompted the cop to hold us up at the green light for about two seconds. Let's just say I was the very first car that missed the light. If the cop hadn't held us up for those two seconds I would have been gone.
Then, somehow, I managed to get into traffic on East End Avenue of all places! I mean, I guess it makes sense because there's a southbound FDR Drive entrance on 79th Street, but there's NEVER traffic on East End. Not to sound pompous or anything, but when you live on Park Avenue you're paying for the privelege of relative peace and quiet and no buses. When you live on East End Avenue, you're paying for the privelege of relative peace and quiet, no buses, and no traffic (and the hassle of there being no subways around. That's why East End isn't Park Avenue). Whatever.
So I dropped in on the fam for a couple of minutes, then I headed out to go to work. The buses on 79th Street were packed to capacity as usual, az I just walked up to Lexington Avenue over to the 6 train. I took the 6 down two stops to 59th Street, and here's where the real insanity occurs. There's about 20-25 steps that go down to the N, R, W platform on 59th Street, and there were literally 1000 people on those steps going up or down. I have never in my life seen such pedestrian traffic anywhere. I was actually inching my way towards the steps crammed among the throngs of subway riders. From the time I stepped off the 6 train, it must have taken me ten minutes to travel the 50 feet to the steps and then down them. Most of the people were courteous, although I did hear these two gems:
a) There was one "lane" of downward traffic on the steps that was on the left side, and a man going up bumped into a woman going down, az she says "excuse me."
The man replies "You people shouldn't be on this f**king side!"
To which she responds "This is nobody's fault. Let's all try to be more courteous."
b) One woman near me got pressed up against another woman, and the one in back clearly copped a feel, so the one in front says "please be a girl, please be a girl..." She was visibly relieved when she saw that it was a girl.
Anyway, I was only a few minutes late to work, az it all worked out in the end.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Express Check-Out
My brother requested the use of my car this weekend, az I got up early and drove to the East Side and left the car by my parents' apartment. As I usually do when I go to work from home, I took the six train down to 59th street, and then took the N or R, or whatever yellow train stops there to 49th street. When you get out of that station, you are standing at the north end of Times Square. As everyone knows, the billboards there are absolutely huge, and I saw something that was definitely post-worthy.
The problem was that I wasn't going to write up a post just for that, so this morning I planned to do a little bit of research to explain why the Mets should trade for Erik Bedard instead of Johan Santana. I must admit that I let my emotions get the best of me since Bedard starred on my second place fantasy team this year. It turns out that most of the support I expected to find doesn't actually exist. Erik Bedard is actually a few days OLDER than Santana, not a few years younger as I suspected. Santana's K/BB ratio is actually still way way better than Bedard's. The point is, the only thing Bedard has going for him is that he's logged far fewer innings on that left arm of his than Santana has. I just think Bedard is the sexier, less well-known pick in this situation, and he will probably be cheaper in the long run. Even so, I wasn't going to waste a lot of space posting up research that doesn't support my claim, az I decided to just put up some of those thoughts before moving onto the Pastrami of the hot open sandwich that is "Express Check-out."
Anyway, the point of the post is that the billboard I sawr (I've been using that a lot recently. You know like when a 6 year old kid tells you he sawr something?) was an ad for a new show on TBS called "10 Items or Less." I couldn't help but giggle at such a blatant disregard for basic grammar (Ohmygod, it's supposed to be "10 Items or Fewer." Pay attention people). But then I got to thinking, you see those signs by the check out counter at the supermarket all the time, right? English is an always evolving language containing all manner of idiomatic expressions and other exceptions to the rules. Could it be that "10 items or fewer" should be catalogued as an idiom, thereby rendering it grammatically correct? I mean, I definitely say things that are technically not correct, like "what are you up to?" or "this is the sort of nonsense I won't put up with." (Shoutout to Church Dub for that one). I mean people will look at me like I'm a raving lunatic (even moreso than they already do) if I start saying things like "up to what are you?" or "this is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." And worse, they'll probably think I'm some sort of maniacal Star Wars groupie. Anyway, the point is you shouldn't be embarrassed to speak the way you want to speak, especially around me. I might correct your grammar from time to time, but that's just my little way of saying I like you and I'm comfortable enough around you to bust your chops a little bit.
The problem was that I wasn't going to write up a post just for that, so this morning I planned to do a little bit of research to explain why the Mets should trade for Erik Bedard instead of Johan Santana. I must admit that I let my emotions get the best of me since Bedard starred on my second place fantasy team this year. It turns out that most of the support I expected to find doesn't actually exist. Erik Bedard is actually a few days OLDER than Santana, not a few years younger as I suspected. Santana's K/BB ratio is actually still way way better than Bedard's. The point is, the only thing Bedard has going for him is that he's logged far fewer innings on that left arm of his than Santana has. I just think Bedard is the sexier, less well-known pick in this situation, and he will probably be cheaper in the long run. Even so, I wasn't going to waste a lot of space posting up research that doesn't support my claim, az I decided to just put up some of those thoughts before moving onto the Pastrami of the hot open sandwich that is "Express Check-out."
Anyway, the point of the post is that the billboard I sawr (I've been using that a lot recently. You know like when a 6 year old kid tells you he sawr something?) was an ad for a new show on TBS called "10 Items or Less." I couldn't help but giggle at such a blatant disregard for basic grammar (Ohmygod, it's supposed to be "10 Items or Fewer." Pay attention people). But then I got to thinking, you see those signs by the check out counter at the supermarket all the time, right? English is an always evolving language containing all manner of idiomatic expressions and other exceptions to the rules. Could it be that "10 items or fewer" should be catalogued as an idiom, thereby rendering it grammatically correct? I mean, I definitely say things that are technically not correct, like "what are you up to?" or "this is the sort of nonsense I won't put up with." (Shoutout to Church Dub for that one). I mean people will look at me like I'm a raving lunatic (even moreso than they already do) if I start saying things like "up to what are you?" or "this is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." And worse, they'll probably think I'm some sort of maniacal Star Wars groupie. Anyway, the point is you shouldn't be embarrassed to speak the way you want to speak, especially around me. I might correct your grammar from time to time, but that's just my little way of saying I like you and I'm comfortable enough around you to bust your chops a little bit.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A Thursday Quickie
It suddenly occurred to me that after being swamped with work for the last three point five days, I'm actually free right now (I recently decided that I'm not going to use decimals anymore, unless I absolutely must. They're bulky and hard to use. I'm only going to be using fractions from now on. And no messing around with mixed numbers, you tricksters! Anyway, as I was saying, it suddenly occurred to me that after being swamped with work for the last seven-halves days, I'm actually free right now). Seriously, I have nothing to do, az in order to kill time for the last hour of the day, I looked through some of my old posts. My ninth post from August 31st, 2006 was a good one. It is entitled "Away Messages," if anyone is interested in reading it. The point is I mention that I made "a little SNAFU earlier with pronoun/antecedent agreement," which I didn't want to go back and fix. My excuse for that was "I just don't feel like going back to fix it. That's just my little way of sticking it to the man. Power to the people." You might be able to tell where I'm going with this. Basically, this episode reminds me of that commercial, which shows Sprint's CEO telling his assistant that he's now getting these ridiculous rates on his Sprint service. He says "that's just my little way of sticking it to the man." The rest of the commercial goes like this:
Assistant: But, you are the man, sir.
CEO: I know.
Assistant: So you're sticking it to yourself?
CEO: Maybe.
Anyway, it occurred to me while I was reading that post that I AM the man, az I was sticking it to myself. Just to set the record straight, I'm going to post the old sentence and then correct it, all for your viewing, reading, and grammatical pleasure. (Just so you know, the antecedent of the pronoun is "him or her")
Old sentence: "It could be that I really don't like talking on the phone and would prefer to speak in person, in which case I'd be asking for their whereabouts just on the off chance that they're in the neighborhood."
Corrected sentence: "It could be that I really don't like talking on the phone and would prefer to speak in person, in which case I'd be asking for his or her whereabouts just on the off chance that he or she is in the neigborhood."
Okay, so it's a little bit tedious, but at least it's robust. Now I can sleep easier. Easierly. More easily.
Assistant: But, you are the man, sir.
CEO: I know.
Assistant: So you're sticking it to yourself?
CEO: Maybe.
Anyway, it occurred to me while I was reading that post that I AM the man, az I was sticking it to myself. Just to set the record straight, I'm going to post the old sentence and then correct it, all for your viewing, reading, and grammatical pleasure. (Just so you know, the antecedent of the pronoun is "him or her")
Old sentence: "It could be that I really don't like talking on the phone and would prefer to speak in person, in which case I'd be asking for their whereabouts just on the off chance that they're in the neighborhood."
Corrected sentence: "It could be that I really don't like talking on the phone and would prefer to speak in person, in which case I'd be asking for his or her whereabouts just on the off chance that he or she is in the neigborhood."
Okay, so it's a little bit tedious, but at least it's robust. Now I can sleep easier. Easierly. More easily.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A Walk Down the Memory Baseline
Get it? It's like a walk down memory lane except I'm replacing "memory lane" with "memory baseline." It's a play on words. I'm merely using a different kind of place on which one might walk. Sigh...nobody understands me.
Anyway, I went to baseball-reference.com yesterday to look at their stat of the day blog, and all of a sudden my brain froze. Remember the Seinfeld bit from his live on Broadway special? I'm gonna botch this because I can't find some of the exact quotes anywhere, but it goes something like this:
"First ten years of my life I think the only clear thought that I had was 'Get candy!' Everything else was just an obstacle in the way of the candy. So when I first heard about Halloween my brain couldn't process the information. You're like, 'What is this? What did you say? Someone's giving out candy? Who's giving out candy? EVERYONE WE KNOW is just giving out candy? I gotta be a part of this! Take me with you! I'll do anything they want. . . I can wear that. I'll wear anything I have to wear. I'll do anything I have to do to get the candy from those fools who are so stupidly giving it away.'"
Anyway, that basically describes my reaction yesterday when I discovered that baseball-reference play index is entirely free until Friday. For those of you not in the know, the baseball-reference play index is an invaluable tool for looking up baseball statistics. For example, if you wanted to find out which players have ever batted .320, hit 25 HR, walked 100 times, and stolen 50 bases in the same season, you would just type those filters into the system, and the play index would produce the answers (there's only one, Joe Morgan in 1976). Usually the system will output only the top hit in the search and then skip the next 135 or so. Only paid subscribers have access to all that the play index has to offer, but this week it's all free. Az I was getting ready to look up all sorts of ridiculous s**t when my brain refused to behave itself. There I am, like a kid in a candy store, and there's just too much from which to choose. So this morning I decided to just fiddle around with the play index figuring that some ideas might pop into my head. Az I put in the search parameters that would sort every Mets batter from each season starting in 1990 by games played. So I'm browsing the Mets teams from each of those seasons, and something caught my eye in 1999, and that's where the idea for this post begins.
Remember John Olerud? He was well known for his sugary sweet lefty swing and his propensity for wearing a batting helmet while playing 1st base because his mother asked him to do so. He played for the better part of a decade and a half for the Toronto Blue Jays, New York Mets, and Seattle Mariners, and finished his career with very short stints with the Yankees and Red Sox. I remember him for his three seasons with the Mets in the late 1990s and for one big moment in the playoffs in 1999. I remember it clearly because the Mets started their National League Divisional Series on the road in Arizona against the Diamondbacks, so the game started at around 11:00 EST. Since it was past my bed time I held my radio under the covers and listened to the game until I fell asleep. I remember hearing Olerud hit a home run against Diamondbacks ace Randy Johnson, a feat made even more spectacular because he had only given up one homer to a lefty all year, and to this day has only given up 24 in his career (Oddly enough, I was at a Mets-Astros game earlier in the year, and Johnson who played for Houston at the time demolished the Mets 10-1. The only run he gave up was an opposite-field homer by the right-handed Roger Cedeno). The Mets went on to win that game 8-4, and then went on to win the series three games to one on Todd Pratt's walkoff home run at Shea Stadium in game four. I know I didn't see it live because it happened on Shabbat. I had gone for a walk with a friend that day, and we ended up walking from the Upper East Side all the way across the Queensboro Bridge and back. I was wearing my Mets jersey, and just as we were getting back to my building a man on a bicycle yells out "Mets won!" Little did I know what was in store for me when I turned on Sportscenter to see the highlights after Shabbat ended.
Anyway, the point is that John Olerud will always have a special place in my memories. So I'm looking at the 1999 Mets, and it occurred to me that Olerud really was a darn good hitter, az I clicked on him, taking me to his baseball-reference page. One of the cool things on baseball-reference is the comparisons they have for each player at each age. For example, on Alex Rodriguez's page, his top comparison at the age of 20 was Jimmie Foxx, at 21 it was Frank Robinson, at 22 it was Johnny Bench, at 23 it was Ken Griffey Jr., etc. For John Olerud, his top comps for ages 31 through 34 was Don Mattingly. Interesting. So I clicked on the link that shows you a comparison of the two players, and here were my findings:
Olerud (1989-2003): 6994 AB, 1076 Runs, 2079 Hits, 473 2B, 12 3B, 239 HR, 1145 RBI, 1198 BB, 935 SO, .297 BA, .402 OBP, .471 SLG, 11 SB, .873 OPS, 131 OPS+
Mattingly (1982-1995): 7003 AB, 1007 Runs, 2153 Hits, 442 2B, 20 3B, 222 HR, 1099 RBI, 588 BB, 444 SO, .307 BA, .358 OBP, .471 SLG, 14 SB, .829 OPS, 127 OPS+
These numbers sure do look uncannily similar. The only real differences are that Olerud struck out and walked about twice as often as Mattingly did, however the ratios are almost identical (.780 K/BB for Olerud, and .755 for Mattingly). Now don't get me wrong; I love Don Mattingly. I once saw an amazing poster of him in Cooperstown where he's dressed in a pin-striped suit, and he's holding his bat like a gun, and the title says "Hit Man." Outstanding. The point is, as much as I loved him, I just don't see how he can make the Hall of Fame. I'd be surprised to see Olerud garner much support once he gets onto the ballot, and I'd say his numbers are at the very least just as good as Mattingly's.
Anyway, I went to baseball-reference.com yesterday to look at their stat of the day blog, and all of a sudden my brain froze. Remember the Seinfeld bit from his live on Broadway special? I'm gonna botch this because I can't find some of the exact quotes anywhere, but it goes something like this:
"First ten years of my life I think the only clear thought that I had was 'Get candy!' Everything else was just an obstacle in the way of the candy. So when I first heard about Halloween my brain couldn't process the information. You're like, 'What is this? What did you say? Someone's giving out candy? Who's giving out candy? EVERYONE WE KNOW is just giving out candy? I gotta be a part of this! Take me with you! I'll do anything they want. . . I can wear that. I'll wear anything I have to wear. I'll do anything I have to do to get the candy from those fools who are so stupidly giving it away.'"
Anyway, that basically describes my reaction yesterday when I discovered that baseball-reference play index is entirely free until Friday. For those of you not in the know, the baseball-reference play index is an invaluable tool for looking up baseball statistics. For example, if you wanted to find out which players have ever batted .320, hit 25 HR, walked 100 times, and stolen 50 bases in the same season, you would just type those filters into the system, and the play index would produce the answers (there's only one, Joe Morgan in 1976). Usually the system will output only the top hit in the search and then skip the next 135 or so. Only paid subscribers have access to all that the play index has to offer, but this week it's all free. Az I was getting ready to look up all sorts of ridiculous s**t when my brain refused to behave itself. There I am, like a kid in a candy store, and there's just too much from which to choose. So this morning I decided to just fiddle around with the play index figuring that some ideas might pop into my head. Az I put in the search parameters that would sort every Mets batter from each season starting in 1990 by games played. So I'm browsing the Mets teams from each of those seasons, and something caught my eye in 1999, and that's where the idea for this post begins.
Remember John Olerud? He was well known for his sugary sweet lefty swing and his propensity for wearing a batting helmet while playing 1st base because his mother asked him to do so. He played for the better part of a decade and a half for the Toronto Blue Jays, New York Mets, and Seattle Mariners, and finished his career with very short stints with the Yankees and Red Sox. I remember him for his three seasons with the Mets in the late 1990s and for one big moment in the playoffs in 1999. I remember it clearly because the Mets started their National League Divisional Series on the road in Arizona against the Diamondbacks, so the game started at around 11:00 EST. Since it was past my bed time I held my radio under the covers and listened to the game until I fell asleep. I remember hearing Olerud hit a home run against Diamondbacks ace Randy Johnson, a feat made even more spectacular because he had only given up one homer to a lefty all year, and to this day has only given up 24 in his career (Oddly enough, I was at a Mets-Astros game earlier in the year, and Johnson who played for Houston at the time demolished the Mets 10-1. The only run he gave up was an opposite-field homer by the right-handed Roger Cedeno). The Mets went on to win that game 8-4, and then went on to win the series three games to one on Todd Pratt's walkoff home run at Shea Stadium in game four. I know I didn't see it live because it happened on Shabbat. I had gone for a walk with a friend that day, and we ended up walking from the Upper East Side all the way across the Queensboro Bridge and back. I was wearing my Mets jersey, and just as we were getting back to my building a man on a bicycle yells out "Mets won!" Little did I know what was in store for me when I turned on Sportscenter to see the highlights after Shabbat ended.
Anyway, the point is that John Olerud will always have a special place in my memories. So I'm looking at the 1999 Mets, and it occurred to me that Olerud really was a darn good hitter, az I clicked on him, taking me to his baseball-reference page. One of the cool things on baseball-reference is the comparisons they have for each player at each age. For example, on Alex Rodriguez's page, his top comparison at the age of 20 was Jimmie Foxx, at 21 it was Frank Robinson, at 22 it was Johnny Bench, at 23 it was Ken Griffey Jr., etc. For John Olerud, his top comps for ages 31 through 34 was Don Mattingly. Interesting. So I clicked on the link that shows you a comparison of the two players, and here were my findings:
Olerud (1989-2003): 6994 AB, 1076 Runs, 2079 Hits, 473 2B, 12 3B, 239 HR, 1145 RBI, 1198 BB, 935 SO, .297 BA, .402 OBP, .471 SLG, 11 SB, .873 OPS, 131 OPS+Mattingly (1982-1995): 7003 AB, 1007 Runs, 2153 Hits, 442 2B, 20 3B, 222 HR, 1099 RBI, 588 BB, 444 SO, .307 BA, .358 OBP, .471 SLG, 14 SB, .829 OPS, 127 OPS+
These numbers sure do look uncannily similar. The only real differences are that Olerud struck out and walked about twice as often as Mattingly did, however the ratios are almost identical (.780 K/BB for Olerud, and .755 for Mattingly). Now don't get me wrong; I love Don Mattingly. I once saw an amazing poster of him in Cooperstown where he's dressed in a pin-striped suit, and he's holding his bat like a gun, and the title says "Hit Man." Outstanding. The point is, as much as I loved him, I just don't see how he can make the Hall of Fame. I'd be surprised to see Olerud garner much support once he gets onto the ballot, and I'd say his numbers are at the very least just as good as Mattingly's.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
I Can't Believe I Have More Driving Complaints
I thought I had exhausted my supply of driving pet-peeves, yet clearly I have not. I realized two more last night. Not even one! Two! Well I guess one of them isn't really a pet-peeve; it's just the height of bad manners. Anyway, let's get started.
So last night, I, along with seemingly millions of other Jews, attended the Professional Bull-Riders rodeo at Madison Square Garden (the world's most famous arena!). Afterwards, several hundred thousand of us went to Jerusalem II to get pizza and sushi. Az there I am getting into my car on Broadway between 36th and 37 streets, and I want to make a right onto 36th street so I can go towards the West Side highway. We make our way westward, and I think it was between 9th and 10th Avenues that there was a truck double-parked, which was fine. There was clearly plenty of room for another car to get by, az it was no biggie. But here's the thing; there was a taxi that was dropping off a passenger, and he was stopped right behind the truck in such a way that NOBODY could get by. I mean, come on man! A little common sense! Either pull up another 20 feet in front of the truck, or pull back ten feet. Either way cars will be able to get by. Why do you have to stop in the exact wrong spot? It was entirely uncool and entirely unnecessary.
Here's the other one, and this one is just ridiculous. This is the type of thing that only happens when the other person is either a complete jerk or completely ignorant of his/her surroundings. Here's the sitch: I'm driving uptown on the West Side highway, and you know how there are traffic lights until about 59th street? Az I'm at 57th street and this yutz in a Mini Cooper is right in front of me. We've already gone through a couple of yellow lights, and I'm really anxious to make it through the last two traffic lights. So what does the moron in the Mini do? He slows down as the light is turning yellow and so do I, but at the last second he decides "hey, I can make the light," az he speeds up and goes through the next two lights leaving me stranded at 57th street. I was absolutely furious, as my passengers can attest. That's the sort of jerk move that you really have to try to do. It takes actual effort to be that ignorant. Meanwhile, he was probably up by 96th street by the time I got a green light. I'm really starting to believe that 99% of drivers are just plain bad.
So last night, I, along with seemingly millions of other Jews, attended the Professional Bull-Riders rodeo at Madison Square Garden (the world's most famous arena!). Afterwards, several hundred thousand of us went to Jerusalem II to get pizza and sushi. Az there I am getting into my car on Broadway between 36th and 37 streets, and I want to make a right onto 36th street so I can go towards the West Side highway. We make our way westward, and I think it was between 9th and 10th Avenues that there was a truck double-parked, which was fine. There was clearly plenty of room for another car to get by, az it was no biggie. But here's the thing; there was a taxi that was dropping off a passenger, and he was stopped right behind the truck in such a way that NOBODY could get by. I mean, come on man! A little common sense! Either pull up another 20 feet in front of the truck, or pull back ten feet. Either way cars will be able to get by. Why do you have to stop in the exact wrong spot? It was entirely uncool and entirely unnecessary.
Here's the other one, and this one is just ridiculous. This is the type of thing that only happens when the other person is either a complete jerk or completely ignorant of his/her surroundings. Here's the sitch: I'm driving uptown on the West Side highway, and you know how there are traffic lights until about 59th street? Az I'm at 57th street and this yutz in a Mini Cooper is right in front of me. We've already gone through a couple of yellow lights, and I'm really anxious to make it through the last two traffic lights. So what does the moron in the Mini do? He slows down as the light is turning yellow and so do I, but at the last second he decides "hey, I can make the light," az he speeds up and goes through the next two lights leaving me stranded at 57th street. I was absolutely furious, as my passengers can attest. That's the sort of jerk move that you really have to try to do. It takes actual effort to be that ignorant. Meanwhile, he was probably up by 96th street by the time I got a green light. I'm really starting to believe that 99% of drivers are just plain bad.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
I Think I Need to Change the Name of This Blog
Seriously, I should change the description to "One Man's Thoughts on Baseball, Driving, and Grammar." That's kinda like the post I had a while ago (Lighters, Shavers, and Pens, Oh My!), in which I note the absurdity of the Bic company, which sells three completely unrelated items. But if I changed the description I feel like I wouldn't have any readers. Hell, I don't have any readers anyway, but that's not important. It's not about how many people read; it's about how much I can get away with making fun of you all. I mean, it's about having a place for me to jot down my thoughts. Besides, I like "Schmutter's idea palace." If anyone has a suggestion for a replacement name, comment away.
Anyway, the point is I realized another driving pet-peeve last night, and this one really bakes my noodle (yeah, that's right. I'm trying to resurrect that fantastic line from the Matrix. We'll see if it takes hold). It's honestly one of the first things you learn when you take driver's ed, and it's something that is absolutely dripping with so much common sense that it almost boggles the mind that people don't do it. I'm pleased to present to you (drum roll please....) the turn signal! I'm going to share with you two instances from last night in which the turn signal was used (or not used, sigh...) in horribly noodle-baking ways:
1. After eating dinner at home, I drove over to my brother's apartment on 77th street between First and Second Avenues. I parked my car on 77th street, which goes westbound. After my visit (yes, don't worry, my nephew is extremely cute), I got back into the car and intended to continue west on 77th street. There was one of them ugly grey hatchback cars in front of me, and he was driving rather slowly. We arrived at the green light on Second Avenue at which I wanted to make a left turn, and the dude in front of me, continuing to go slowly makes a left turn (without signaling) into the second lane from the left. I was going to make another left onto 76th street, az I turned into the very left lane, and continued slowly towards the red light at the intersection. Then that very same dude cut into the left lane in front of me (again without signaling) and then we both turned onto 76th street. By this point I'm getting a bit exasperated. Now we're driving eastbound on 76th street towards First Avenue (again, very slowly), and once the light turns green he turns left onto First Avenue again without signaling!!! I would have been ahead of him two turns ago and not had to deal with him if he had just signaled once! It was one of the most frustrating things because I mamash had no idea what he would do next. It can be a very disturbing experience to have uncertainty on the road. The traffic system works on predictability, and when one yutz decides to be unpredictable, the entire system can break down.
2. After I finally arrived (uneventfully) back in the Heights, I decided to get Erin (my car. It's a hot name) a much deserved, and much needed car wash. I picked up a friend for company, because it's one of those cool car washes where they let you sit in your car while it goes through the conveyer. Az we're on the way back, driving south on Broadway at around 200th street, and we're stopped at a red light behind another car in the left lane. What happens? The light turns green, and all of a sudden, the guy in front of me puts on his left turn signal and makes me wait behind him until he lets the cars from the other direction go by (I've mentioned something like this before in my post "ACPJrB Redux," but bear with me anyway). As my friend can attest, I started going ballistic; I was yelling, and shaking, and quaking, and gibbering like a madman. If you don't have your turn signal on when that light turns green, I don't care if it takes you eleven hours out of your way, you better freakin' go straight.
It's so simple, my friends. The turn signal is there for a reason. I think I use it even more often than I should; I even use it in empty parking lots. On the road, it's always better to be safe than sorry.
Now let's move on to something else. Last week my brother asked me about two pitchers, Goose Gossage and Lee Smith. I won't go through the entire statistical analysis, but the point of the discussion was that I wouldn't vote one into the Hall of Fame without the other. The basis for my claim was that Smith had better overall stats, but Gossage pitched several hundred more innings. I determined that Smith's case was slightly better than Gossage's, but my brother disagreed. He called me last night and asked me try to figure out how important Innings Pitched should be when determining a pitcher's greatness. I told him I would do some research and get back to him, az here it goes.
I went to baseballprospectus.com, because I know I can find VORP listings there. Again, VORP stands for Value Over Replacement Player, and the number represents an amount of runs. Another words, a player whose VORP is 35 is worth 35 more runs to his team than the average bench player. I figured that VORP was a good metric to use for this analysis because it's a sabermetric counting stat. What I mean is that most of the sabermetric stats (ERA+, EqA, OPS+, etc.) are either only relevant for hitting, or are rate stats that don't take into account how much you've played. For example, a player who has only one at-bat and hits a home run will have an astronomically high OPS+, but that player is clearly less valuable than someone who hits solidly for an entire season. So I chose VORP because it will reward players who accumulated the most numbers.
That being said, here are a few observations about my results:
-The top 34 in VORP for pitchers in 2007 were starters. Rafael Betancourt was 35th at 39.8.
-The Baseball Writers Associaton of America did well in voting for the Cy Young award, at least according to this metric.
-I can't believe how good John Smoltz still is; he was eleventh in all of baseball and sixth in the National League in VORP at 56.7.
The actual results of the study are as follows:
Pitching a lot of above-average innings is extremely valuable. The top twelve pitchers in VORP pitched over 200 innings. 13th was Erik Bedard, whose strong season (6th in ERA+, 3rd in the AL) was cut short by an injury. C.C. Sabathia won the Cy Young award in the American League, in large part because he pitched 40.1 more innings than Josh Beckett, even though the rest of their stats are comparable. Beckett's ERA+ was 145 to Sabathia's 143, but Sabathia's VORP was quite a bit higher, 65.2 (3rd in MLB, 1st in the AL) to Beckett's 58.6.
Here's another example of the value of pitching a lot of innings: Of everyone in the top 30 in VORP, the lowest ERA+ by far belongs to Joe Blanton, a slightly above average 106. Blanton's ERA+ was tied for 48th best in baseball last year. However, since he pitched 230 innings of 106 ERA+, he was 25th in baseball in VORP. Another words, being a slightly above average pitcher who eats innings is immensely valuable in this day and age.
In conclusion one can see... wait a minute. This is not a five-paragraph essay, and I'm not in sixth grade. The point is, I'm pretty sure my brother was right in arguing that Gossage had a better Hall of Fame case than Lee Smith. I'm also pretty sure that Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, C.C. Sabathia, and Fausto Carmona are going to make a s**t load of money over the next 10-15 years.
Anyway, the point is I realized another driving pet-peeve last night, and this one really bakes my noodle (yeah, that's right. I'm trying to resurrect that fantastic line from the Matrix. We'll see if it takes hold). It's honestly one of the first things you learn when you take driver's ed, and it's something that is absolutely dripping with so much common sense that it almost boggles the mind that people don't do it. I'm pleased to present to you (drum roll please....) the turn signal! I'm going to share with you two instances from last night in which the turn signal was used (or not used, sigh...) in horribly noodle-baking ways:
1. After eating dinner at home, I drove over to my brother's apartment on 77th street between First and Second Avenues. I parked my car on 77th street, which goes westbound. After my visit (yes, don't worry, my nephew is extremely cute), I got back into the car and intended to continue west on 77th street. There was one of them ugly grey hatchback cars in front of me, and he was driving rather slowly. We arrived at the green light on Second Avenue at which I wanted to make a left turn, and the dude in front of me, continuing to go slowly makes a left turn (without signaling) into the second lane from the left. I was going to make another left onto 76th street, az I turned into the very left lane, and continued slowly towards the red light at the intersection. Then that very same dude cut into the left lane in front of me (again without signaling) and then we both turned onto 76th street. By this point I'm getting a bit exasperated. Now we're driving eastbound on 76th street towards First Avenue (again, very slowly), and once the light turns green he turns left onto First Avenue again without signaling!!! I would have been ahead of him two turns ago and not had to deal with him if he had just signaled once! It was one of the most frustrating things because I mamash had no idea what he would do next. It can be a very disturbing experience to have uncertainty on the road. The traffic system works on predictability, and when one yutz decides to be unpredictable, the entire system can break down.
2. After I finally arrived (uneventfully) back in the Heights, I decided to get Erin (my car. It's a hot name) a much deserved, and much needed car wash. I picked up a friend for company, because it's one of those cool car washes where they let you sit in your car while it goes through the conveyer. Az we're on the way back, driving south on Broadway at around 200th street, and we're stopped at a red light behind another car in the left lane. What happens? The light turns green, and all of a sudden, the guy in front of me puts on his left turn signal and makes me wait behind him until he lets the cars from the other direction go by (I've mentioned something like this before in my post "ACPJrB Redux," but bear with me anyway). As my friend can attest, I started going ballistic; I was yelling, and shaking, and quaking, and gibbering like a madman. If you don't have your turn signal on when that light turns green, I don't care if it takes you eleven hours out of your way, you better freakin' go straight.
It's so simple, my friends. The turn signal is there for a reason. I think I use it even more often than I should; I even use it in empty parking lots. On the road, it's always better to be safe than sorry.
Now let's move on to something else. Last week my brother asked me about two pitchers, Goose Gossage and Lee Smith. I won't go through the entire statistical analysis, but the point of the discussion was that I wouldn't vote one into the Hall of Fame without the other. The basis for my claim was that Smith had better overall stats, but Gossage pitched several hundred more innings. I determined that Smith's case was slightly better than Gossage's, but my brother disagreed. He called me last night and asked me try to figure out how important Innings Pitched should be when determining a pitcher's greatness. I told him I would do some research and get back to him, az here it goes.
I went to baseballprospectus.com, because I know I can find VORP listings there. Again, VORP stands for Value Over Replacement Player, and the number represents an amount of runs. Another words, a player whose VORP is 35 is worth 35 more runs to his team than the average bench player. I figured that VORP was a good metric to use for this analysis because it's a sabermetric counting stat. What I mean is that most of the sabermetric stats (ERA+, EqA, OPS+, etc.) are either only relevant for hitting, or are rate stats that don't take into account how much you've played. For example, a player who has only one at-bat and hits a home run will have an astronomically high OPS+, but that player is clearly less valuable than someone who hits solidly for an entire season. So I chose VORP because it will reward players who accumulated the most numbers.
That being said, here are a few observations about my results:
-The top 34 in VORP for pitchers in 2007 were starters. Rafael Betancourt was 35th at 39.8.
-The Baseball Writers Associaton of America did well in voting for the Cy Young award, at least according to this metric.
-I can't believe how good John Smoltz still is; he was eleventh in all of baseball and sixth in the National League in VORP at 56.7.
The actual results of the study are as follows:
Pitching a lot of above-average innings is extremely valuable. The top twelve pitchers in VORP pitched over 200 innings. 13th was Erik Bedard, whose strong season (6th in ERA+, 3rd in the AL) was cut short by an injury. C.C. Sabathia won the Cy Young award in the American League, in large part because he pitched 40.1 more innings than Josh Beckett, even though the rest of their stats are comparable. Beckett's ERA+ was 145 to Sabathia's 143, but Sabathia's VORP was quite a bit higher, 65.2 (3rd in MLB, 1st in the AL) to Beckett's 58.6.
Here's another example of the value of pitching a lot of innings: Of everyone in the top 30 in VORP, the lowest ERA+ by far belongs to Joe Blanton, a slightly above average 106. Blanton's ERA+ was tied for 48th best in baseball last year. However, since he pitched 230 innings of 106 ERA+, he was 25th in baseball in VORP. Another words, being a slightly above average pitcher who eats innings is immensely valuable in this day and age.
In conclusion one can see... wait a minute. This is not a five-paragraph essay, and I'm not in sixth grade. The point is, I'm pretty sure my brother was right in arguing that Gossage had a better Hall of Fame case than Lee Smith. I'm also pretty sure that Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, C.C. Sabathia, and Fausto Carmona are going to make a s**t load of money over the next 10-15 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
