BBTF.org
Login | Register

/m/online

  • My Memberships -
  • Login to edit.

    • Thursday, January 19, 2012

    SBNation: Bois: The Bob Famine

    (www.sbnation.com)
    • Facebook
    • Google+
    • Twitter
    • E-mail
    posted on January 19, 2012 at 04:22 AM by Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines to angels, baseball geeks, online  |  85 comment(s)

    In baseball, the name “Bob” has gone from extremely common to a marginal curiosity and nexus of confusion.

    There was one active MLB Bob last year, Bobby Abreu, whose given name is “Bob” but goes by “Bobby”. In 2010 there were two - Abreu, and Bob Howry, whose given name is “Bobby” but goes by “Bob”. In 2009 we also had Bob McCrory.

    In the future, will “Bob” be as unheard-of for baseball players as “Dick”? Can Bob Stumpo restore glory to this appellation? ...Read More...

    Reader Comments and Retorts

    Go to end of page

    Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

    Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
    1. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss posted on July 07, 2011 at 11:59 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Clearly, we need Rowdy Rodder Piper and his special sunglasses, to weed out the rest of "Them".
    2. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:13 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    ... and Edmund Gwenn, too!
    3. cardsfanboy  posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:22 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Clearly, we need Rowdy Rodder Piper and his special sunglasses, to weed out the rest of "Them".


    One of my favorite movies of all time(They Live, and no, not kidding) I keep wondering how they would do a remake in this day and age. Would rampant consumerism be the target still? or would it be a little different like dumbing down the world reducin (having preachers preach against intelligent design, studio execs pushing reality tv, PETA, MADD, etc.) and reducing critical thought(RBI, the hallmark of a good ball player, runs produced rbi+runs- hr's, wins equal quality of a pitcher etc)
    4. Lassus posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:25 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I'd be comfortable calling Olbermann a liar regarding his "Ever read Moneyball, idiot?" quote there.
    5. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:30 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    He does raise a good point at the end of the piece, where he talks about how it's silly that the manager gets discretion to select All-Stars. Of course he's going to pick his own players over players from other teams.
    6. Biscuit_pants posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:51 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    or would it be a little different like dumbing down the world reducin (having preachers preach against intelligent design, studio execs pushing reality tv, PETA, MADD, etc.)
    Your insistence that MADD is a problem in this world is ridiculous. Oh and I believe you meant preachers preaching intelligent design or against evolution.
    7. cardsfanboy  posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:54 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Oh and I believe you meant preachers preaching intelligent design or against evolution.


    Yep, messed that up.
    8. John DiFool2 posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:54 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Moneyball has yet to produce a league champion, let alone a World Champion


    I guess the Red Sox don't play their bagpipes properly.
    9. cardsfanboy  posted on July 07, 2011 at 12:58 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I guess the Red Sox don't play their bagpipes properly.


    Not sure a team with 140mil or so payroll technically qualifies as a moneyball team. Yes it qualifies by the perception of the masses that think moneyball = stats analysis.
    10. KT's Pot Arb posted on July 07, 2011 at 01:47 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Your insistence that MADD is a problem in this world is ridiculous. Oh and I believe you meant preachers preaching intelligent design or against evolution.


    My parents worked for MADD after my sister was killed by a drunk driver. That's how I know they are lunatics.
    11. Cris E posted on July 07, 2011 at 02:12 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Not sure a team with 140mil or so payroll technically qualifies as a moneyball team.

    The Red Sox are totally different from the As. They may both have young GMs, Coco Crisp on the DL, Mark Kotsay's wife in the crowd, and both had books written and movies made about them. But here's the thing: Joe Morgan likes Jimmy Fallon, and he isn't so sure about this Seth Rogaine fat kid that created statistics, so he's not going to see that movie. Completely separate worlds I tell you.
    12. The Yankee Clapper posted on July 07, 2011 at 02:16 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    My parents worked for MADD after my sister was killed by a drunk driver. That's how I know they are lunatics.

    Not sure I'd use the word lunatics, but there is a difference between MADD's core anti-drunk driving mission and some of the neo-Prohibitionist measures they have supported - although over zealousness is perhaps to be expected given the emotions involved.
    13. The Essex Snead posted on July 07, 2011 at 02:21 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Not sure a team with 140mil or so payroll technically qualifies as a moneyball team.

    Taking flyers on castoffs like Millar, Ortiz, and (urp) Jeremy Giambi, acquiring undervalued guys like Mueller & Bellhorn, drafting dismissed or overlooked dudes like Youkilis & Pedroia -- even if they had the deep pockets for Manny & Damon & Pedro & Schilling, I think they qualify as a "Moneyball" team under any definition.
    14. Swoboda is freedom posted on July 07, 2011 at 02:44 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    How about Tampa then? They made the World Series. They are run on a shoestring budget and have the stat guys? Wouldn't they be a Moneyball team?
    15. Biscuit_pants posted on July 07, 2011 at 02:46 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Taking flyers on castoffs like Millar, Ortiz, and (urp) Jeremy Giambi, acquiring undervalued guys like Mueller & Bellhorn, drafting dismissed or overlooked dudes like Youkilis & Pedroia
    Every team does this, and who said Pedroia was dismissed or overlooked. Ortiz is the only other one on this list that without the big money players you would shrug at.
    16. McCoy Wilfong for Money posted on July 07, 2011 at 02:51 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    First rule of anti-moneyball is that anybody that wins besides the A's is immediately dismissed from being considered a Moneyball team. The only team that can validate Moneyball is the A's and they can only validate Moneyball if you can create a time machine and go back to a time around 1999 to 2003 and get them to win it all. In otherwords you can't win against anti-moneyball people.
    17. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama  posted on July 07, 2011 at 03:11 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Dan, good point in #17. The NAACP has already went down that path; very successful (in a far more difficult and dangerous arena) but once their core mission was (mostly) achieved, they slid slowly into irrelevance.

    MADD is the most successful grass roots organization that started in my lifetime. Maybe the Tea Party Movement can supplant it, if indeed it is really grass roots.
    18. Don Malcolm  posted on July 07, 2011 at 03:43 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    While I'm in stuck record mode here, let me point out that Keithie's objection to the All-Star selection process would be moot if we went to a division-based All-Star Game. Under such a scenario there would be more than enough room for Tommy Hanson and Ryan Vogelsong.

    Folks who want to put some kind of significance to All-Star game selections are taking Bill James's original "let's look at all the evidence at the time" precept and trying to apply that archeological perspective to the current day. The law of diminishing returns kicks in real fast when you do that. Keithie isn't even working at that level of sophistication in what he wrote, which proves once again that he really shouldn't pass off his first drafts on a reading audience.
    19. FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substance posted on July 07, 2011 at 03:55 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I read the other week, that overall car fatalities are at their lowest point since 1949. Most of that can be ascribed to improved saftety measures in cars. But a lot of it is also due to the increased awareness and stigmatization of drunk driving, so I think MADD deserves some credit there.

    OTOH, I disagree with Dan's implication in #17. There is a massive difference between successfull and a toatal success. If I suggested Apple should close their business*, because they've made a lot of money and have been "successfull", I'd get laughed out of the room by Dan and his fellow libs. And deservedly so.

    *And wouldn't the world be a much better place if they did?
    20. Shredder posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:07 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    If I suggested Apple should close their business*, because they've made a lot of money and have been "successfull", I'd get laughed out of the room by Dan and his fellow libs. And deservedly so.
    Maybe I'm misreading you, but are you comparing a commercial enterprise like Apple to a advocacy group like MADD? That doesn't make sense to me.
    Maybe the Tea Party Movement can supplant it, if indeed it is really grass roots.
    Not only is it arguably not grass roots, it's not really anything other than a re-branding of the Republican base.
    21. McCoy Wilfong for Money posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:11 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Most of that can be ascribed to improved saftety measures in cars. But a lot of it is also due to the increased awareness and stigmatization of drunk driving, so I think MADD deserves some credit there.

    Well, sure they deserve some credit for past actions but that doesn't mean they need to exist today or in the future.
    22. YR Misses Reggie Bars posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:16 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Not only is it arguably not grass roots, it's not really anything other than a re-branding of the Republican base.


    I doubt that, as our librulmedia would clearly have highlighted any such ham-handed attempts at PR.
    23. Dale Sams posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:17 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    They Live, and no, not kidding)


    No need to qualify the love for They Live. Typical great Carpenter soundtrack also.
    24. Tim McCarver's Orange Marmalade posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:19 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Keith Olbermann is One of "Them"


    This is news?
    25. KT's Pot Arb posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:26 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I read the other week, that overall car fatalities are at their lowest point since 1949. Most of that can be ascribed to improved saftety measures in cars. But a lot of it is also due to the increased awareness and stigmatization of drunk driving, so I think MADD deserves some credit there.


    I'm glad they have raised awareness. I'd like to see truly impaired drivers kept off the road. I think this "zero tolerance" crap is Cary Nation all over again.

    MADD wants to put alcohol sensors in every car.

    I got my keys taken away for blowing a 0.02. Not charged, not arrested, but was told by a big guy with a gun that I couldn't drive. For being at 1/4 the legal limit.

    They are getting retarded.
    26. McCoy Wilfong for Money posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:30 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I still don't know why cars are actually allowed to go faster than 65 mph? What is the purpose of that?
    27. Shredder posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:35 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I still don't know why cars are actually allowed to go faster than 65 mph? What is the purpose of that?
    To get somewhere faster? Forgive me for forgetting where you're from, McCoy, but in much of the western U.S., the speed limit is great than 65, and it feels like you're crawling if you're doing anything less than 75. And with the improved road conditions, fuel efficiency, and vehicle safety, a 65 MPH speed limit in a wide open space on an interstate isn't really any safer.

    And as a practical matter, if you set the governor on every vehicle at 65, you would need to set every speed limit lower than that. There are times where even a driver who is faithful to the speed limit needs to increase speed to avoid an accident, or to clear a space for other drivers.
    28. McCoy Wilfong for Money posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:50 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    To get somewhere faster? Forgive me for forgetting where you're from, McCoy, but in much of the western U.S., the speed limit is great than 65, and it feels like you're crawling if you're doing anything less than 75. And with the improved road conditions, fuel efficiency, and vehicle safety, a 65 MPH speed limit in a wide open space on an interstate isn't really any safer.

    I understand that there are parts in the West that are faster but it is also true that the vast majority of driving does not take place in these parts.

    And as a practical matter, if you set the governor on every vehicle at 65, you would need to set every speed limit lower than that. There are times where even a driver who is faithful to the speed limit needs to increase speed to avoid an accident, or to clear a space for other drivers.

    But as anybody who has dealt with a cop will know they simply don't care. You can have all the reason in the world to do something but if you violate one of their rules you get a ticket. I am curious though, what kind of accident can be avoided by speeding up? I would think most cars don't have the necessary pick up to accelerate fast enough to avoid anything.
    29. Nasty Nate posted on July 07, 2011 at 04:57 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I still don't know why cars are actually allowed to go faster than 65 mph? What is the purpose of that?


    Is this a trick question?
    30. puck posted on July 07, 2011 at 05:17 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Fahrvergnügen.
    31. Karl from NY posted on July 07, 2011 at 05:30 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Not sure a team with 140mil or so payroll technically qualifies as a moneyball team.


    When you're fighting a 200mil team, absolutely yes. The Red Sox lost Pedro and Damon to getting outbid. They need to find wins on their budget just like everybody else.
    32. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) posted on July 07, 2011 at 05:34 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Keith Olbermann is One of "Them


    I assumed "Them" was synonomous with \"########\".
    33. Shredder posted on July 07, 2011 at 05:39 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I understand that there are parts in the West that are faster but it is also true that the vast majority of driving does not take place in these parts.
    Yeah, so #### you to all of you people who live west of the Ohio River! Plus, it depends on how you measure it. There may be fewer cars per square mile, but they have to drive a lot more miles.
    But as anybody who has dealt with a cop will know they simply don't care. You can have all the reason in the world to do something but if you violate one of their rules you get a ticket.
    If you get a ticket every time you violate a rule of the road, you're the unluckiest SOB on the planet. Hell, if you get a ticket every time you get pulled over, you're doing it wrong.
    I am curious though, what kind of accident can be avoided by speeding up? I would think most cars don't have the necessary pick up to accelerate fast enough to avoid anything.
    Maybe in 1982. Many cars on the road are quite powerful. A low end Honda Accord is about 180 HP, and with lighter building materials, that's fairly significant. And if you've ever been getting squeezed by a couple of semis, or stuck in the right line of a busy interstate with your left side blocked while someone is entering from on on-ramp, where your options are to speed up to create room, or hit the breaks and screw everything up behind you, you'll appreciate the technology.

    But if you're still concerned, you can just set the cruise control at 65 not worry about how fast everyone else is driving.
    34. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) posted on July 07, 2011 at 06:06 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Yeah, so #### you to all of you people who live west of the Ohio River!


    Trying to figure out if this includes me. It is both west and east of where I live.

    Ohio River
    35. Shredder posted on July 07, 2011 at 06:22 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Trying to figure out if this includes me. It is both west and east of where I live.
    You get to go as fast or slow as you want. I was going to say Mississippi, but there are pretty large portions of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, etc. that are sparsely populated. The speed limit over the Indiana and Ohio turnpikes is 70 mph.
    36. Danny posted on July 07, 2011 at 06:30 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    If you recall his HOF ballot article from a couple years ago, it's clear that Olbermann doesn't get it.

    Teh stupids:

    No: Alomar, Larkin, McGwire, Raines, Trammell
    Yes: Baines, McGriff, Morris, Smith
    37. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) posted on July 07, 2011 at 06:40 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Michigan has a 75 mph speed limit on I-94.

    WI has stubbornly refused to bump any part of either I-90, 94, 43 or 39 up to 70 or 75mph. It is hard to defend that for the stretch between Wisconsin Dells all the way to Hudson, WI save for a 10 mile stretch around Eau Claire.

    IN does have a number of stretches at 70 mph.

    Using time zones as your boundary would've been more apt, as the Ohio River more or less runs east to west.

    I support Montana's old law which was no limit on Interstate and State Highways outside a city during the day for autos and a nightly limit of 75.
    38. Shredder posted on July 07, 2011 at 06:49 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I support Montana's old law which was no limit on Interstate and State Highways outside a city during the day for autos and a nightly limit of 75.
    I'd rather have an actual speed posted. Montana's "no speed limit" thing was a big lie. The posted speed limit was "reasonable and prudent", which meant that the speed limit was whatever the highway patrolman said it was, which could be different for everyone. It wasn't until someone finally challenged it and won that they switched to a posted limit. The real benefit in Montana is that you can go up to 85 and pretty much get away with it. If you're caught speeding within 10 mph of the posted limit, the fine is $20, payable on the spot, and it doesn't get reported to your insurance company. I got caught on HWY 16 between Glendive and Sidney doing 80 in a 70. Paid the cop right there, and didn't bother showing up for my court date. The fine has gone up. When I was a kid, it used to be $5.
    39. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) posted on July 07, 2011 at 07:22 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    #39 good story, my annual MT drives are more or less concentrated near Yellowstone, Cooke City, (Bear Tooth Hwy, where you really can't get away with going 85 for long) Red Lodge and Billings, and just about every town has its local cops on the perimeter ready to meet you as you enter the reduced speed zones.

    I remember in the 'reasonable and prudent' days we were near Red Lodge going skiing and the guy I was with was pulled over, and had the reasonable and prudent discussion with the cop to no avail, and it was a quick nominal fine.

    You are correct, the takeaway is the 85 with impunity
    40. eric posted on July 07, 2011 at 07:26 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    If you get a ticket every time you violate a rule of the road, you're the unluckiest SOB on the planet. Hell, if you get a ticket every time you get pulled over, you're doing it wrong.


    Since I'm someone who gets a ticket the vast majority of the time I'm ever pulled over, could you expound on what it takes to not do it wrong?
    41. The Good Face posted on July 07, 2011 at 07:42 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Since I'm someone who gets a ticket the vast majority of the time I'm ever pulled over, could you expound on what it takes to not do it wrong?


    Do it sexier?
    42. FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substance posted on July 07, 2011 at 07:42 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Since I'm someone who gets a ticket the vast majority of the time I'm ever pulled over, could you expound on what it takes to not do it wrong?

    Offer the cop a blowjob.
    43. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora posted on July 07, 2011 at 07:47 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Hell, if you get a ticket every time you get pulled over, you're doing it wrong.


    Actually every single time I'v been pulled over (save once) has been legitimate- I was in fact doing what the cop said ...

    I have managed to getaway without a ticket once or twice...
    44. Shredder posted on July 07, 2011 at 07:54 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Since I'm someone who gets a ticket the vast majority of the time I'm ever pulled over, could you expound on what it takes to not do it wrong?
    I don't get pulled over too often, but I've found that if you're not doing anything too outrageous, cops can be fairly reasonable. Not always, of course, but if you're not confrontational and have a good explanation, it can take a 100% ticket situation and make it a 60-40, or 50-50. I got pulled over a couple times in law school and wasn't given a ticket. And fortunately I didn't have to offer a blow-job.
    45. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) posted on July 07, 2011 at 08:15 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    As recently as 2003 there were still a few states where it was legal to drink while driving (as long as you were under the limit). Not sure if any are still like this.
    46. Der Komminsk-sar posted on July 07, 2011 at 08:30 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I was pulled 9 times before I got my first ticket - I am not proud of this (though I think I was at the time).
    I've also told the not-too-exciting story here before, so I'll spare you now...
    47. cardsfanboy  posted on July 07, 2011 at 09:11 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Since I'm someone who gets a ticket the vast majority of the time I'm ever pulled over, could you expound on what it takes to not do it wrong?


    1. Don't look ethnic(mean you can't be black, hispanic looking or asian looking etc)
    2. Don't look like a hoodlum
    3. Agree with the police officer, apologize, be nice...do not disagree with him, admit your mistake. Do not make excuses.
    4. Be prepared to get a ticket.

    I've been pulled over 6 times and have one ticket in my life. (as you age, I have a sneaky feeling it's harder to get away with it, it also seems to help if you are in the military or if you look like a nerd)
    48. Infinite Joost (Voxter)  posted on July 07, 2011 at 09:41 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    49. Karl from NY posted on July 07, 2011 at 10:07 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    As recently as 2003 there were still a few states where it was legal to drink while driving (as long as you were under the limit). Not sure if any are still like this.


    Mississippi is the last one that allows the driver to drink. Seven more allow passengers to drink (ie, an open container of alcohol in a car is not illegal.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_open_container_laws
    50. McCoy Wilfong for Money posted on July 07, 2011 at 11:15 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Somewhere around less than half the times I've been pulled over for things that I actually did I ended up not getting a ticket for it.

    Don't drive an expensive looking car. Don't drive a trashy looking car. Be white. Have the officer be white. Be a local. Don't be near the border of the state with out of state plates. Drive through a predominately "ethnic" neighborhood. Be polite. Don't be drunk.

    Follow those instructions and you'll get out of a ton of tickets. Throw in be a cute little hottie and you'll probably never get a ticket.

    Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

    You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

     

    Online Think Factory

    Login to Join (0 members)

    {/exp:tag:subscribed}

    Page rendered in 1.4557 seconds, 189 querie(s) executed