|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, July 02, 2012
My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.
Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call. However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4070 - 12:06am, May 23)Last: MefistoNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 22, 2013 (166 - 12:05am, May 23)Last: BalkrothNewsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (81 - 12:03am, May 23)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (124 - 12:02am, May 23)Last: SquashNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1173 - 12:01am, May 23)Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)Newsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (34 - 11:54pm, May 22)Last: Ray (RDP)Newsblog: Arizona Diamondbacks broadcaster Bob Brenly says it’s time for robo-umps in baseball (31 - 11:52pm, May 22)Last: SoSH U at workNewsblog: Verducci: Offensive decline leads list of 10 early-season trends to watch (31 - 11:52pm, May 22)Last: SquashNewsblog: Gonzales: No plans to dismantle White Sox (13 - 11:51pm, May 22)Last: asinwreckNewsblog: Sources: O's calling up Kevin Gausman (6 - 11:51pm, May 22)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag AirlinesNewsblog: Mitchell: Pedroia, Cano and Magical Thinking (8 - 11:15pm, May 22)Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)Newsblog: Chase Utley 'scared' by injury, could be headed to DL (2 - 11:07pm, May 22)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: Mike Trout hits for the cycle in Angels' 12-0 win over Seattle (37 - 10:53pm, May 22)Last: Cooper NielsonNewsblog: Seamheads.com Adds 1928 Negro Leagues Data (2 - 10:24pm, May 22)Last: Mike WebberNewsblog: Gattis, Freeman lead Braves past Twins 5-4 in 10th (9 - 9:14pm, May 22)Last: WillYoung
|
|
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.
My best guesses are:
* None at all
* Just a few week distraction, and after it the real campaign starts
* Minor fluff bits (like the Romney horse), but nothing major.
Similarly I guess the Romney foreign trip is a good idea, but the scheduling leads me to believe his own campaign doesn't expect much and so wants to get some credit for it, but the trainwreck potential is lowered because of the built in Olympic distraction.
Thoughts?
* None at all
* Just a few week distraction, and after it the real campaign starts
* Minor fluff bits (like the Romney horse), but nothing major.
Similarly I guess the Romney foreign trip is a good idea, but the scheduling leads me to believe his own campaign doesn't expect much and so wants to get some credit for it, but the trainwreck potential is lowered because of the built in Olympic distraction.
Thoughts?
Basically true, I'd say.
But I'm confused. Among the reasons to think that Romney is playing it as safely as possible on this trip is a thing I heard where he would be holding no press conferences in the UK, and not even making any speeches, just appearing at a series of photo ops.
And then I read this
WTF? Why did Romney allow himself to be quoted saying stuff like that? How can that possibly do him any good? I thought the one thing Romney was supposed to be good at (you know, other than making staggering amounts of money) was staying on message. This can't possibly be the message he wants to project while in London at this moment.
It's almost like he is a terrible candidate. As we have said before he is testing the proposition that exogenous factors are what matter in a presidential election.
Romney's value proposition was that he was the one choice among the GOP primary field who could walk and chew gum. On the launch of this overseas maiden voyage, Rick Perry or Herman Cain could hardly be more inept.
And here's Sullivan:
Im sure the next patch will iron it out.
But this guys is ridiculously tone deaf. I look forward to his big union bashing speech when he visits Poland.
It was during an interview with NBC (I think the interviewer was Brian Williams, but I'm not positive about that). It was part of the same interview in which Romney professed all those doubts and concerns about the preparation for and success of the London games. The only reason we haven't heard this bit of foot-in-mouth is that the other foot-in-mouth overshadowed it.
It's just such unlikeable, unappealing thing to say, all the moreso to say it in a high-profile major network TV interview. Don't they teach you in Politician 101 that no matter if you screw every bimbo that moves and you and you and your wife cannot stand the sight of one another, at every public opportunity you express your devotion and pretend to be thrilled to be around her?
It's not like he would have been making an iron-clad commitment to watch the event. All you have to do is lie.
At the same time, no amount of love and devotion to a person could ever make watching dressage enjoyable.
I think he was trying distance himself from the elitist aspect of it all, but didn't quite realize that it made him seem like an #######. Kind of a "Message: I care" moment.
It takes a special kind of tone-deafness to not realize that saying something that thoughtlessly disrespects your spouse will make you seem like an #######. Don't try this at home.
This always happens when you've got legacy content like "Anglo-Saxons" to deal with... upgrades in such instances are never smooth.
Nah, doesn't really pan out, does it.
La Dernière owns a horse and rides English style. They're not going to the Olympics, but if even they go to the Southeast Tarrant Sub-County Class E Beginners Dressage Tournament, I think I'm going, even if I have a chance to create jobs that day.
Mitt the arrogant wonk is a lot more appealing to me than Mitt the liar and dissembler that's been running for president since 2007. But that's today's Republican Party for ya. He can't be a wonk because the party's base requires that he pretend not to understand how policy works.
Alleged journalists Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff are covering the presidential conventions for PBS!
They have two weeks to kill, and literally no news to report. HOW ARE THEY EVER GOING TO FILL THE TIME?????
This is why they're the professionals, kids. Don't try this at home.
Even though in this case what the arrogant wonk is revealing is a remarkable shortage of tact and sensitivity, I agree. On the list of qualities demonstrated by most strong and effective leaders, tact and sensitivity aren't always high on the list (though they aren't nearly as rare as suggested by those who tout the nice-guys-finish-last school of management).
But for crying out loud, if there is one realm in which tact and sensitivity rise right to the top of the list of a leader's priorities, it's in international relations, in diplomacy, particularly when one is the hosted guest of a country in an entirely ceremonial, contentless capacity, particularly when the entire purpose of the visit is to demonstrate the ability to forge stronger relations with that country.
I admit I have not researched the issue, so I may be misrepresenting things, but the whole thing seems silly to me. I am less likely to order food from there, but really from what I can tell a huge percentage of chain restaurant owners are very conservative and give money to conservative causes. That don't mean you you can (should) restrict their companies entrance into new markets, any more than restricting companies with progressive ownership from going into conservative places.
I think a smart move for business owners (ones in the public eye anyway) to stay away from politics all together, because it doesn't seem to ever work out very well from a publicity standpoint and the way the world is going that sort of thing seems to come out more and more.*
*I am talking about the impact of social media and outing such things to the public at large, resulting in boycotts and such. The whole anonymous campaign contributions thing is a bit different animal.
He said he hopes Ann's horse does well but won't be watching it live. How does that constitute "disrespect[ing] [his] spouse"?
I'm with you, Mouse. I despise Chik-Fil-A on numerous grounds (not least of which is their product(s)) but you simply can't have government blocking businesses based on the political views of the CEO or owner.
Turn it around: Can the mayor of Columbia, SC block businesses owned/run by people who are vocally pro-choice?
Far better to boycott them. Let them open and then let the "pride" of Massachussettens not buy their products.
In no way is this meant as a defense of C-F-A.
As to Mitt and dressage, I agree it's tone deaf and could have been passed off as a joke. As, perhaps, it was meant. But he never sounds like he's joking. If I were in his shoes, I'd watch my wife if she were riding, but merely because it's a horse she owned? If it was important to her, I'd watch. If it's just business then, no, I probably wouldn't.
I think Sullivan put it as well as I can:
Romney's remark implies that the Olympic sport in which his wife is engaged is too far beneath him to even keep track of what day it's occuring, let alone bother to attend. It's unsupportive and dismissive.
Truly you must see how that constitutes being disrespectul.
Turn it around: Can the mayor of Columbia, SC block businesses owned/run by people who are vocally pro-choice?
Far better to boycott them. Let them open and then let the "pride" of Massachussettens not buy their products
Agreed.
The only time I ever see a change purse is when it's being used by somebody in front of me in a grocery store. It always means I'm going to be standing there for an extra five minutes.
This is one of those issues on which I'm highly conflicted. On the one hand, I have no problem with somebody refusing to spend their money in a way that benefits another whose politics they despise. On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of trying to inflict economic punishment on somebody for holding political views which are completely unrelated to their business. I guess where I come out on it is that it's fine to withhold your own business, but it's not OK to engage in a campaign encouraging others to withhold their business. I'm not sure this is a coherent position.
This was an issue recently at NYU - a student group tried to get a Chick-fil-A franchise kicked out (it was leasing space from the university). The student senate sensibly decided that the political activities weren't grounds for banishment, and said it would welcome an organized boycott.
I haven't followed the Boston story closely, but did Menino actually take action to block them? I seriously doubt that passes constitutional muster.
The place where it steps over the line, for me, is when a government denies a permit for political reasons. Preventing them from doing business at all seems wrong to me.
Oh, I think this goes too far. Of course it's okay to try to encourage others not to do business with X. It is only not okay to force other people not to do business with X. That is why you keep government out of it. If I can convince everyone not to do business with you, there must be a problem on your end. If I'm the only one who feels like doing business with you is bad, I'm the odd duck.
But the business, so long as it follows the law, should be allowed to open and then people choose or not to patronize them.
That makes sense to me. But then you also get people burning Dixie Chicks albums and a boycott of Pepsi for using Ludicris in commercials. I like that a lot less, but I find it impossible to justify the former but not the latter. Ultimately, I think the potential chilling effect on speech is too significant a harm.
This is one of those things where having strength in my convictions is pretty easy-- I had never really heard of them until I moved down south, and it turns our their food is literally sickening, at least to my wife and I. When I found out about their politics (beyond the "we're really religious so we're not open Sundays" thing, which is weird, but in an endearing way), "boycotting" them wasn't really a sacrifice.
On the other hand, if the owner of Jimmy John's turns out to be a card-carrying member of the KKK, I will have some difficult decisions to make.
You see the possible downside, but not the upside. If I pay with a $10 and eleven pennies for an order that costs $10.11, then it goes right into the till and I get my receipt and you don't wait as long. But if I hand someone a $20 for that same transaction, then they have root around in the till for five bills and three quarters and a dime and then try to break one of those plastic rolls of pennies open, and not be able to get it open because human hands aren't strong enough, and then whack it against the side of the till six times till the pennies fly all over the checkout lane and they finally pick up four of them from here and there and send me on my way.
I have been boycotting them for the past 8 years, since the one time I actually ate a sandwich there. It was awful.
In-and-Out Burger is also super-religious (bible verses on the wrappers and all), but it doesn't seem to deter people. Mostly because those are some damn good burgers.
It's hard to avoid the meta-issue of the content vs. the expression in these discussions. I support someone's right to burn a Dixie Chick album as an expression of free speech, but I also have a right to call that person and idiot for the content of their views and even tell them to shut up. My speech isn't chilling the other person's speech.
I've never gotten the love for In-and-Out burgers. Garden variety smallish greasy fast-food burger, nothing remarkable about it. What am I missing?
Of course. But that's just a matter of counteracting speech with more speech, which is always OK. The Dixie Chicks thing wasn't a clear example. What I think has the potential to chill speech are organized attempts to inflicting economic harm on individuals who express political opinions.
*By the rest of us I mean those who will still go to Chick-Fil-A, not people who hate gays.
Romney's European Vacation continues by announcing he met with the head of MI6. Which is fine except that MI6 does not want people announcing they met with MI6. Oops.
In-and-Out isn't the best version of the form in the world, but it's a consistently good one.
England [sic] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions.
yes, here is the man who will finally fix our shattered relations with England!
(Which goes somewhat against my "arrogant wonk" reading, but let's say, um, Mitt's losing his edge after five years of posturing as a moron. The mask becomes the face.)
If you're like the people at my grocery store, the process of paying with a $10 and eleven pennies will require at least five minutes of taking each individual coin out of the change purse, studying it, rejecting it, and trying again.
I'm picturing this being as dumb as possible for humor's sake, that she's not asking in other words "people still eat with their hands?" but "people eat with their hands completely motionless?"
Seems as plausible an explanation as anything else.
A super-religious fast-food chain doesn't bother me-- a super-religious and vehemently and publicly anti-gay one does.
It took us several months Sundays driving by darkened C-F-A's to figure out they were closed for religious reasons.
Considering that Oprah Winfrey is the worst person in the world, that's a pretty damning statement.
Reminds me of the time I had White Castle burgers in Chicago with a couple of friends who'd been raving about them to me. I'm like, really, this is it?
Not that In-and-Out is the greatest burger you can get (it's pretty good, especially for fast food), but I think I have to put you on ignore for saying Burger King is better.
I think this is part of the reason why there is so much outrage. It seems to me that many people have (or had prior to this issue) no idea just how religious Chick-Fil-A's owners are. They start meetings--with clients--by reading from the Bible.
I actually respect them for this. If you're going to be publicly very (Christian) religious, you shouldn't be making money on Sunday.
I think that if I ever eat with Treder I will order exactly the opposite of what he does. Liking a Burger King burger simply says you don't know what a good hamburger is.
I'm personally of the opinion that there aren't any GREAT commercial hamburgers. I prefer ones I've cooked myself, either on a griddle or grill. YMMV
STFU, Donnie.
People who claim to like White Castle also claim to like PBR. They have an ironic relationship to their own tastes.
I can't comment. I have never eaten White Castle unless I was drunk at the time. It seemed fine at the time.
I prefer thicker and rarer burgers. There was a local chain in Dallas years ago called Balls that made excellent thick rare burgers (and the joint was decorated with stuff like a cancelled check signed by Ty Cobb; unlike Einstein, nobody liked Ty Cobb enough to keep his checks as memorabilia instead of cashing them). I like two local chains in Austin: Mighty Fine and Hopdoddys. I have to admit that I haven't eaten a hamburger in a long time, except from somebody's backyard grill, out of politeness. I've had both In-n-Out and Five Guys, and I'd call them greasy and hard to digest, with the proviso that Burger King is infinitely worse. (Sorry, Steve :) Haven't eaten Chick-fil-A since the traditional-family flap, though I used to like those waffle fries. Love Popeye's, but I haven't been there in over two years. I cook a lot of eggplant and chickpeas and that kind of stuff, honestly.
In the past five years, it seems like every notable chef in NYC has come up with their own burger. An you know what, they're almost all really frickin' good. Now obviously, this isn't fast food, but it has rendered the occasional debate as to what is the best burger in NYC silly. There are 50 great burgers int he city and any one can seem better than the other depending on the day or one's mood. And it's brought me to the conclusion that making a great burger isn't all that hard. It just takes quality ingredients, a modicum of skill and reasonable attention. But many restaurants don't (or didn't) think a burger is worthy of that level of effort.
I agree that there are now dozens of excellent burgers in New York. The one burger in New York that did knock my socks off a little was the one at Korzo Haus in the east village. (Admittedly I haven't eaten the Minetta Tavern burger.) They get the science and the seasoning right, they cook it to under rare, and then they finish it by wrapping it in a little Hungarian langos bread dough and deep frying it for a couple minutes. You get a medium rare burger wrapped in fried bread. It's special.
For reference, it can be found at the Corner Bistro. Just go at off hours cause it's small and the wait can be bad. Cheap McSorley's Ale and Black and Tan there also.
As to Chik-Fil-A, their food is just mediocre at best, bland chicken with little taste. I have no problem boycotting them. I also agree that governments shouldn't be refusing them permits because of their owner's beliefs, even if those beliefs are bigoted and horrid as in this case.
That sounds all kinds of awesome.
There's a small local chain up in the Sacramento area called Squeeze Inn whose specialty is a cheeseburger, on which the cheese is an enormous blanket that not only covers the patty, but also spreads out several inches in every direction onto the griddle, where it gets fried to a crisp.
Because I don't wish to develop heart disease, I truly don't allow myself to have a hamburger very often any more. But by god that Squeeze Inn cheeseburger is spectacular.
I will definitely have to try that one. The Minetta burger lives up to the hype, but I don't think it's leaps and bounds above the rest. I think Burger and Barrel makes an awesome burger (I'm biased as I live like a block away). For awhile I thought it was better than Minetta, but it may have slipped some in recent months. Still excellent though.
I just moved to Brooklyn, but apparently we used to live about five minutes apart (was on Ludlow in the LES).
Yep. Same guy, same burgers. They added a few more varieties at B&B than you can get at Lure, but I tend to stick with the classic (the one they traditionally serve at Lure) or the bash burger (the one that won burger bash at the food & wine festival).
I just moved downtown a few years ago. Love it. Makes me wonder why I lived uptown for 10 years before then.
My sister dated his pilot some years back and I don't know about KKK, but he sounded like a giant ####### to me.
We don't have White Castle or Jack in the Box here either, but I've heard similarly gushing reviews about both. I'm guessing they're horribly exaggerated as well?
I'd analogize White Castle sliders to Arby's roast beef. I'm almost glad I tried it, because I had never eaten beef that squeaked as I bit into it before. What the #### is in that stuff?
Jack in the Box has a brilliant ongoing TV ad campaign, genuinely clever and funny. The food is junk, basically targeted toward the stoner-gorging-at-2-AM crowd.
Not that there's anything WRONG with that.
It's fast food. If someone is gushing over it, they have horrible taste and cholesterol.
Whatever that stuff is they put on an Arby's roast beef sandwich, it bears utterly no resemblance to actual roast beef.
Or maybe you don't like their version, what can you do about taste.
I didn't read any of the follow-up to this in the thread, still catching up, but I'd say it's not so much active disrespect as simply not seeming to even give two shits. Which does make him look like a jerk.
I've never gotten the love for In-and-Out burgers. Garden variety smallish greasy fast-food burger, nothing remarkable about it. What am I missing?
That it's ####### delicious?
In other news, I think the majority of the liberals here being against government blockage of Chick-fil-a has given Joe a stroke.
I don't believe anyone actually likes White Castle. That's some crap food.
I blame the Beastie Boys.
Re: In & Out - I'm with Steve on this one.... Definitely well below Carl's Jr or even Wendy's.
You and Steve can dine together for eternity in some manner of hell, I'd imagine.
Anyway, once or twice a week they also roast prime rib. And on those days, you can order a sandwich they call The Arata (apparently named after the regular customer who requested it and faithfully ordered it).
They slice off a slab of the prime rib and put it on the griddle to give it some carmelization. Then they melt a slice of provolone (I think it's provolone, might be Monterey Jack) on it, and serve it up on thick toasted sourdough.
Oh yeah.
Hence my term, "thoughtless disrespect." And yes, it makes him look like a self-absorbed jerk.
White castle has a definite flavor. I think it is nasty, but folks that grew up with it (and I guess drunk people) think it is great.
IN-N-OUT. I had it once. I have a vague memory of it being pretty good, but it obviously wasn't very memorable.
All those NY burgers. Most of the time I love living in flyover land (Twin Cities if you must know) but sometimes I am a bit jealous.
5 Guys. I really should try it next time I am visiting my sister in DC. I keep meaning to, and I was just out there last month.
And back to politics - Mitt Romney really does seem like a thoughtless jerk. Of course he may be a great guy, it is impossible for me to really know. It does impact his chance to be elected, but doesn't change vote one way or another. I am OK with my president being a complete prick, if they are good at being president in a way that accords with my view of the world. Romney fails at the last test and so I hope he never has a chance to fail at the "good at" part.
The thing I find troubling about Romney's behavior is his lack of displayed courage. I can not think of anything he has done since I started paying attention to him or that I have heard about that shows he has even the smallest bit of courage. Seriously what even sort of courageous act has he ever done?
Every time he acts I have started asking myself why? And here it really feels like he is afraid people will make fun of his wife, her horse, and dressage. And sure every politician has to duck somethings, so if this was a one time thing I would give him a pass, but really what has he ever done that was at all courageous.
I am not calling him a coward (I have no way of knowing), but there is plenty of distance between bravery and cowardice. Call me old fashioned but I would much rather have a prick than a not-brave president. Maybe I am just looking for his Sister Souljah (sp?) moment again.
Like if there was a jacknthebox on my way home id go there 1-2/month just for variety.
But of course its not a real burger. In the bay area i like The Counter (there are a couple) and Chez mama in SF on potrero hill. When i was a teen we used to go to grubsteak but i havent been in 20 years.
I have had 5 guys in vancouver, wa. Better than innout, but hardly gormet
Burgers: I've had 5 guys here in northern VA and In-N-Out in the Bay Area. I prefer 5 Guys - I thought In-N-Out was way too greasy for me. But I like Weinerschnitzel and Sonic (primarily for the chili additions). Best drunken 3am fast food though is still the Chili Pups from Krystal. 100% guaranteed to forestall a morning after hangover (guarantee not guaranteed).
He held a kid down and cut his hair. Does that count?
No, most of us do that for fun.
Am I the only one who giggled over this comment?
I would assume that if you're into that sort of thing, it depends more on the gentlemen than the location.
Anybody ever eat at Barlett's Burger Cottage near Harvard Square?
Ha ha. Nah. I just think it's hilarious that a one-off "tweet" by a mediocre baseball player gets turned into such a big deal. It's also funny that reporters complain so much about athletes being boring but then race to turn every non-P.C. utterance into a Two Minutes Hate just to score easy page clicks.
I did years ago. It was good but I was usually impaired.
Yes, they're real good.
Costs too much. If there's an argument to cooking your own burger, it's The Counter. For what you pay for one burger at The Counter, you can make burgers for a family of four.
In "n" Out is fine but the hype is stupid.
As for Chik-Fil-A, I think they should be turned down because the area around 2500 N Elston is already a freaking nightmare and there's no reason to put a drive through location there. But as long as the City Council agrees to support Aldermanic privilege, it's going to be one guy making the call, like it or not. I think their food sucks, and I wouldn't eat there anyway, and it's not my ward, but if his constituents have a problem, then vote the guy out.
Duh. Restaurants are more expensive than cooking at home. Ya think?
The best-tasting burger is always cooked at home, and the lowest-cost burger is always cooked at home. This is not new information. But if you're going to eat out (and there are very good reasons to do so, now and then), The Counter is a great place to get a terrific burger in a fun environment.
Why should this be a matter of majority rule? The very notion of government blackballing a business because of the owner's political or religious beliefs is anathema to constitutional principles.
Five Guys>Whataburger>Sonic>JackintheBox>Wendys>Burger King>>>>>>>>>>>>McDonalds
Whataburger was always my favorite growing up here in Texas, I think in the last few years they've gone national (or at least regional). Since Five Guys came here a few years ago that is now where I go when I need a burger fix. Someone mentioned a dislike of the cajun seasoning on their fries, that is what makes them special to me, but then again I married a Louisiana girl so maybe it's an acquired taste.
Those are all good reasons for me to admire In-and-Out as a business and as an employer, but it has nothing at all to do with making that just-another-burger taste like anything other than just another burger.
They make generic fast-food grub well. It's still generic fast-food grub.
The lawyers, both left and right, have come out close to pretty unanimously saying that's not the case. IANAL of course.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main