User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5893 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Wednesday, March 01, 2023Joey Votto on Joey Moppo: The Reds star dishes about his own oral historySub required.
RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Posted: March 01, 2023 at 10:36 AM | 41 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: joey votto |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results
(2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Newsblog: OT Soccer - World Cup Final/European Leagues Start (279 - 4:59pm, Nov 29) Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Newsblog: Update on Yankees’ Juan Soto trade talks: Teams talking players, but not close on agreement (14 - 4:49pm, Nov 29) Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns Newsblog: Liam Hendriks, Cody Bellinger Comeback Players of the Year (1 - 4:43pm, Nov 29) Last: You can keep your massive haul Newsblog: Andre Dawson Wants His Hall of Fame Cap Changed to the Cubs (29 - 4:32pm, Nov 29) Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Newsblog: OT - NBA Redux Thread for the End of 2023 (85 - 4:10pm, Nov 29) Last: Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Newsblog: OT - November* 2023 College Football thread (163 - 3:37pm, Nov 29) Last: Karl from NY Newsblog: OT: Wrestling Thread November 2014 (3017 - 3:21pm, Nov 29) Last: a brief article regarding 57i66135 Newsblog: The future of live sports TV reaches a tipping point (47 - 3:16pm, Nov 29) Last: Stevey Newsblog: Source: Cardinals adding Sonny Gray to revamped rotation (30 - 3:11pm, Nov 29) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Reds add reliever Pagán on 2-year deal (2 - 2:46pm, Nov 29) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Newsblog: Who is on the 2024 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and what’s the induction process? (246 - 2:20pm, Nov 29) Last: alilisd Hall of Merit: Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (19 - 11:33am, Nov 29) Last: dark Newsblog: Oakland-area fans start Ballers, an independent baseball team (10 - 11:02am, Nov 29) Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Newsblog: BA: Young And Relentless: The Face Of MLB Keeps Getting Younger (12 - 12:34am, Nov 29) Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5893 seconds |
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.
1. Der-K's no Kliph Nesteroff. Posted: March 01, 2023 at 10:44 AM (#6119145)EDIT: it was on Starkville with Jayson Stark and Doug Glanville. link here
I'd have watched the whole game if he was on for the whole game
he's an intriguing interview as well. a lummox with a heart of gold.
It's just a fairly unusual thing for a professional athlete to be interested in.
Your definition of not very good, and the majority of the world's definition of not very good is vastly different. This is akin to being a 190 or so bowler, or above average at any other past time or sport you take, he's not a championship caliber player of course, but generally speaking if he walks into a room, there is a good chance he's one or two of the best chess players in the room.
Votto is an E class player.
"Chess with Votto" should be a new YouTube show. "Saltines with Votto" too.
As to chess, most first graders could whip my behind,
Like most folks that you end up enjoying their company, Votto shows a high degree of curiosity.
Curiosity has proven to be a positive personality indicator when interacting with folks.
And speaking Spanish will prove to be invaluable in his line of work going forward.
Smart fellow.
Hopefully he can get his OPS back up to his career level as he finishes his active playing days.
So Votto's probably somewhere around there, maybe a bit lower. I'll guess he would have been the 3rd or 4th board player on our high school team (I was 2nd board senior year). And chess is one of those activties where you pretty quickly hit the wall where you need to put in some serious work or you will never get better. I'm sure your Gladwellian 10,000 hours at the chess board will pay off eventually but, in general, you don't really get better just by playing or at least not very quickly. For me, it stopped being "fun" fast.
Standard chess tournaments usually use what's called the Swiss system (or they used to, I assume still do). You rank everybody in the tournament (say 100 players), split it in half and the top player in the top half plays the top player in the bottom half -- so player #1 takes on player #51, etc. After the first round, all the 1-0 players are put in a pool, ranked, cut in half and top player in the top half takes on top player in the bottom half; same with all the players who drew in the first round; same with all the players who lost in the first round. At the end of that round, you've got a bunch of 2-0 players, some with 1-0-1 players, some 1-1-0, down to 0-2-0 players. Each of those is a pool, split in half .... So eventually you find your competitive level.
So in a big tourney like the US Open, a player like me might well start out 0-3 or 0-4 because they are playing much better players. But from that point, you'll start holding your own -- win and you'll play a somewhat tougher player but, like earlier, that's probably no worse than a 1400 player taking on a 1650.
I always found that structure interesting. In most US sports tourneys, the top-ranked team plays the bottom-ranked team (whether teams are sensibly ranked is a separate issue). Of course most US sports tourneys aren't open in any sense. In chess they seem to recognize that there's no point having a grand master play a newbie. There's really no point having a grand master play a 1900 player either but at least that 1900 player has been around a chess board and has a clue what the GM is up to. And they eventually find their level too and the player who wins on a 8-0-4 record (say) has earned it over those last 6-8 matches.
Bridge teams events (the big ones) use an even more extreme version of the Swiss where, after the first round onwards, you play the team either just above or below you in the standings (unless you've already played them) although the standings are based on a points system that measures how much you won by rather than win-loss record. Still if you are #1 after the first round you immediately play the current #2 team. To stay #1 you not only have to beat them, you have to beat them by a decent margin. The reward for that is to play the new #2 team. It's not uncommon for the winner of a bridge team tournament to be a good team that happened to lose their first match very badly and then get some easier competition for the next few rounds -- yes, it's often remarked that maybe we should do this intentionally but I don't know that anybody ever has. But it is true that you'd rather not enter the top of the standings until maybe 2-3 rounds to go -- but if you want to actually win it, eventually you'll have to beat some other top teams. But if you are the #1 team from start to finish, you have beaten the best teams in that tournament round after round after round.
So sorta like one of those holiday Hawaii college basketball tournaments where Sun starts with the battle to determine 7th and 8th places.
Could you cut him in half and have two chess-baseball Hall of Famers?
It just means he likes chess. Which is fine.
I skimmed a few chess websites and they agree that 1400 is class C, average or intermediate or high intermediate, depending on where you look. That's about what you'd expect for someone who takes it seriously but has a demanding day job that he takes a little more seriously. Like he said, he's probably the best in MLB, but like Walt said, he'd be replacement level on the HS team.
This reminds me of the SABR bio that I read on Reggie Smith recently. Davey Lopes was quoted as saying Smith seemed to learn something new every offseason. He became a pilot, learned several musical instruments, and learned cooking and photography, among other things. Another interesting guy and great player, who for some reason hasn't sniffed the HOF.
Well, chess teams in my day (in our league) were 5 players so 3rd-4th board would be average not replacement level. By the time I was a senior I'm not sure we even had a 6th player to use if one of us was sick. It wasn't clear if the program was going to continue (at least two of us were graduating).
Weird, I literally have no memory of who boards 3-5 were that year. I can vaguely remember the guys who were ahead of me in earlier years and me and the #1 board had been playing together for years.
They used some form of accelerated Swiss. Rather than split the field in half they quartered the field (conceptually giving top players an extra point for seeding purposes) The basic point is to avoid pairing B players against grandmasters in the early rounds. Instead you get experts against grandmasters in round 1. A different for of outclassed if you know what I mean. Avoids 2 utterly meaningless rounds at the start of the tournament.
There was a recent Poscast episode where Joe Posnanski and Mike Schur were opening packs of baseball cards, and one of the cards (I forget who, but it was like, Rick Mahler or someone) said that the player was a certified locksmith and an amateur magician, prompting much speculation on if the players just made up a biography to see if Topps would print it.
There was a player who played nine games for the 1942 Reds named Joe Abreu (that was his whole MLB career) who was nicknamed "The Magician". You'd think it was because he was a slick fielder, but it wasn't. The BR Bullpen says, "He came by his nickname the honest way: he was a real magician, knowing some 400 card tricks and being a member in good standing of the National Society of Magicians."
When I was a HS senior, I finished 9th in the competition to make the varsity golf team (no JV, as you could imagine).
there were 9 spots on the team - 6 starters and 3 alternates. I beat a sophomore by about 3-4 shots for the last place.
even at age 17, I thought it would have made more sense for the coach to go with the sophomore - it would make him more likely to work on his game, and then be on the varsity the next two years (which he was anyway, as it turned out).
all these years later, the sophomore remains one of my best friends. he soon surpassed me in better golf scores - heh, which made him all the more tormented when I told him about my 190-yard hole-in-one when I was in my mid-30s (like most golfers, he still doesn't have one).
I think the coach committed beforehand to just taking the 9 best scorers, not thinking ahead to 'the big picture,' so he felt boxed in.
I enjoyed the season, even though I just played a series of meaningless 'exhibition matches' until the final contest of the season, when all 3 alternates "counted" - and I lost!
my twin brother moved up from the 6th slot all the way to 3rd by season's end, so that was fun.
pretty good scam for me: played 9 holes for free that didn't count in the Monday/Wednesday/Friday matches, and 'practice rounds' on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
other kids asked what golfers do in practice. well, it's not like football or basketball - you just play, lol
(compounded my audacity by taking 'Intro to Golf' as an elective a few months later when I started college. the instructor wanted to give me tips. I told him I shot low to mid-80s - was he better than that? he was not, so he moved on to other students.)
Of course it really depends on when you were a 190 bowler, I'm a 200 average bowler and am massively inferior to my dad who was a 200 average bowler in 1970's. When he bowled, the travelling league (which is pretty much the step below being an actual pro for most people) would have 190 bowlers or even less on it then, nowadays, the travelling league has a minimum of around 215 average bowlers on it today. (maybe not in the league itself because the shot is intentionally harder, but they carry 215 in their preferred house--and I have friends on it who were in the pros for a time--not to mention the fact that they set the record for high game recognized by bowling in history almost exactly 3 years ago--that was just a side point, it literally popped up on my facebook feed a couple of days ago)
But of course my comment was about 190 bowlers today, these are guys who can generally compete with anyone in the house, but are not the best of the house. And they will generally beat any rando off the street even when having a bad day.
edit: I do think that one of mistakes of my analogy is that the random variation for a bowler is more than it is for a chess player, barring some type of substance abuse going on when they are playing. I mean pretty much every 190 average bowler has come within a ball of a perfect game if not actually having a few, and it's unlikely that an equivalent level chess player is ever going to beat a guy clearly superior to him.
And hell, just the other day Magnus Carlsen missed a mate and any number of world class players have famous blunders. No one game tells you that much. Even over the course of a tournament you can get some pretty unexpected results.
Below expert level anybody's capable of just hanging a queen.
I'm not saying that it can't happen, but that the level of variance is much smaller with chess than bowling, (same with baseball vs basketball/football where the better team has a higher chance) I routinely bowl against a guy who was a pro bowler and still can beat him around 10-20% of the time. Meanwhile I cannot beat my buddy who played at a high school level of chess more than 1-2% of the time. Mind you, I think in chess terms I'm probably closer to a 160 bowler than a 190 bowler so my skill level is lacking more there. At the same time, even that low of a level of skill, I can walk into a room with 20-30 rando's in it, and know that there might at best be two people in the room who can routinely beat me in chess. (If I had to guess, my rating would be around 800 or so based upon the few games I have played that have tried to estimate ratings)
One....you're competing directly against each other in chess.
Two....there is not much random about chess played seriously. You either have a pretty good idea what the other guy is playing and pick a good counter to it, or you don't. (I say this as someone who has been flattened a more than few times by high-end players with well over 2000 ELOs, and has gotten draws against them sometimes.....usually when I guessed what their plan was and remembered and played the best counter(s) correctly.
I'm not bad at chess. I can probably beat most people randomly wandering around even without playing a modern standard opening. Most randoms will fail to stop even older stuff like fianchettos and the like and fold after you've taken a rook or two easily. Not everything is about crushing their queen, which is actually pretty well protected when undeveloped compared to those rooks. One wrong pawn move and back-row rooks can be taken with no counter play.
I love that Votto is pretty good at chess. I don't think he'll ever get massively better though as it sounds like he's going to quite sensibly stick around in MLB and teach hitting, something at which he's many many standard deviations better than typical(rather than playing chess where perhaps he's 1-2 standard deviations better than usual). The spanish is impressive for sure...and work relevant to him.
I think that's the point we were nearly all making -- he's around an average high school chess team player, maybe a bit worse. That kid would be, say, in at least the top 5% of players in his high school -- where at least 90% don't play at all so he's really in the top half of the 10-20 kids who actually try to play the game. So sure, much like the average HS baseball player is sub-sub-sub-sub-replacement level for MLB, Votto would get his clock cleaned most of the time at the local chess club and I don't recommend he go down to the park and play speed chess for money. He says so himself when he says "Once you get to 1,500, you can probably play some over-the-board tournaments." He's not talking about playing international over-the-board tournaments, he's talking about finishing close to last in the Cincy Open or even smaller tournament but not embarrassing himself.
Of course that's another fundamental difference between chess and other mind games vs sports -- physically maturing doesn't really matter. Your scrawny average HS player sometimes turns into a guy the size and speed of Dave Winfield. Or the failed minor-league infielder has a 95-MPH arm. That doesn't happen with the brain. I'm sure there's a Hakeem Olajuwon of chess somewhere nobody's looking for them, but even if they are found, it's gonna take a lot longer than 3-4 years of top-level training to turn them into a grandmaster I would think.
EDIT: But imagine you are 14-yo Walt, very mediocre chess player and baseball fan and at some random tourney around the last round you get to play Joey Votto because you are both 1-3-1.
Joe doesn't mention this, but the locksmith/magician facts also appear on his 1983 Fleer card, and his 1984 Fleer mentions the Taekwondo black belt.
Also, you need to be aware that there's significant rating inflation online (There's been rating inflation issues for as long as there have been ratings but it's particularly bad at places like Chess.com). Levy Rozman (Gotham Chess) for instance is rated over 2700 on chess.com which would make him a real threat to qualify for the Candidates if that was his actual over the board strength. He's actually "only" 2322. And you'll see that with everybody who plays both forms. I think Nakamura and Carlsen are around 3300 on Chess.com. There's never been a 2900 ELO over the board)
There was an adult chess prodigy in the mid to late 1920s. (Sultan Khan). It's an interesting 5 year career. He'd have been at least a strong IM if the title existed then. But he grew up playing Indian Chess before being introduced to the version we're familiar with. (3 British Championships in 4 attempts. Some high places in strong tournaments)
In that sense it's easy to imagine some cricketers (Chris Gayle's name has come up) who likely could have moved to baseball. Gayle pretty much bats like he's playing baseball (and he's a big, athletic guy). Most cricketers likely couldn't move to the top level but an elite cricketer could probably improve an A team with a little transition time and some might actually become useful players (though of course we'd never find out. No incentive for them to try)
the fabled Pebble Beach Pro-Am was won this year by the team of Aaron Rodgers, and there were widespread claims that he "inflated" his handicap - including public comments by Tour player Keith Mitchell, who with Josh Allen finished second - to help lower his team's score. (for non-golfers, if a player says he's an 18 handicap then he "gets a stroke" on each hole. so any bogeys become pars on the card, and the pars become birdies.)
George Brett won the pro-am in the late 1980s with a supposed 17 handicap - and was never invited back. he said he had never played often enough on one course to establish an official handicap, and after playing some holes with pro Fred Couples, said he simply listed the handicap that Couples recommended to him.
Tom Brady about 20 years ago claimed a 10 handicap, yet he outscored his PGA Tour pro partner.
Actor Andy Garcia, once a supposed 18 handicap - aka "bogey golfer" - shot an even-par 36 on one 9-hole stretch the year that he won. he was allowed back - as a 10 - and I'm not sure he ever contended again.
the colorful - and dreaded - phrase for such fellows is "sandbagger."
That kind of thing can happen any time there's some kind of rating system that considers everything but where the player only cares about certain games or events -- and the rating determines a handicap or which prize you're eligible for.
If there's an incentive to game a rating system people will.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main