Next we move to the newest Cubs starter, Paul Maholm. Maholm stat-gathered 13.9 fWAR (11.1 rWAR) in his seven seasons with the Pirates, but it seems like he's been around a lot longer. Some years he was the defacto ace of the staff, and during his tenure he was certainly the most consistent member of their rotations that featured the likes of Zach Duke, Ian Snell, and Oliver Perez. Joe Morgan would approve. He's not a guy you want fronting your rotation but he's a solid pickup at the relatively cheap price of $4.25m for this year. They could have saved some money, but no one wants to see a pile of starts from the likes of Doug Davis/Rodrigo Lopez/Casey Coleman.
Maholm is a ground ball pitcher, though his GB trend has been inching downward every year. I'd make a crack about how pitching in front of the Cubs defense isn't going to help him much, but the Pirates have been as awful as the Cubs if not even more so. I would complain that I don't think fWAR gives enough credit to groundball pitchers, but rWAR was even less kind to Maholm during his career.
Here are his projections for 2012:
| Projection | IP | BB | HBP | SO | HR | ERA | FIP |
| Steamer | 179 | 60 | 8 | 106 | 17 | 4.58 | 4.23 |
| Bill James | 147 | 47 | 6 | 90 | 12 | 4.22 | 3.96 |
| RotoChamp | 170 | 54 | 7 | 101 | 13 | 4.24 | 3.92 |
| Tango Marcel | 160 | 50 | 7 | 100 | 12 | 4.16 | 3.83 |
| ZiPS | 103 | 52 | 7 | 102 | 14 | 4.2 | 4.55 |
| CAIRO | 175 | 57 | 8 | 103 | 15 | 4.28 | 4.09 |
| PECOTA | 182.67 | 54 | 7 | 105 | 18 | 4.53 | 4.17 |
| Oliver | 180 | 56 | 7 | 107 | 15 | 4.39 | 3.91 |
| DavMarcel | 150.7 | 48 | 7 | 98 | 14 | 4.19 | 4.04 |
| Guru | 139.8 | 45 | 6 | 87 | 11 | 4.08 | 3.91 |
| Average | 158.72 | 52.3 | 7 | 99.9 | 14.1 | 4.29 | 4.06 |
As was done in the Dempster projections (and all pitcher projections going forward), the FIP is based on the National League ERA from the past two seasons, and the starters' replacement level FIP generated by those seasons is 5.36. Using these numbers, Paul Maholm is projected to be worth 1.71 WAR. Maholm's suppressed IP numbers are due to the fact that he was put on the 60-Day DL last season for a shoulder strain, that included a visit to Dr. James Andrews. If you push his IP up to the 185 or so range, which is closer to what he's done in his healthy seasons, it comes out to 2.33 WAR, just about on par with Dempster for a third of the price. Of course, those IP numbers are regressed for a reason so it's best to use caution.
Do any of these projections take changes of velocity into account? Maholm’s fastball has lost 2 mph over the last 2 years, so I’d think most projections would be overly optimistic (that is, I think he’s likely declined more than his numbers would indicate).
@ ACT:
I don’t think any of the systems take pfx data into account.
@ ACT:
I’d be more worried if Maholm wasn’t a groundball guy. Though maybe that helps explain the drop in his GB%
That’s what I figured. HIs swinging strike % has dropped, too. I’d probably dock his projections a bit, though I don’t know how much (it’s also possible that he’s recovered from his injuries enough to get his old velocity back).
Well since B diverted everyone away from my Yellon pic with some baseball bullshit, I suppose I’ll just have to do another:
Even with the shoulder injury Maholm put up a 3.66 ERA last year (3.79 FIP, 4.03 xFIP).
@ GBTS:
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
GBTS wins the internets.
Wow, Johan Santana stood on an actual mound, throwing actual baseballs to actual hitters.
@ ACT:
But did he play the game right?
@ GBTS:
No, but give him some time. The regular season is a month away.
US ———> 48 States
@ Berselius:
@ Aisle424:
Do you guys have the original photo? Was he in line for the troughs or something?
@ Berselius:
I’d also kick out all the states that voted for this guy: http://www.theonion.com/articles/voters-slowly-realizing-santorum-believes-every-de,27518/
Someone needs to put Alvin in that one picture in these shorts and put him in this image:
@ ACT:
I’m OK with that too, but Newt is one of the scummiest scums who ever scummed in the scumbag center of the world.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/live-coverage-super-tuesday/#democratic-vote-may-prove-decisive-in-ohio
I understand the logic for this, but do these Democrats understand that Rick Santorum has a far greater chance of becoming president if he actually wins the GOP nomination? This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. At least the GOP voters actually want the guy to win. These fucks are voting for someone they think sucks, which only makes it more likely the fucker wins the general election. This whole nation is retarded.
I’ll be interested to see more projections. A few days ago, I was wondering if the Cubs could possibly get league avg. (2 WAR) from every position, and try the 2010 Padres-style contention (same GM in 1st year and all). The threats to 2 WAR to me are 2B, 3B, 1B, then 4th and 5th SP. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if Wells was league avg. if healthy; he’s done that before. Then Wood and Volstad, along with whoever else they throw out there could also perhaps manage 2 WAR combined. Positions where they could potentially, if everything went right, get >2WAR= Garza, Catcher, SS, RF.
Top to fucking bottom. Retarded.
mb21 out, fuckfaces!
Berselius wrote:
That’s where you’re wrong, berselius. There are 52 states with Alaska and Rhode Island.
/Hope someone catches the reference
@ Rice Cube:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0o7o19KqR1qz5ulko1_500.jpg
@ mb21:
I think the logic is that Rick Santorum’s chances of winning a general election against Obama is the same whether or not he is the nominee. Which I kind of agree with. That guy is batshit insane, and anyone with an IQ over 40 knows it.
@ GBTS:
Ah…he could’ve been texting some other time, I’d be using that time on the field to take pictures (dying laughing)
@ GBTS:
That’s far from true. If he’s not the nominee he can’t possibly win. If he is the nominee he’s a major scandal for Obama away from being president. He’s an economic collapse away from it. Obviously Santorum has less of a chance of beating Obama than Romney does, but why anyone would intentionally vote for the person they dislike is beyond me. Those are the people who deserve to have Santorum as their president.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html
There’s not a whole hell of a lot of difference there.
One time in the general election I pretended to be Republican to vote in a primary. But I voted for McCain, who I saw as the best candidate on that side. I figured if the Reps were going to win, I’d rather it be McCain than anyone else. I would vomit on my shoes and eat them before I’d put Rick Santorum’s name on anything that officially represented my opinion.
@ mb21:
Newt makes my fucking skin crawl. It’s like looking at another species in the genus Homo. I know it’s related to me, distantly, but the wrongness of it is unnerving.
@ josh:
I might have considered temporarily registering Republican for the primaries if Huntsman had more than a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. The GOP could use a nudge in the pro-science direction.
@ ACT:
The Cubs could use a “nudge” towards winning too.
If Jeff Samardzija makes the rotation, I’m going to send him a pair of these in congratulations:
@ Suburban kid:
You should send those to Alvin.
josh/mb/berselius, can you explain the intense hatred for gingrich? i can’t see how he is is that much different/worse than the other 2 candidates…not saying i like the guy but i feel like if i am going to kick a state out of the union for voting for a certain candidate, it’s gonna be the states that are choosing santorum. in a macro sense, i think that at least gingrich is rational; i.e. he might screw the country over but not really be any worse than a generically bad president….santorum, on the other hand, seems like the kind of guy that could really bring on armageddon.
not disparaging your hatred, just curious. seems like just because someone is a scumbag, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t make a good president…or baseball player.
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
forgot where i was for a second
This country deserves everything it gets if it elects Santorum. I’m just glad I have duel citizenship so I can bug the fuck out if that happens.
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
I hate nearly all the candidates, but I think the reason to fear Gingrich is that he doesn’t appear to have ANY moral backbone or any set of principles that he applies to policy. While Santorum is frighteningly backwards, I think he’s pretty honest/sincere about some of the batshit stuff he says. Gingrich is your perfect political opportunist, and people with no overriding moral philosophy scare the crap out of me. While I find all of Santorum’s positions abhorrent, I can at least give you a good idea of where he’d fall on any one issue. I can’t do this with Gingrich because his opinions change as quickly as his marital status.
I also have to agree with MB on Democrats voting for Santorum; I already hate much of the party for its intellectual dishonesty, but stuffing the ballot for Santorum is something else entirely. I don’t lie when I say Santorum might be the candidate I’ve most feared ever might be President (Palin included), and anything that inches him closer to the White House is just bad bad bad.
@ GBTS:
I was the one who gave a -1 for this. I get the logic behind it as I said, but right now Santorum has a 1% chance of becoming president according to Intrade. If he’s the nominee it’s about 40%. The logic is twisted. Democrats want Obama to win and in the process they’re willing to help nominate a candidate who they least like. In doing so it does become more likely that Obama wins, but not by much. He’s already going to be heavily favored. He’ll probably have about a 57-58% chance of beating Romney. So voting for Santorum gives Obama only the slightest help in the general election while also making it far more likely that Santorum becomes president.
The equivalent of this in baseball is if you have runners on 1st and 3rd in the 9th inning, tie game, 1 out and the runner on 1st tries to steal 2nd. A successful attempt would slightly increase the team’s chance of winning the game. Runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out as opposed to 1st and 3rd with 1 out. A double play ends the inning as it currently is. But the win expectation doesn’t increase considerably enough to justify the attempt. There’s a good chance the runner will be thrown out and then all the defense needs is a simple out against the batter. it’s a dumb play.
That’s just baseball. A stupid sport. And it’s a play we’d all call consider to be dumb. Even the baserunner would consider the attempt dumb. Democrats in Ohio and Michigan were stealing 2nd base when the winning run was on 3rd with 1 out in the 9th. The pitcher ended up throwing a wild pitch that didn’t make it seem so dumb, but it was still a retarded thing to do at the time it was done.
@ EnricoPallazzo:
Mish/36 explained it perfectly.
If Democrats had any true conviction on social liberties, they’d stuff the ballot for Paul, so that Obama actually has to run as a lefty who supports due process and transparency while opposing torture, indefinite detention, targeted killing programs, and the drug war.
Beer tourney: http://www.washingtonpost.com/beer-madness
@ Mish:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giddygirlie/2987270819/
Mish wrote:
Biggest waste of money in US history. I’d rather they take half that money and just throw a huge fucking orgy in DC once a year. Maybe it can be televised for Rush. Use the other half to pay for necessary shit.
@ Mish:
yeah i see where you’re coming from and i agree but i am also so jaded w/r/t politics in this country (or any other, really) that all i now want from a candidate is for them not to directly bring on the apocalypse. that’s why santorum scares me….i think he is a lot more likely to, drop a nuclear weapon on someone b/c of a perceived religoius slight whereas since gingrich has NO moral compass, he will stick to simply fucking over the common man in a more classical sense. i don’t see gingrich starting a war with syria or whoever because Jesus told him to. santorum…can’t say the same thing. but they’re all fucking terrible. which is why i’m gonna do what i always do and voting for perennial write-in candidate Gordon Shumway.
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
Love this line.
@ EnricoPallazzo:
That makes sense, but at least I know Santorum probably would drop a nuke on Iran if it got to that point. I can’t say what Gingrich would do, and I dont think Newt could, either.
Mish wrote:
I agree with all of this, and add the fact that Gingrich adds a W-level of smugness and bullying to everything that he brings to the table.
MLBTR is saying that Mo may announce a decision by the all-star break. Implied in the headline is that he might not. Could go either way.
Who’s a good replacement level President? Franklin Pierce?
Would you consider James Buchanan to be the Yuni Betancourt of Presidents?
Mucker wrote:
Yeah, but shit’s pretty fucked up in Syria right now too.
I had an over/under of “50″ for when someone would post the requisite “THE POLITICAL TALK WILL STOP NOW” snark, but I really should have taken the “over” on that one.
@ Mish:
Hugely not a Ron Paul fan but do wish that he could get some traction in other candidates for those issues.
@ Rice Cube:
Surely someone has ranked the presidents. Take the average of the bottom 20% and that’s your replacement level. I’ll look into this later today if no one else does. I like the concept.
mb21 wrote:
Let’s see what happens
Mucker wrote:
/pissing on drapes
Mucker wrote:
@ mb21:
You can define replacement level, but you also need some sort of valuation to compare to that replacement level.
I think the utlimate replacement level presidents are guys like Coolidge.
Franklin Pierce was pretty useless from what I heard, and is actually related to the Bush family.
I see no one wants to talk about Paul Maholm. (dying laughing)
@ Rice Cube:
glad you asked…
they are the mediocre presidents.
you won’t find their faces on dollars or on cents.
there’s taylor, there’s tyler, there’s fillmore and there’s hayes,
there’s william henry harrison – “i died in thirty days!”
they are the adequate,
forgettable,
occasionally regrettable,
care-taker presidents of the U-S-A
@ mb21:
I think you should set WH Harrison and Garfield at the replacement level as they didn’t live long enough to fuck up the country after taking office. Ergo, 0 pWAR.
@ Berselius:
I agree here. I really think it’s the bullying that bothers me. The smug sense of rightness. I have to admit, Santorum bothers me almost as much, and I agree 100% that voting for him is bad for the Democrats, bad for the country and the worst for the GOP, because all it does is give Santorum, if not a nomination, than at least legitimacy in the party. Suddenly he’s a guy who can get votes and drum up support. BAD IDEA. I agree, though, Enrico, that Santorum bothers me politically as much, if not more, than Newt. Newt bothers me personally.
@ EnricoPallazzo:
I feel like that’s something the Simpsons did once but for some reason I thought I saw something similar on Animaniacs…
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
I wish I could +10000 this. Well done.
@ Berselius:
I understand that. It’d make for far more intriguing political discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Sortable table further down the page…when I sorted on the aggregate, Buchanan and Harding were the worst. Lots of Whigs towards the bottom. No wonder their party died.
Mish wrote:
@ Mish:
Paul could probably take Obama to task for the first three things on that list, but on the drug war, Obama (or any other pol) would just double down on the busting heads rhetoric.
@ Rice Cube:
I hate the Whigs.
@ Mish
Well, as a (reluctant) Democrat who has plenty of true convictions about Civil Liberties, I’d say that Paul’s positions on the issues you cite are certainly attractive, but many of his other positions (the fed bashing, the goldbuggery, etc.) are pretty out there. Moreover, for all of the hype about Paul’s honesty, he was plenty willing to line up with the militia/kkk folks in the 90s for political reasons. And for all the hype about his consistency, his anti-regulation stance somehow doesn’t extend to a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Honestly, if I was going to vote for a Libertarian candidate, it’d be someone like Gary Johnson,who doesn’t have that kind of baggage.
Also, and more to your point, I don’t think it would have the effect of moving Obama to the left. I think it would move him to the center. He’d be portraying Paul and all of his postions, even the good ones as extreme. That would be the obvious strategy and it would mobe Obama away from the positions I’d like him to take. I think it would bring out the worst in Obama in most ways.
I do really like watching Ron Paul stand up and say stuff that goes against his party’s orthodoxy. but as someone who is against torture, indefinite detention, and the drug war, he’s not the spokesman I want.
mb21 wrote:
the issue here is that ranking vary wildly from historian to historian, depending on their political bent. e.g. FDR is dead last in many rankings and first/second in many others. but if you took enough rankings, then yeah, i’m sure you could find the ten guys who consistently fall in the bottom slots. i think that warren g. harding is generally ranked at the bottom.
@ Suburban kid:
They were a party you did not recently enjoy?
from wikipedia’s “Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States”
“The bottom ten often include Warren G. Harding, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Millard Fillmore, Ulysses Grant, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor and Richard Nixon.”
I really don’t know any more than anyone else how to fix the country, if “fixed” is the right word. But I agree that the war on drugs is ridiculous. I know The Wire is fiction, but a lot of it was based on hard journalism. Gore Vidal wrote an essay in like 1970 that summed up the situation perfectly. Freely available, legal drugs would be better for the US, but it’ll never happen because fighting the drug trade is a big business, just like the drug trade itself. And people have to have their good guys and bad guys, their right and wrong.
It’s really hard to get any enthusiasm about Paul Maholm. I guess I remember that the Cubs used to murder him, in their heyday.
(dying laughing) I just realized i said duel instead of dual.
Actually my dual citz is in U.K. and I’m not sure it’s that much better over there either.
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
How that guy won 49 states is one of life’s greatest mysteries. (Reagan also won 49, and while I’m not a big fan, I at least see his appeal.)
@ EnricoPallazzo:
Warren G. Harding used to hold booze parties in the basement of the White House during Prohibition. BEST. PRESIDENT. EVER.
@ Urk:
Agreed. Obama may be forced to shift left if Romney is the opponent, but not Paul, Santorum or Gingrich.
@ EnricoPallazzo:
My college roommates and I had a running gag about the “venerable Millard Fillmore”. I forgot what started it but we all knew he was shit and just kept calling him “venerable”.
@ Urk:
All good points. I’m probably not going to vote, but if I did, it’d be for Johnson. He’s far more closer to my beliefs than Paul. But I realize that sometimes there are imperfect messengers, and Paul is the only person that isn’t quite status quo on either side. As someone who just wants to tear it down, Paul captures my heart far more than Obama or the GOP candidates.
Of course I’m a libertarian so I diverge from most of the people here on these matters. I still view Obama as just a different shade of gray from msot of the GOP candidates, while Paul and Johnson are radically different. Plus it allows me to maintain my deep commitment to contrarianism.
I agree that making Santorum a stronger voice in the Republican party is a bad, bad, idea. I think that most of the crossing the line voting is more about making the Republican primary campaign longer than it is about anyone really thinking that Santorum is gonna get the nomination and be a weaker general election candidate.
Sorry about the Ron Paul rant. I have a bunch of friends who are like “go Ron Paul! he’s gonna make weed legal!” without looking at anything else about him or what a President would actually be able to do. so that pisses me off, and when I’m pissed off, I get pedantic.
How about Gerald ford as a replacement level Prez? Or is he more like a middle inning reliever for a starter that got ejected?
@ Mish:
I’m just biding my time until the robot overlords give us a better way. Or the aliens. Either way is fine with me, really.
To show you how retarded I am, my power rankings would probably have Grover Cleveland at the top, and FDR at the bottom. (dying laughing)
Urk wrote:
I can’t argue with you today.
Also:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-peyton_manning_colts_ranking_new_teams_030612
(dying laughing)
@ Urk:
I’ve defriended a couple of people because everything I said about anything they somehow turned into a campaign ad for Ron Paul.
Joe Poz waxes a minor amount of political in this blog post re: the DH:
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/03/kucinich-and-dh.html
Urk wrote:
Someone needs to tell that pothead crowd that the best chance they’ll have for legalizing is to shut the fuck up about it (dying laughing).
@ EnricoPallazzo:
+10 billion
@ josh:
The political talk on Facebook is fucking brutal.
Although all my old friends have turned out to be raging liberals, not libertarians. I probably agree with them on most stuff too, but their rants are pissing me off.
@ Suburban kid:
Haha. I have like 3 libertarian friends, but everyone else is raging liberal or raging conservative. It can be unbearable some days.
@ Suburban kid:
I know of what you speak. I just hide the statuses or ignore them completely as I scroll by. Saves me a headache.
@ Mish:
I hear ya. There are some areas where Obama hasn’t totally disapointed me, but from my lefty position both of the major parties are pretty much full of coprorate controlled clowns who will do whatever it takes to get elected. I respect Obama’s smarts, but I don’t expect much from him in terms of moving the political discussion out of the ridiculous place its in, or in terms big convictions. I do really like that Paul will stand up and say stuff that is totally out of line with his party. I would have liked the Paul/Kucinich fantasy ticket that got floated for a while, but I would have wanted Kucinich on top. I’ve spent most of my life holding my nose and voting for the Democrats and being fairly pleased when there is some, slight, incremental change for the better
It’s about 3:45 in, after the Monorail song:
@ Suburban kid:
That’s true. Even my fellow commies annoy me sometimes. I have maybe one friend who I agree with almost 100%. I can tell you that’s a good feeling. Political blinders are annoying no matter who is wearing them.
@ Urk:
It’s like you’re reading my mind.
@ Urk:
See, despite being a near-anarchist, I WOULD vote for Kucinich (with or without Paul). He may support economic positions I don’t, but he is principled and I know what to expect out of nearly every vote from him. And seeing as he holds strong civil liberties positions with me, I wouldn’t hesitate. Of course, he was ALSO marginalized by the MSM.
I think among politicians, I value intellectual consistency/honesty the most. That’s why someone like Kucinich could still get my vote despite not being libertarian on all matters.
@ Suburban kid:
Cubbiejulie posted an apt quote a while ago. Paraphrasing:
Twitter makes me like people I’ve never met and Facebook makes me hate people I thought I knew.
@ Rice Cube:
(dying laughing), for some reason I had pegged it as an Animaniacs quote. No dinner for me today.
Sweet website
http://www.mehromney.com/
.@ josh:
Yeah- its mostly died down for me, or they just started leaving me alone because I responded the way I did here earlier and wore ‘em out.
And for me, the political discussion stops NOW. Or at least for now, cuz I gotta do some work.
Ron Paul Maholm for President of Fredonia!
@ Mish:
oops- one more:
@ Berselius:
This is totally true. Also, anyone who thought Obama was going to do something about legalizing pot and voted for him on that basis and wants to get all righteously disapointed about that is fucking stupid. The first black President is going to legalize weed and confirm part of the stereotype in the back of the head of millions of voters? yeah, that’s going to happen.
Urk wrote:
Hot.
@ Berselius:
Download | Convert YouTube to MP3
I think one of the lines was similar between the two, but the Animaniacs had a longer bit than in the Simpsons.
@ Berselius:
I’ve been getting into Twitter more lately, and I’m realizing the truth of this.
@ Urk:
I semi-convinced a friend to drop one of his friends who was really annoying so I wouldn’t have to read his bullshit anymore. I’m a horrible person.
@ Urk:
People actually thought that?
I think that anyone who would be seriously affected by that stereotype wouldn’t be voting for Obama anyway.
@ Berselius:
I’m not sure if people thought that, but Candidate Obama said he would pull back federal resources on the drug war, especially in states where it is legal/decriminalized. He’s renegged on that one.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-peyton_manning_colts_ranking_new_teams_030612
I think Manning to the 49ers or Texans would be pretty compelling stuff, on top of the teams we talked about yesterday. Preferably he stays in the AFC, though.
We’re fucked. Colbert was right all along.
http://io9.com/5890559/terrifying-photos-reveal-first-ever-evidence-of-bears-using-tools?popular=true
@ Berselius:
I can imagine a contingent of older people who like Obama because he’s not “too” black, and something like that being turned against him.
@ Mish:
Texans would be interesting. I wonder what they could get for Schaub, or what kind of cap hit they’d take.
GBTS wrote:
Not hot.
/Josh’d
Berselius wrote:
Bears are pretty damn smart. It used to be that you just needed to make sure that you kept a cooler closed in your car while traveling through Yellowstone, now they tell you to also make sure it is hidden because bears know what coolers are and will bust into your car to get them.
The bears around Lake Tahoe also know what refrigerators are and they warn people with big windows to make sure the fridge isn’t visible from outside because bears will bust into your house to get in the fridge.
Bears also like beets and Battlestar Galactica.
@ Aisle424:
Also, Black bear is the best bear
I can’t help but agree re: Soriano. I can’t see them letting him block any of the younger guys.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/03/who-could-be-released-this-month.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MlbTradeRumors+%28MLB+Trade+Rumors%29
I’d rather this blog turn into a World of Warcraft blog than continue the political discussion. Just my 14 cents.
@ josh:
If Soriano plays the rest of the year like he played yesterday I say keep him. He will have the best season ever compiled, would pay off his worth of his entire contract in one season, and we would probably be 173-0.
/small sample sized
@ WaLi:
My theory is just play him on days when he is going to play like he did yesterday.
@ jtsunami:
I don’t know. This is the first time since The Internet that I’ve had a political discussion and wasn’t shitting my pants with rage by the end.
Ranked in order of scariness for me:
1. Santorum – because his desire to make this an Evangelical Christian country could have further reaching implications long after he is gone by setting horrible precedents.
2. Gingrich – As noted, he has no morals, ethics, or soul that I can discern. While that is scary, most damage he could do is recoverable in the next presidency.
3. Paul – He’s insane, but at least he is an intellectual crazy person who has convictions that are rooted mostly within the Constitution (or his interpretation of it).
4. Romney – He’s a lot more moderate than he is currently letting on because he’s trying so desperately to wrangle the Right to get the nomination. He’s like the Koyie Hill of candidates. He sure does put in the effort and a lot of people like him for some reason, but he’s still pretty bad.
@ Aisle424:
Looks more like that bear is enjoying some corn on the cob.
@ WaLi:
He’s on pace for a record-breaking season! Watch out, Barry Bonds.
I shall now go back to sitting in the corner and making fart sounds as the political debate goes on.
josh wrote:
likewise (dying laughing)
@ josh:
OT Baseball Talk: On a serious note it is good to see that Soriano can still pull a game like that out of his ass if he is still going to play for the Cubs.
Aisle424 wrote:
Which is weird, because he’s Catholic, not Evengelical.
@ Berselius:
I disagree. The percentage of people in favor of legalizing marijuana has grown substantially in part because some people are talking about it every chance they get. Marijuana will be legal before long.
Mish wrote:
Most my friends are raging hippies, so they just post pictures of them “raging”
@ mb21:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx
@ ACT:
@ WaLi:
And people would still dislike The Show commercial.
@ mb21:
I’m all for ending the drug war/changing drug laws, even if it’s just for marijuana. I just think that “legalize weed” is a much less effective message than pointing out how ridiculous the war on drugs is.
@ ACT:
I saw that recently and it’s why I think it’s just a matter of time before it is legal. I actually think the more interesting discussion regarding drugs being legal is cocaine and heroin. I think the drug war should end as it currently is, but I’m not sure I favor cocaine being legal. Decriminalized maybe, but not legal. But that’s for personal reasons. It will be a hell of a lot more difficult for me to stay clean if my access to it as easy as it would be were it legal. Access to it is already easy enough so maybe I’m not giving myself enough credit.
@ mb21:
Yeah, I’d rather treat addicts like people with health problems than criminals, but I’m wary of making hard drugs available at drug stores and gas stations.
Berselius wrote:
I agree with that 100%. But ending the war on drugs basically decriminalizes drugs. It doesn’t make them legal.
This begs for a caption and/or a Photoshop:
@ mb21:
I’d want weed and mushrooms legal, then I’d be happy (dying laughing)
@ ACT:
I’d be happy if addicts were treated like human beings. That would be a step in the right direction. It’s going to take baby steps to get to the point where we’re actually trying to rehabilitate drug addicts. That’s especially true for the harder drugs because so few people use it and even fewer people are addicted. I guess I don’t see a time in my life where we do anything other than sweep those people under a rug. Until people start associating addiction to hard drugs with addiction to alcohol I just don’t see it. Most people have been affected by addiction. It’s just that being an alcoholic is somehow socially acceptable. It’s a badge of honor at a university.
Rice Cube wrote:
Urge to kill…rising
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-most-shocking-reactions-to-snookis-pregnancy
@ mb21:
Vancouver is a beacon of hope: http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/
@ mb21:
It’s weird. An addict is an addict no matter what it is they are addicted to whether drugs, alcohol, gambling, video games, etc. Both my parents are (were?) addicted to alcohol. It took my mom having a bad situation happen which made her quit. My brother is addicted to pot and video games, my sister to alcohol. It’s sad to see but they are still young and at least my sister is trying to change. Addiction ruins lives. I definitely have an addictive personality but I have been able to control myself for the most part somehow.
@ ACT:
It’s impressive that they did that and still are. Not sure anything like that will happen here while I’m alive. You read Bill James’ crime book, right? i think I got the rec from you this past summer. I loved what he wrote about prison reform, but it’s not happening in my life either. We’re just way too happy a society to shove things we don’t want to deal with some place we don’t see it.
@ Mish:
I assume Jersey Shore is marketed as a “reality show” (I’ve never watched) but is it possible that the “reality” people are just actors and she acts the bitch on TV but is actually not that bad in real, non-”reality” life?
/grasping for straws
@ ACT:
I was hanging out with a friend of mine in Vancouver last summer (btw, Vancouver was an extremely underrated city), and he and his girlfriend said that they have to worry when they travel away from there because they keep forgetting that you can’t walk down the street smoking a joint in other cities.
@ WaLi:
Yeah, it’s important for people to remember that addicts are always addicts too. I might say I was addicted to drugs so many years ago, but I’ve never meant to say that I used to be an addict. I am an addict and always will be one. At least you recognize you have an addictive personality. I think I always knew that, but didn’t admit until it was time to admit I was an addict.
WINWINWINWINWIN:
A couple points on the Drug War:
- There ought to be more crusaders who don’t/haven’t done drugs, because otherwise the opposition “shoots the messenger” (i.e. potheads).
- There was a joint (heh) study done by Cato and Glenn Greenwald about complete drug decriminalization in Portugal. They found no uptick in usage, but a much greater uptick in people checking themselves into rehab or seeking medical help. When you remove the aura of “drug use = immoral”, the policies start being more sensical.
- I’m okay with decriminalizing and/or legalizing any and all drugs (includes protectionist policies on foreign pharmaceuticals). I realize the risks, but that’s what liberty is. I don’t think people would run to the stores just because something is legal, and I don’t think people ought to be protected from themselves, generally.
- Regardless of how people feel about drug legalization, I think we need to end the “War”. Most drug (especially pot) users are not violent and don’t have guns. But no-knock SWAT team raids where citizens, pets, and police officers are shot happen all the time. Even if you think drugs are a scourge, I implore people to stop thinking it can be solved by men with machine guns.
- The War on Drugs is also a justification of how excess military equipment (RVs, tanks, guns) trickle down to police agencies, and into the hands of officers who have not had the training or discipline that military personnel need before handling said equipment. It creates a dangerous situation.
Mish wrote:
Yes, this. This is the point I was clumsily trying to make above (dying laughing).
@ WaLi:
My grandfather was an alcoholic and died before I was born. I never knew about it until I was in my 20s and my parents and I were talking about kids and how they were worried that I inherited that addictive predilection as a kid (esp with respect to video/computer games). Somehow they managed to steer me away from alcohol/drugs which have never been a particular interest of mine. I love good beer but was never interested in drinking culture. Being a pretty strong introvert probably helped with that too (dying laughing).
@ Mish:
I’ve never really done drugs. I say “really” because I have smoked pot once, and long after college. I think the only reason I did it was just that I’d never done anything “bad” before. Anyway, I’ve also seen addiction basically ruin my brother’s life. And I am pro-legalization. I agree with MB that treatment and treating addicts like people are the best things we could do.
@ Berselius:
My parents were both drug addicts and alcoholics before I was born. I guess religion helped them, though it never was of much interest to me. I’ve had brief stints of partying, all in college, and none of it anymore than attempts by me to force myself to be social.
EDIT: As MB pointed out, they still are addicts.
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
Holy shit. Is that real?
Mish wrote:
We are all doomed!!! Just think that some of those people are going to be joining the workforce and contributing to society in a couple of years. How do you think their mother’s feel reading that stuff? I know my mom would be devastated if I said some skanky attention slut would be the best mom ever.
Hi. My name is Aisle 424, and I’m a discredited blog addict.
My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy, the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds, pretty standard really. At the age of 12 I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum, it’s breathtaking, I suggest you try it.
——
Figured I’d share a life story. It’s obviously not mine. I am also not trying to take your addiction stories or philosophies lightly or anything, it was just getting way too serious for a discredited blog and it was about time for a moment of levity (dying laughing)
Oh by the way, Yu Darvish is making his debut today.
@ ACT:
Yeah, but he’s one of the traditionalist Catholics. All Latin mass and literal interpretations and all that. In function, not much different than Evangelicals. Ironically, despised by Evangelicals.
I don’t know if anyone has seen any Nationals highlights yet but Bryce Harper is Ichiro fast. That kid can fly. Well, maybe not Ichiro fast but he’s pretty damn fast.
@ Rice Cube:
You know when I took myself out of the gene pool, part of that is having your testicles shorn. It’s really nothing special. Dr. Evil was way off there.
@ Mucker:
But he doesn’t play the right way. -6WAR
josh wrote:
I dind’t realize he was Catholic. His stances are so Evangelical in nature, i just assumed. I could see him actually name the Pope the Secretary of Education or something.
Top 25 Baseball Books, according to some dude.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-polman/the-top-25-baseball-books_b_1323002.html
Where the hell has Ryno been? Isn’t it his job to lighten the mood with inappropriate comments?
@ Aisle424:
Think Mel Gibson-type Catholic.
This was cool…
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/tim-lincecum-impersonator-faces-tim-lincecum-video-181807868.html
@ Aisle424:
The big difference is that he’s against contraception. Most Protestants made peace with birth control decades ago.
Aisle424 wrote:
@ Berselius:
That’s all the fault of liberals anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Catholic_Online_article_regarding_sexual_abuse_incidents
I’m here to perform a public service. Some people seem to not know how to pronounce Maholm.
It’s not Maholme.
The “o” is short.
However, it is important to remember that there are three syllables, not two. “Mahollum.”
Why? It’s an obscure Irish name. THey have lots of words that don’t make sense. They also sometimes add extra syllables to English words (for example, film is often pronounced fillum).
When I think of Paul Maholm, I think of the pronunciation of his name. Not much else.
Whats the deal with this Ugandan rebel guy that everyone is freaking out about on twitter and facebook?
@ Mucker:
WaLi is sure bubbles has seen him play.
@ WaLi:
Bubbles has yet to see him play but he does own a jersey t shirt and will be there no matter what wjhen he makes his debut
@ bubblesdachimp:
This appeared at the end of Gizmodo’s article about the new iPad:
“POSTED AT 02:25 PM BY BRIAN BARRETT
Special thanks to Kyle Wagner and Mario Aguilar for the help with the images, and to Bill Wennington for being our spirit guide.”
(dying laughing)
@ WenningtonsGorillaCock:
At least it wasn’t thanking Bill Wennington’s Gorilla Cock for being their spirit guide (dying laughing)
OK, that’s enough politics. Yu’s debut is coming up.
@ ACT:
I hear he supports Yoshihiko Noda as prime minister. I mean, Noda conducted himself as well as could be expected after the Fukushima disaster, but his politics are super sketchy.
The political talk will stop NOW.
Apparently, both ESPN and mlb.com have live look-ins for Yu.
@ Rice Cube:
That’s a DPJ Democrat for you!
EDIT: Dude, the “Liberal Democratic Party” of Japan is all conservatives. WTF, Japan?
@ josh:
Noda is a replacement-level PM.
Watching Yu warm up on espn.com/
@ ACT:
Stalker.
Berselius wrote:
Strikeout!
(dying laughing), some Cubs-esque defense from the Royals there.
Double. :/
Guess who drove in run(s)?
Berselius wrote:
I don’t know that they “thought” that as much as they felt that somehow it would happen, or, more likely, they’re pissed off and this has become a handy rationalization for being pissed off at Obama. I’m mainly talking about folks who approach politics the way Ryan Theriot approaches baserunning. Thinking is not such a big part of it. Also, what Mish said. Candidate Obama did at least make it seem like there would be a little more re-thinking of standard order law and order tactics and rhetoric. President Obama, not so much.
I understand that there are racial politics that Obama has to operate under, that if he shows even one iota of favoring black folks over other folks then he’s politically toast, and whatever else he wants to get done is toast too. And that means being ‘tough’ (instead of smart) about crime, and especially the drug war, which is ironically, mainly a racial issue because of the shameful history of law enforcement’s relationship to African Americans in this country.
Strikeout! Yu was impressive.
Darvish had a good looking first inning.
F7 apparently is at 93-95 mph.
Scratch that. I forgot he was pitching against the Padres. I could do that.
ACT wrote:
Terrible grammar.
/pedantic twat’d
Two liners against F7…one caught, one not.
So far, Jeff has failed to blow the lead for the Cubs. I count that as progress.
Wil Veneble hit one that was about 6 inches from going out of the park on Yu. Hit the batter’s eye.
Yu saves a run with his defense!
@ ACT:
Yu can do anything.
Strikeout! That’s 2 innings, 2 hits, 3 K’s.
@ ACT:
Yeah, and a couple of solid defensive plays on his part. He looks like a professional baseball player. It’ll be interesting to see how he does over the long haul.
Apparently the Cubs just released Kyle Smit.
@ josh:
If he’s in good shape it’d still be interesting to see whether he can put up 200+ innings with less rest in between. Against better hitters. Etc. etc.
But I have faith in Yu.
josh wrote:
Does he play the game the right way?
mb21 wrote:
@ Suburban kid:
Well, he throws the ball where I’d want him to. And from what I can tell he struck out several guys with minimal pelvic thrusts and almost no dark melanin. So I guess that’s a yes.
@ Suburban kid:
Possibly.
F7 only had to throw 23 pitches to get through two…I think he’s probably done, right?
16 strikes, 7 balls. Two hard hit. One strikeout.
Is this the longest Samardzija has gone without walking anyone?
@ ACT:
He went that long during the Cubs World Series championship commercial. Not since then.
@ ACT:
He’s going for 3 IP so he’s due.
No one mentioned that Barney had another double. He obviously works out.
@ WaLi:
Gameday says F7 has fastball, changeup, slider, cutter today. Mostly fastball which makes sense as he’s getting 95 on their radar gun pretty consistently.
@ WaLi:
We’re just taking it for granted that Barney has transformed himself into an extra-base hit machine that won’t wear down as the season goes on. Plus, he plays the game the right way.
@ WaLi:
He was in the right spot.
I’m convinced. F7 is this year’s Randy Wells from 2 years ago.
Good outing for shark
@ josh:
@ GBTS:
You know, surprisingly good.
It’s Spring Training time. It’s time to get the expectations way, WAY up.
@ josh:
I’d like him to keep this up so the Cubs can trade him toward the end of spring training.
@ josh:
(dying laughing) It took me like four readings to understand what you were even trying to say.
Reed Johnson struck out the right way.
@ mb21:
Yes, because other teams’ GM’s are morons.
@ GBTS:
I should have hyphenated: Randy-Wells-from-2-years-ago.
Jay Jackson is in!
ACT wrote:
We’re already getting this crap: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ycn-11066842&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Error by Starlin…it was inevitable.
@ mb21:
I had to neg this. It was so stupid it almost made me cry.
new shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/news-and-rumors/players-told-to-get-sleep-or-else.html
Nice math quiz, berselius: