- They’re not BOOing, they’re chanting …
- Ugh, Jesus, the NYT’s sportswriting, while technically accomplished, sucks: Monday night’s Yankee loss was apparently all about the A’s continually just barely getting lucky, while last night’s return to the normative order was foreordained:
An outburst was coming
Also: Tyler Kepner thinks A-Rod’s a pussy:
It was the second time in a week that Rodriguez had been hit in that spot, and he screamed in pain as he shook it off.
- As, apparently, does Bill James (to be fair, he thinks everyone younger than him is a pussy … but that’s not necessarily a good thing):
I don’t think it is a myth that ballplayers — or PEOPLE — were tougher in the old days. I think they WERE tougher. They were tougher because they believed in toughness, in ways that are almost unimaginable today. We were all disciplined, as children of the 1950s, in ways that went well, well, well beyond the limits of what would today be legal. We were taught that you don’t complain about things; you just carry on. People WERE tougher. I’m not saying it was a good thing, and, lest that be an ambiguous remark, it WASN’T a good thing.
If you go back 100 years, men got into fistfights as a regular part of being a man. People weren’t condemned for this, or asked to apologize for it.
(Also: beanballs–surprising [or not] data there.)
- Kurt Suzuki, however, is tough
- Player Opinion I:
“The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer.”
- Player Opinion II:
“Baseball is a game of regression to the mean”
- Lawyer Opinion I
- Lawyer Opinion II
- Oh, crap. Do I need to go back to my defensive-stat agnosticism?
Yoo-NYY Watch: DLD 081909 97
97 thoughts on “Yoo-NYY Watch: DLD 081909”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I love Barney Frank:
That’s awesome.
The dining room table quote is the real winner.
Crazy communists.
Larouchies are their own particular breed of crazy and evil.
That’s some awesome Slate-style meta-reverse-concern-troll contrarianism there.
Does anyone know why Cust was commenting on the Mitchell Report yesterday? Did a NY reporter ask him about it, or is he just so fed up with slumping that he decided to blow off a little steam?
Gotta be the bear-baiting scenario you proposed. NYY + traveling media circus in town = aggro big-city reporters poking around for hot nut grafs.
Only Atheists Wear Batting Helmets
And an attack by zombies, as we now know, would be catastrophic.
It’s a pity he won’t live — but then again, who does?
Please tell me that article is some sort of joke or parody.
Freakonomics has (or maybe is) a stupid
Wow. I, for one, would love to die of thirst in the service of free markets.
Clearly that would be the most efficient thing for you to do.
You die so that the market can right itself. With less demand (i.e you dead), the price goes down for everyone else. Think of the children!
There’s about 16 different levels of stupid in that — most of them having to do with violations of what I presume to be his own internal logic/ethical system.
3: I think he’s right. If someone insults me now, I’m not obligated to try to kill him. This is a feature, not a bug.
5: hilarious
6: I’ve been sold on him for awhile
7: part 2 is a terrible idea. Part 1, maybe less so if the league then poured money into talent development. This might be my inner liberal coming out, but I have to imagine that a number of MLB-funded academies would be better than individual team ones.
8: This is a really dumb point.
Completely misses the argument. Of COURSE numbers can “lie” if we define “lie” as “not measure true talent.” What they can’t do, and eyes can’t NOT do, is be biased.
Not entirely true. There is no agency (that would be an antitrust violation), but there is also little-to-no competition on salary.
7. I’m with Calcaterra — the entire column is full of terrible ideas, all under the aegis of protecting ownership.
Certainly a move to internationalize the draft without any other changes would be bad. I’m simply saying that there is room for changes which would make the thing a net positive (not that anyone with power has proposed them)
True, true.
Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper?
More pithiness with which I fundamentally agree. Outside of certain business applications, I think the insurance industry is a non-value-add legalized (and, in many instances, mandated) Ponzi scheme.
I don’t see how the (oft misused) phrase “Ponzi scheme” applies at all, nor do I agree about insurance being useless. Fundamentally insurance is about managing and distributing risk, and that can be quite valuable. But I do agree that in the present system the insurance companies seem to take way more profit than is justified for providing that risk management, and also that mandating insurance without providing a cheap public option would constitute a further giveaway to them.
That part is correct, I think. Non-catastrophic insurance is very often not even insurance, and the huge role of insurance companies in non-catastrophic health care is a purely wasteful consequence of the tax code. As for catastrophic coverage, they try not to pay for people they cover and hospitals semi-“insure” certain emergency conditions (without receiving premiums) anyway, so I think it’s reasonable to say they don’t play a useful role in health as constituted relative either to single payer system or to a private model without employer tax subsidies.
This only works if you somehow take away the incentive to deny individual claims. Employer grouping is one way to do that (my health insurance, say, is not going to generally deny claims because my firm would switch carriers), well-enforced regulations are another way (and part of this reform effort). Without either of those, however, you’ve just taken away all the insured’s leverage for no reason.
Really? I’m willing to be convinced of that, but I’m doubtful. Most HR people I talk to say competition is mostly on price — and there’s precious little real competition. On bog-standard cheap claims (annual visit, eye exam, vaccination, etc), no, there’s no pushback (albeit plenty of paperwork and interference intended to delay payment as long as possible) — it’s the big-ticket items where they really throw up the barricades.
It’s privately purchased, not employer-based, health care where they deny big-ticket claims. There’s also a lot of regulation on employer-based (i.e. it actually covers pregnancy costs)
Um, no.
Citing? (here’s mine)
It wouldn’t solve that problem, and I’m not really suggesting it. It seems generally agreed that there are two problems which are uninsured/insured but will have claims denied people, and “spiraling costs.” My point is that “ordinary” care (or dental care) is not really something that should be an insurance product, and it leads to overcomsumption/high costs.
I disagree. I think more people should be doing the preventative things (primary care visits, screenings, etc.) that I think of when I hear “overconsumption.” I agree that incentives are such that doctors oversubscribe (a different problem), but that has nothing to do with where insurance stops and everything to do with how doctors make money.
Agree entirely.
Maybe, but maybe not. Presumably many employers are happy with cheaper insurance that is more likely to be denied, especially given that price is likely to be more salient at the time these decisions are made.
This is true only if you assume they are purely bad faith actors, which is to say it’s fun to say, easy to believe, and clearly wrong. There needs to be health insurance, which means there need to be health insurers. The ones we have may suck, and it may be better to put the government in that role, but the government too would “skim off the top.”
I think there’s a lot more evidence on my side than yours.
What possible evidence could you have that a world with no health insurance is better than the USA (with all it’s problems)?
Awesome
Useless without, uh, photographs.
That seems like fair compensation for the risk he took that the sandwich would punch him out.
I can’t think of Sean Penn without thinking of No Myth. (bonus at the link: early 90’s Arsenio Hall)
I’m now convinced that you are posting outrageous CL ads in order to showcase them here.
I wonder — had he fully prepared the cops by instructing them to use Tasers if the subject was unresponsive to entreaties?
You have no taser cred until you answer my question about the old lady incident.
He should have just asked her to marry him.
I know, deflect difficult question with snark. Reject all attempted solutions as evil. Stand on high and criticize.
What do you suppose Adam Piatt is doing right now? I think he’s probably having a mid-morning snack.
As a friend emails: “What. The. Fuck.”
I’ve read various comments that expect great things from that movie. I’m perplexed–that’s one of the most laughably bad trailers I’ve ever seen.
That, along with the BSD LIEUTENANT remake … Herzog is always one to make perverse choices.
Neyer struggles with stupid.
I think this is why I always seem to end up back at ** shouting at certain bloggers.
Awards, ASG, PotW — I don’t care.
Which, I suppose, is why you can refrain from all non-TWSS ** commenting.
Yep.
I don’t even bring the snark anymore.
Nor do you reject all attempted solutions as evil or stand on high and criticize.
At least I appreciate a good “big smartypants-looking-down-on-menial-shitty-laborers” snark when I see it.
True, true
But snarking is so much fun…
I’ve got Yoo under my skin. In bamboo shoot form.
Yoo-NYY = torture?
I’m not nearly as politically inclined as many (most?) of you, but a friend passes this along: The Uninsured
I’d be very interested in a factcheck of that article, since I bet some of it is true. Things that bother me:
I wonder how they controlled for pre-existing conditions, cost of living, specific coverage needs (i.e. pregnancy), and other similar problems. My guess is they didn’t. Either way, the analysis ignores the fact that individual health plans are useless.
Unsurprising (all the old people are in medicare).
This is a bad-faith argument. The way to create more competition is through a public option. This would merely allow one state to remove all regulations, have all health insurance move to that state, and let the insurance companies get richer.
re: that last one — a-freakin’-men. The insurance industry wants Yglesias’ rule-free roads — so that they can swerve all over the place, running down pedestrians.
and denying the ensuing emergency room claims.
and having already lobbied for tort reform beforehand so they can’t be held liable
Uh, when a search of the article for “deni*” and “pree*” and “pre-e” turns up no hits, I feel vindicated in my anti-Cato bias being confirmed.
Is it just me or is this really creepy? (I see this kid around and my brother has played him…)
1. Creepy that his dad writes the blog from the son’s perspective.
2. Non-zero probability that his father is pushing him.
3. He looks a little bit like an 8-year-old salb918
4. What possible reason is there to split the competition by gender?
4. Encourages female participation.
Okay, I’ll buy that.
But from a pure competition standpoint, I can’t believe (without data) that young girls are inherently better or worse than young men.
Well, as things stand, no girls would ever win in any age grouping, mostly because far more boys than girls play at all (particularly in other countries.)
TWSS
To add on to what I said in my second paragraph: what if a girl asked to compete in the boy’s bracket? I can’t think of a good reason to say no.
There’s no issue with that. At the top levels, there’s one woman who is way better than the rest of the women and she plays in the “male” events. She was in the top 10 for many years. The rest of the top women currently are ~100-200th, and they play a mix of events.
I think all super-high-achieving kid activities (spelling bee, LLWS, etc) are creepy. I just don’t know what the solution is.
Here’s a solution: creating more competition by allowing people to purchase
insurancesuper-high-achieving children across state linesNope, I still won’t give you $5
lol
yes and no. I think that achievement is a good thing, and I think that children who show both aptitude and interest for a particular activity (like, say, cup-stacking) should be encouraged. It is incumbent on the parent to make sure the child engages in other activities too (like, say, homework), too. But in some of these high-achieving children, it is obvious that the kids aren’t having fun, or that the parent is pushing the child far more than is healthy, etc.
I agree. Like everything else there’s a line-drawing problem that good parents will do well. It just sucks that kids have to specialize in one activity (be it piano, soccer, or whatever) so young if they’re good at it.
I think even “good” parents can fuck up the line-drawing problem when it comes to their children’s activities.
Sure. I do think it’s one of the tests of parenting though. Especially on egregious cases.
That cup-stacking link wasn’t to what I’d hoped it would be.
Sounds to me like you’re contributing to the “everyone gets an A” mentality.
If the Coli crowd is small enough, then why not?
Because no one would want Crosby and some people think it’s not nice to discard an A whether it’s useless or not.
Far from it. I’m just sad that if your kid is (say) the best 12 year old baseball player in his school he ends up having to play baseball 10 months a year and take long road trips every weekend.
There’s ta difference between “everyone gets an A” (not honestly evaluating people) and “everyone who gets an A must devote their pre-teen life to the activity” (generating one sided and burned out teenagers)
Now this is a creepy high-achieving kid.
Interesting story on a pitcher who might not be much taller than me.
Cumulative minor league stats:
2.06 ERA, 4.0 BB/9, 13.2 K/9. He’s 19 and left-handed.
BA’s take
I always forget how short Gaudin is.
Oh, man.
Obama’s Death Panel
wouldwouldn’twouldwouldn’twouldwouldn’twouldwouldn’twouldmake that mistakejust bury his body in that big mass grave in Arizona.I wish I could read more stuff like this.
As the first comment notes, he seems to be confusing government-provided health insurance with “a government takeover of health care.”
Sure. It’s still an insightful look into why the generally conscientious Rs out there are encouraging the crazies.