Email exchange with reader Eric

Posted on by
Reply

Eric emailed me to tip me off about a certain Mets-article I’ll probably tackle tomorrow, then we got into a back-in-forth about blogs as media watchdogs that made me laugh.

He wrote:

My friends and I talk half seriously about a site devoted to covering the NY media, because there’s so much of this stuff. Unfortunately we also talk completely seriously about the fact that we’re probably too lazy to do it right.

I responded:

I think it’d be really funny to keep a blog entirely dedicated to critiquing Phil Mushnick, Bob Raissman, Richard Sandomir and Neil Best -– the NY sports-media critics –- just for the sake of meta-ness.

To which Eric said:

My favorite thing about those guys is how many levels removed they are from what a traditional society would consider real work. You have a bunch of men whose profession it is to hit a ball with a stick for the amusement of others. In turn you have men whose profession it is to write stories about said ball/stick games. And then you have Mushnick, whose profession is to write stories about the men who write stories about the ball/stick games. I might just start the blog you’re proposing – If I’m successful, I could be a whole four steps away from anything that adds value to society. Then again, I’m a lawyer, so I probably have that covered already.

Scientists perform dumbest study ever

Posted on by
5

When asked to rate their feelings on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being “very good,” the people having sex gave an average rating of 90. That was a good 15 points higher than the next-best activity, exercising, which was followed closely by conversation, listening to music, taking a walk, eating, praying and meditating, cooking, shopping, taking care of one’s children and reading. Near the bottom of the list were personal grooming, commuting and working….

On average throughout all the quarter-million responses, minds were wandering 47 percent of the time. That figure surprised the researchers, Matthew Killingsworth and Daniel Gilbert.

“I find it kind of weird now to look down a crowded street and realize that half the people aren’t really there,” Dr. Gilbert says….

Whatever people were doing, whether it was having sex or reading or shopping, they tended to be happier if they focused on the activity instead of thinking about something else. In fact, whether and where their minds wandered was a better predictor of happiness than what they were doing.

– John Tierney, N.Y. Times.

OK, first of all, Harvard researchers: Perhaps you can’t comprehend this from the comforts of your ivory tower, but none of the people who said they were having sex was actually having sex. No one’s stopping to answer your damn iPhone survey. I can practically guarantee that every single one of those respondents was a giggling middle-schooler.

Second, what? Just… what? So you’re trying to make broad sweeping conclusions about a field as complex and mysterious as psychology by asking people to rate their feelings on a scale of 1-to-100? What does that even mean?

How do I know how happy I am right now, out of 100? I’m pretty happy, but maybe I’ve never even achieved 100 happiness. And if my current psychological state is just amusement at how stupid your study is, does that count as happiness, even if it’s inherently snarky happiness? It’s all completely arbitrary.

Besides — you’re telling me that people whose minds wander are less happy. But how is it even possible to truly rate your current feelings on a 1-to-100 scale without comparing it to the ways you’ve felt at other times in your life? And then, if you’re thinking about those other times, isn’t your mind wandering?

And the quote from Dr. Gilbert. Really? So if I’m walking down the street and I’m thinking about anything besides walking down the street, that means I’m not really there? What? Is my mind not part of my physical person? I’m there, in the flesh, on the street. So is my mind. I just have other things to think about besides, “derp dee derp derp derp, I’m a walkin’ down the street!”

In fact, I often go for walks specifically to let my mind wander. And I love the walks when I am able to let my thoughts stray far from the activity and my physical setting, on tangents off tangents. Those are the times I feel most creative and confident.

So how about this, Harvard researchers: You continue your dumbf@#$ studies, and please, be mindful of every step along the way. When you make photocopies of your findings, just stand there by the photocopier thinking, “makin’ copies; makin’ copies; makin copies,” with every new print.

I’ll be here, daydreaming my damn life away and enjoying every minute of it.

Pedro Feliciano stuff

Posted on by
4

Feliciano would likely end up earning around $4 million in arbitration, assuming the Mets offer it to him. He’s rumored to be seeking at least a two-year deal. He’s letting more runners on base, he’s pitched a ton of innings over the last few seasons, he’s walking more and striking out less, and he showed he’s not very effective against right-handed batters last season, at least to the extent that he should be used as anything more than a situational lefty. So, is it wise to sign a 35-year-old situational lefty, with a lot of mileage on his arm, to a two-year, $8 million deal? I don’t know that it is.

Feliciano is a Type B free agent. In other words, if the Mets offer him arbitration and he signs with a new team as a free agent, they will be rewarded a draft pick between the first and second rounds.

– Matthew Cerrone, MetsBlog.com.

I’ve written about this before, but offering Feliciano arbitration seems like a no-brainer to me. Worse comes to worse, he accepts, then wins in arbitration and you end up slightly overpaying a pretty damn good and unbelievably durable situational lefty — something you’re probably going to need anyway.

Best-case scenario, he declines and signs elsewhere and you get a free sandwich-round draft pick.

Mmm… sandwich round.

Is yours the “pitiful” face of binge drinking?

Posted on by
4

Look: I don’t want to make light of binge drinking, at all. I recognize that alcohol can be just as dangerous as plenty of illegal drugs, and is responsible for all sorts of heartache, injury, illness, death, pain, everything. And, truth be told, I don’t drink all that much or all that often.

But I couldn’t help but feel some sympathy for the fellow whose picture accompanied the print edition of the Daily News’ feature on New York’s “BOOZE EPIDEMIC!” today.

The caption says, “Pitiful sight of empty bottles and a drunken man illustrates the depth of the growing drinking problem revealed in a new city Health Department survey.”

And the guy looks like this:

I mean, let he who has not passed out in the corner of someone’s apartment among a pile of empty bottles cast the first stone.

Even when I do drink I’m not really a wine guy, and I’m not certain wine is typically associated with binge drinking, but if this guy’s into drinking five full bottles of wine and two bottles of beer before knocking off in the corner, I’m in no position to judge.

Who knows what happened to him earlier that day? Perhaps he got dumped by his significant other, lost his job, or watched the Giants lose to the Cowboys on Sunday.

Or maybe, he was working in his job at a stock-photo provider, and someone was like, “Hey Frank, you wanna pose for a picture of a passed-out drunk guy?” And Frank agreed that would be pretty hilarious, so he pretended to sleep in the corner while the photographers set up a bunch of empty wine bottles around him, taking care to make sure none of the labels faced the camera.

Anyway, if by any slim chance anyone knows this guy, please let me know. He’s ripe for an interview. Perhaps we can coach him through his problems.

Ridiculous cast, excellent McCartney imitation

Posted on by
3

I was discussing Paul McCartney with former roommate and maverick economist Ted Burke, and he reminded me of the following sketch from The Dana Carvey Show.

Check out the cast: That’s Robert Smigel (of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog/TV Funhouse/Just about everything funny that’s ever happened fame) as Ringo, and a certain future Comedy Central pundit as George Harrison.

Also, Carvey’s short-lived show (which switched presenting sponsors every week and was briefly The Taco Bell Dana Carvey Show) counted the following among its writers: Steve Carell, Stephen Colbert, Dave Chappelle, Louis C.K., Charlie Kaufman and Smigel. I should probably acquire the DVD.

Part 2 here. EASTER EGG: A sandwich.

Murphman-Turner Overdrive?

Posted on by
6

I wrote a bit about the Mets’ second-base situation yesterday, and the more I think about it, the more I am intrigued by the possibility of a Daniel Murphy-Justin Turner platoon.

Offensively, the pair would likely represent a pretty massive upgrade over the woeful .226/.307/.285 production the Mets got from their second basemen in 2010 (although, really, who wouldn’t?). Bill James projects a .281/.339/.455 line for Murphy in 2011, which seems reasonable given his .275/.331/.437 career mark, and which would place him among the better-hitting second basemen in the Majors.

While I can’t find any 2011 projections for Turner, Dan Szymborski translated his impressive performance in Triple-A in 2010 to a .288/.340/.434 Major League mark — though since Turner’s 2010 was his best season so far offensively, that line is probably a bit optimistic for 2011.

Still, Turner mashed lefties in a small sample in Triple-A last year, and Murphy hits better against right-handers, as left-handed hitters often do. Combined, they appear apt to offensively outperform any available free-agent middle infielder.

The question, of course, is their defense. Murphy is playing second base every day in the Dominican Winter League, though I haven’t heard any reports about how that’s actually going for him. For all Murph’s calamities in left field, he appeared to the eye and to the stats (in an inadequate sample size) to be a pretty good and even particularly rangy defender at first base.

How that translates to the more difficult position remains to be seen (or perhaps has been seen, but by people other than me who haven’t reported it).

There’s no real good way to know from a desk in Manhattan whether Murphy (or Turner, for that matter) can capably field second base at the Major League level, or if their deficiencies there would cost the Mets more runs than their bats would produce. The decision has to come down to a scouting assessment.

The three pitchers set for the Mets’ 2010 rotation — Mike Pelfrey, Jon Niese and R.A. Dickey — all accrue a decent-to-heavy number of ground balls, so the defense behind them is pretty important.

But if the Mets feel Murphy and Turner are up to the challenge, the pair could provide a nice, inexpensive solution with offensive upside, instantly improving the team at the keystone and buying time to determine which — if any — of their prospects at the position deserves the job for the long haul. And since Murphy can play a little first base, third base, and left field if necessary, and Turner has played shortstop and third in the Minors, they don’t handicap the team’s flexibility when they’re on the bench.

The Book of Eli

Posted on by
7

Last year, of course, the Giants started 5-0, hit the halfway point at 5-3 and then went 3-5 over the final eight games. Instead of saying he planned to assert himself as a leader and remind his teammates to fight through adversity and learn from last year’s collapse, Manning seems to think what happened in the past stays in the past.

That’s short-sighted….

“Athletes don’t think that way. We don’t think that way.”

But doesn’t it go deeper than simply thinking about the next game?

“No, it doesn’t,” Manning said. “You prepare. You play Philly. You prepare for your next game and you go play. It’s all you can do. It’s all you think about. The only thing I’m worried about is Philly’s defense and their scheme and us getting ready for them.”

– Gary Myers, N.Y. Daily News.

As Chris M pointed out in the comments section yesterday, just last week everyone was penciling the Giants into the Super Bowl. They played poorly against Dallas, no doubt, but it’s still one game.

While it’s hard to fault Myers for pointing to the Giants’ second-half struggles under Tom Coughlin, it’s also difficult to determine exactly the source of those struggles. Certainly the ever-present spectre of randomness could play a part.

Otherwise, if we’re absolutely desperate for a good reason the Giants have gone 41-15 in the first halves of their regular seasons and 20-29 in the latter halves under Coughlin, I’d guess it has more to do with strategy and the coaches’ inability to adjust the Giants’ gameplans for teams that have a half-season worth of video to scout than the complacency and lack of accountability Myers seems eager to diagnose.

Because Manning’s quotes in the column seem to embody exactly the type of mental fortitude we usually celebrate in winning players and teams. Mariano Rivera, most notably, is constantly praised for his ability to put his rare mishaps behind him and focus on the task at hand.

I can’t say that this is necessarily the case for all athletes, but it seems that — and Manning suggests — they are generally better served planning for the next challenge then worrying about the past or distant future (those responsibilities fall on the coaches and GMs).

Plus Manning is probably in a no-win situation when asked if he’s thinking about the past: If he says he is, he’s sure to be lambasted for letting the “collapses” get into his head. If he says he isn’t, he’s guilty of “short-sighted” thinking.

Even more Wally Backman stuff

Posted on by
1

Talking with Patrick Flood, with help from Wally Backman, about Backman’s much-hyped managerial candidacy.

Patrick adds:

I misspoke. Wally Backman’s Brooklyn Cyclones team was “only” second in the New York-Penn league in bunts this season. They were six bunts behind the club that bunted most, but 21 bunts ahead of the club that bunted third most. It was his 2004 Lancaster JayHawks that bunted 27 more times than any other team, and his 2003 Birmingham Barons that bunted 19 more times than anyone else. It’s actually the caught stealing that is more alarming, as his teams are routinely first in caught stealing and somewhere in the middle in steals.