Hey Keith, thanks for answering my question twice in your chat today, lol
Anyways wanted to ask you if you’ve had a chance to watch the MLB Network yet, if you get it that is. If so any chance you could give us your thoughts on it?
So far I’ve really enjoyed its programs, although I think they could use a baseball analyst like you or Rob Neyer (although that’s not possible since you both are employeed by ESPN), or heck just about anyone that has an understanding in regards to sabermetrics. I’m pulling for a Joe Poz appearance.
The former players do a nice job (HR, Larkin, Leiter) but is there any retired player that they don’t think deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? My god.
I have not watched it – I don’t think I’m really the target audience for this programming.
I get to pick out questions I like and stick them in a queue so that they don’t get lost in the shuffle and somehow I queued you twice without realizing it. At least I didn’t give two different answers.
Thoughts on the Youkilis extension? I know that when you sign a long-term contract when you’re still arb-eligible, you’re giving up money, but $40 mil still seems a bit low, especially when losing 2 FA years.
Wonderful chat, as always. And I simply cannot let your use of the plural “stadia” go unacknowledged; mazel tov!
Is Thomas Mann a writer who interests you at all? (That is the proper choice of pronoun for with the antecedent “writer,” is it not?) I’ve read a few of his novels and stories (John E. Woods being the fine translator of the novels – mein Deutsch muss sich aber viel verbessern, um Mann lesen zu koennen) and have been consistently awed, and I even enjoy on the intellectual masturbation of characters like Settembrini and Naphta. Wow, what a pointlessly meandering sentence that was.
The varying versions of that “tenure” story (I was told he said, “Rickey got fifteen year!” with emphasis on the singular “year”) and the fact that I am not 100% sure who told me the story made me unwilling to repeat it on the site. I didn’t mean to open up the can of race-worms, but there you go.
The Magic Mountain is one of about fifty books in my current to-be-read queue.
Keith, any hopes of getting my Ventura question answered in this forum? Very good hitter (in pitchers’ parks throughout his career), plus glove, very shallow position …
Ventura had a nice career but I can’t imagine a HOF with him in it. From 1989 to 2004 (Ventura’s career), there were 68 times in which a guy played 50% or more of his games at third base and had 100 runs created (as defined by Baseball-Reference). Ventura had two of those. Chipper Jones had six (and five of the top 11); Scott Rolen had seven. Jeff Cirillo had four. Ventura was a good defender but so was Rolen; they have pretty much identical FRAA and Rolen isn’t retired yet (though of course he could step backwards). So Ventura might have a case as the best 3B defender of his time (if not by much), but has that ever gotten anyone into the Hall on its own? And his offense gets overshadowed by too many other guys at the position in the same general time period to make him stand out, I think.
(If you don’t like RC, Ventura had just one of the top 40 OPS+ seasons by at least half-time third basemen between ’89 and ’04, and it was #40. He again comes up short to Jones and Rolen, and also looks a lot like Matt Williams, who of course just dropped right off the ballot. Ventura had a better career, but I don’t think it was THAT much better.)
I tried e-mailing on ESPN.com but the link isn’t working, so this will have to suffice. Based on what I have read of yours, I’m pretty sure you’ll find my comment ignorant or just plain naive. That said, I will ask none the less.
Regarding a salary cap, it’s obvious that capping salaries and total payroll is playing into the owner’s pockets, and actually quite un-American. What other profession do you hear public outcry regarding high salaries (CEOs now with the economy, but nothing to the extent of ball players)? Would you be upset if ESPN raised your salary? Anyway, especially considering the economy as it is, what if there were a payroll/salary cap PLUS a ticket cap that followed the inflation rate. Just like social security, the salaries, payroll, and ticket prices go up with inflation instead of the incredible rise in both ticket prices and salaries that has exceeded inflation by an unimaginable number. This way, while MLB would bring in less revenue (which is why it would never, ever, ever happen like this) the money wouldn’t be going back into the pockets of owners. Instead people would be able to afford to go to a game. I don’t really mind the $2500.00 seats at the new Yankee stadium considering it’s just some faceless corporation buying those seats, but wouldn’t it make more sense to let actual baseball fans get the opportunity to have a nice seat?
One thing I don’t understand though is why the players union, like any other union faced with a similar problem, would ever agree to a cap? I keep hearing that if the owner’s made certain concessions that players might agree to at least a soft cap. But right now players, especially the top players, rely on the fact that large payroll teams can jump into the bidding at any time (ala Tex with the NYY). If the payrolls were capped at, say, $150 million, and the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox were already at that number, how much would Tex possibly have gotten for an offer? 50% of what he got? 60%?
Like I said at the beginning, I’m sure you’ll find this quite ignorant or naive, but I know that going in. And I know anything that would lower revenues for MLB would be shot down. But as a theory, do you like the idea? And if so, can you think of a way to tie ticket prices and payroll caps together that would also increase MLB revenues?
Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back from you.
I’m not trying to be brash here, but I don’t know why (understand any circumstances) any employee would accept a capped salary from their employer. Unless the players union was completely against the wall, the union wouldnt accept any sort of cap. I don’t blame them, I sure as hell wouldn’t from my employer.
I don’t buy the owners argument and I really have trouble buying the fans argument. By fans argument I mean the the premise of “if our team was good we would show up to the games. We’re not paying good money to watch a bad team and the cap would level the playing field and allow us small market teams to compete and win games.” Tampa Bay had a great season from start to finish and were geniunely exciting to watch. They averaged 22 thousand fans per game. A salary cap would change that?
Part of the problem is there are teams in cities that simply don’t have the population to put 50k people in the stands everynight. I don’t want to rid the league of small market teams, but a salary cap wouldn’t change that.
Or put another way, if the teams can get $300 for a front row seat between the dugouts, why would they ever reduce that price? Even if payroll was cut in half, why would it ever make sense for them to throw money away like that? The bottom line is that ticket prices drive player salaries, not the other way around.
As for looking at industries where people complain that workers make too much money, look no further than the US auto industry. The federal bailout has given every wish-I-were-WFB the opportunity to slam the UAW, but I haven’t seen the same vehemence targeted at the upper management who decided to bet the farm on $50/barrel oil.
Personally I am not in favor of salary caps even though in English Soccer it is becoming a bit predictable as the league table is ordered with minor exceptions by money. However I an a neutral who loves the game and would rather see the best players in England that result.
However MLB has things that create a better balance: the game itself is more variable: play off championship: the unpredictability of pitching from game to game never mind season to season: no meaningful international market for the top players to go elsewhere.
I think it helps baseball to have a variety of teams of different sizes and philosophies. Sure some cannot compete every year but watching the Mets and Yanks spend into a cul de sac and then go in again and try again is fun.
I know even as a Jays fan I cannot wait to see how New York, Sox and Rays go next year.
1) I did a study two or three years ago, which I really ought to update and publish goddamit!, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that hitters perform differently with RISP than otherwise. E-mail me if you’re interested in the details.
2) You have very fine taste in literature and your lack of familiarity with the best literary science fiction is only detracting from your joy in life. Try _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_ and _The Book of the New Sun_ by Gene Wolfe (who has been called the greatest living English language writer, and I wouldn’t disagree), _Engine Summer_ by John Crowley, _Dhalgren_ by Samuel R. Delany, and _The Dispossessed_ by Ursula K. Le Guin for starters. (And given your #1 choice and the inclusion of both _Brave New World_ and _1984_, I’m shocked at the omission of Yevgeny Zamyatin’s _We_ (if you haven’t read it, the Clarence Brown translation is the best, according to a team of Russian speakers and translators).
Saying Catcher in the Rye was “somewhat self-absorbed” is like saying RBIs are a somewhat overrated stat. I’ve always considered Holden one of the most insufferable characters I’ve ever come across in literature.
KLaw,
What are your thoughts on the writing of David Foster Wallace? I doubt you’ve spent the time on Infinite Jest but what about his non-fiction? Clearly he was always the smartest guy in the room and he tops my list of greatest writers born after 1950. Where do you rank him?
Does Andruw Jones to the Yankees on an incentive-laden deal make any sense? Seems that he could man CF and allow them to deal Melky and/or weak bat until Jackson is ready at the big league level. I suppose they would have to keep him away from the buffet for this to work out. Also to that end, is there any precedent for a “weight incentive” in contracts where the team can terminate if the player packs on the lbs, but the player would receive additional $$ for certain fitness/weight benchmarks? I assume the union would be highly opposed and agents wouldn’t let their clients sign such a deal, but in cases like Andruw’s, seems like it would mitigate a good bit of the risk.
If none of this is possible/likely, is a minor league deal the other option?
Remember who the narrator is in Catcher in the Rye and how old he is supposed to be. I think this explains the self-absorbed nature of the prose.
I for one, have read it multiple times, although never before the age of 21. I try to break it out once every 5-6 years to see how my reaction to the characters has changed as I’ve aged.
I’ve been thinking about this on and off since yesterday and it’s still nagging at me so…
In your chat you said something to the effect that you can’t fathom why anyone would want to attend the Obama inauguration.
I can understand you not having any interest in being there. I gather that you didn’t vote for him (or did so but with a great deal of reluctance). But can you really not imagine why another person would want to be there in person?
Rob, I do recognize why many people consider it a great book and love it so much, and I understand that there is reason for the self-absorption. With that said, I did read it in 9th grade, at approximately the same age as the narrator, and I found him insufferable then.
Eric, I’d certainly be interested in that study, because I was under the impression that other studies have proven fairly conclusively that there is little difference in hitters’ performance based on the situation. I’d just like to see both sides before I draw a conclusion myself. Logically, I don’t think it makes a great deal of sense to imagine certain players doing better in high pressure situations – as many have said, why don’t they do that well all the time, if they can? However, it does seem possible that certain players would handle the pressure better than others and thus be able to maintain their full abilities better in high pressure situations. Likewise, I can see the argument that certain players become less focused and thus perform at below their best in blowouts.
I live in the DC area, happily voted for Obama, and you couldn’t pay me to go to the inauguration. In fact, I’m purposely leaving town this weekend. It’s going to be insanely crowded, almost impossible to navigate the city due to security concerns (many streets, bridges, and metro stops are being closed off), and the temperature is not supposed to get above freezing. Throw in a severe shortage of public toilets and, all in all, it sounds pretty miserable.
I read it as a teenager and felt the same way. When I read it again when I was older, I had a much firmer grasp of the character and the point of the novel. That’s not to say your characterization of him is inaccurate; rather, it’s one that can be more easily understood and even identified with as an adult.
Re: Olive Oil
I recently wandered into a fancy, high-end olive oil store (O & Co.). Their pitch was insufferable for a variety of reasons, but they kept talking about this worldwide olive oil conspiracy, particularly with regards to how even supposed high-end olive oil is often full of synthetics and that olive oil is like wine and should taste/look slightly different from year to year and batch to batch if it is genuinely pure. I don’t know if I bought it, since it was a great way for them to make sales, and I haven’t found any information elsewhere on it, but I also wouldn’t be shocked if SOME of it is true.
I know you are a big fan of olive oil. Do you know anything about this? Where do you get yours? When I lived in NYC, I would get Fairway, as they had a really nice selection of their own oils. Now that I’m in Montgomery County Maryland, I haven’t yet found a specialty shop that has something I like. Is ANYTHING in a big grocer worth buying?
Get what you’re saying, but that’s also pretty good company you listed (Cirillo excepted, he had a couple good seasons but a meh career). Chipper I would imagine is a very good bet for the Hall and Rolen may eventually be if his body lets him go for a few more years. Matt Williams was terrible at getting on base and probbaly gets more hype than he should because of a few massive power years. Dawson-esque, although at a tougher position in the field. And not to be redundant, but Ventura did play his career in pitcher’s parks. I imagine his career line (.267/.362/.444) goes from very good to great if he gets some years in a favorable home park.
Regarding defense carrying a 3B in: Brooks Robinson? Not a bad hitter by any means, but without his defensive rep, is he in the Hall?
(Also, while I’m pretty sure there are acknowledged issues with WARP3, Ventura’s 108.8 would almost definitely indicate he should be in relative to position, especially when factoring in a relatively short career for Hall standards.)
That’s totally understandable. It’s not my scene either, though I will be watching with great interest, pride and joy.
At the same time I also understand someone feeling the need to be there in person. Judging by the attendance projections and your own comments, there are plenty of people who fall into that category.
The only argument that has really compelled me to attend the inauguration is the whole, “You can tell your kids you were there when he was inaugurated,” which seemed cool in a certain way. Then I realize I never once asked any of my parents (or any elder of mine, for that matter) where they were during an inauguration. Granted, this carries with it a special significance, but I still don’t know saying that I was 10 rows deep from the street as some black cars rolled by is something to brag about.
This isn’t knocking people who are going. Power to them, and I’m sure it will be an event to be remembered. But I think I’ll stay home in the warmth and catch it on HD
Your premise (if I understand correctly) is that a salary cap would keep ticket prices down.
This premise is faulty because of a thing we like to call capitalism. There is nothing tying the cost of tickets to the cost of players. In fact, there IS something tying the cost of the players to the cost of the tickets. (A implies B but that doesn’t mean B implies A)
The market value for MLB tickets has been set. People know exactly how much they’re willing to pay for baseball tickets. If there were all of a sudden a salary cap implemented, do you think that would CHANGE how much people would pay for tickets? No that’s illogical!
Example: I personally am willing to pay about $10 per game (Pujols pack of 10 games for ~100 bucks is a deal!) This is because I’m a law student with a big fat pile of debt. Tomorrow if baseball institutes a salary cap, am I going to CHANGE what I’m willing to pay? No. The same thing goes for someone who is willing to buy a luxury
(Ugh, my mouse on my laptop clicked… and well you get the picture)
box.
The owners KNOW that the market value of tickets is set too. That means that if they get a salary cap and all of a sudden they get to spend 10% less on salaries, they make a windfall of 10%! Where is their incentive to reduce ticket prices? The demand in many markets is already through the roof!
Boston has sold out the last 5 seasons worth of baseball. Why would they even consider reducing prices when the demand is already above the supply?
The only teams that would even consider reducing ticket prices are teams that don’t draw attendance. And if you aren’t drawing attendance, odds are the players on the field are driving that more than the price of the ticket. The only reason owners should ever lower ticket prices is if they are not filling the seats simply because the cost is too high. That has nothing to do with how much the players are being paid.
My point wasn’t that a salary cap would keep ticket prices down. What I was saying was that if MLB were to cap ticket prices at a specific number and have it increase at the same rate as inflation, much like social security, it would in turn control salaries and put revenues on a slightly more equal footing. Think about every city that a baseball team plays in, do you think it would be impossible for Miami, San Diego, Kansas City, etc to attract 40,000 to a baseball stadium? I don’t think so. If a team is run well and successful, more people would be willing to see the team. However, it’s easier for a city like New York and Boston to charge an average of $40-$50 per ticket because there are more people capable of paying the price. If all teams had to charge no more than, say, $25 as an AVERAGE price (obviously the better the seat, the higher the price) then it would create a more equal playing field. Granted a New York team has certain advantages that are impossible to get around, but the game will never be equal.
This would also keep salaries from exploding at the current rate (obviously now due, in part to the economy, spending is down).
That said, baseball revenues are in the multiple billion dollars and that number is unlikely to drop anytime soon. As I said in my initial comment, I would never turn down a pay raise and I don’t expect anyone else to either. However, at what point is it too much? Is it currently considered okay for CEOs of companies to take in multi million dollar bonuses to “keep them motivated”? Or Golden Parachutes for doing a sub-par job?
It all comes down to supply and demand. The point at which it is too much is a decision that each ticket buying person or business must decide for themselves. With the devastation on Wall Street and New Yorkers losing jobs at an alarming rate, it will be interesting to see the impact on attendance at the new stadiums. If the Yankees draw 4,000,000 fans, you can expect them to spend again next offseason like they did this. On the other hand, if they draw 2.5M, 1/3 of their suites are empty and advertising revenues drop on their TV and radio networks, they may have to reign in their spending. Imposing caps on how much a free market business can charge for their product or how much an employee can earn is not the answer.
I know it is somewhat off topic, but I find it very interesting that so many come down hard on the Yankees for getting public money to build their stadium and for spending so much money on players in these tough economic times while no one comes down hard on the Twins, who received public money as part of building their stadium and they pocketed the money instead of using it to buy better players. It is bad enough – including what happened in my home state of PA to build 2 football and 2 baseball stadiums – that these billionaires are receiving public hand-outs to build larger, better revenue producing stadiums. At least the Yankees are using the money to try to put the best product possible on the field.
The Yankees are the easiest target because they spend the most, which is because they put more of their profits towards the team. As oppose to a lot of the teams receiving funds from the revenue sharing that pocket the money. I only used them as an example because they’re the most obvious choice. I’m not going to talk about the outrageous ticket prices the Twins are charging because, compared to the Yankees, it’s not outrageous. Then again, it would be interesting to compare the average family’s income of each city and compare it to ticket prices to see where they all stand. For all we know, the Yankees could be charging the most reasonable ticket price compared to the income of the local residents (minus those $2500 tickets).
Hey Keith, thanks for answering my question twice in your chat today, lol
Anyways wanted to ask you if you’ve had a chance to watch the MLB Network yet, if you get it that is. If so any chance you could give us your thoughts on it?
So far I’ve really enjoyed its programs, although I think they could use a baseball analyst like you or Rob Neyer (although that’s not possible since you both are employeed by ESPN), or heck just about anyone that has an understanding in regards to sabermetrics. I’m pulling for a Joe Poz appearance.
The former players do a nice job (HR, Larkin, Leiter) but is there any retired player that they don’t think deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? My god.
I have not watched it – I don’t think I’m really the target audience for this programming.
I get to pick out questions I like and stick them in a queue so that they don’t get lost in the shuffle and somehow I queued you twice without realizing it. At least I didn’t give two different answers.
Thoughts on the Youkilis extension? I know that when you sign a long-term contract when you’re still arb-eligible, you’re giving up money, but $40 mil still seems a bit low, especially when losing 2 FA years.
Keith can you please tell us, your true fans, the Ricky story you couldn’t tell on ESPN? We know you aren’t racist, and trust you.
Klaw magni,
Wonderful chat, as always. And I simply cannot let your use of the plural “stadia” go unacknowledged; mazel tov!
Is Thomas Mann a writer who interests you at all? (That is the proper choice of pronoun for with the antecedent “writer,” is it not?) I’ve read a few of his novels and stories (John E. Woods being the fine translator of the novels – mein Deutsch muss sich aber viel verbessern, um Mann lesen zu koennen) and have been consistently awed, and I even enjoy on the intellectual masturbation of characters like Settembrini and Naphta. Wow, what a pointlessly meandering sentence that was.
Thanks for everything – always enjoy reading you!
VALE.
Francis the “tenure” story is on Rickey’s wikipedia page towards the bottom.
The varying versions of that “tenure” story (I was told he said, “Rickey got fifteen year!” with emphasis on the singular “year”) and the fact that I am not 100% sure who told me the story made me unwilling to repeat it on the site. I didn’t mean to open up the can of race-worms, but there you go.
The Magic Mountain is one of about fifty books in my current to-be-read queue.
Keith, any hopes of getting my Ventura question answered in this forum? Very good hitter (in pitchers’ parks throughout his career), plus glove, very shallow position …
Did not see that question, Dave. Ventura for HoF?
Ventura had a nice career but I can’t imagine a HOF with him in it. From 1989 to 2004 (Ventura’s career), there were 68 times in which a guy played 50% or more of his games at third base and had 100 runs created (as defined by Baseball-Reference). Ventura had two of those. Chipper Jones had six (and five of the top 11); Scott Rolen had seven. Jeff Cirillo had four. Ventura was a good defender but so was Rolen; they have pretty much identical FRAA and Rolen isn’t retired yet (though of course he could step backwards). So Ventura might have a case as the best 3B defender of his time (if not by much), but has that ever gotten anyone into the Hall on its own? And his offense gets overshadowed by too many other guys at the position in the same general time period to make him stand out, I think.
(If you don’t like RC, Ventura had just one of the top 40 OPS+ seasons by at least half-time third basemen between ’89 and ’04, and it was #40. He again comes up short to Jones and Rolen, and also looks a lot like Matt Williams, who of course just dropped right off the ballot. Ventura had a better career, but I don’t think it was THAT much better.)
Hi Keith,
I tried e-mailing on ESPN.com but the link isn’t working, so this will have to suffice. Based on what I have read of yours, I’m pretty sure you’ll find my comment ignorant or just plain naive. That said, I will ask none the less.
Regarding a salary cap, it’s obvious that capping salaries and total payroll is playing into the owner’s pockets, and actually quite un-American. What other profession do you hear public outcry regarding high salaries (CEOs now with the economy, but nothing to the extent of ball players)? Would you be upset if ESPN raised your salary? Anyway, especially considering the economy as it is, what if there were a payroll/salary cap PLUS a ticket cap that followed the inflation rate. Just like social security, the salaries, payroll, and ticket prices go up with inflation instead of the incredible rise in both ticket prices and salaries that has exceeded inflation by an unimaginable number. This way, while MLB would bring in less revenue (which is why it would never, ever, ever happen like this) the money wouldn’t be going back into the pockets of owners. Instead people would be able to afford to go to a game. I don’t really mind the $2500.00 seats at the new Yankee stadium considering it’s just some faceless corporation buying those seats, but wouldn’t it make more sense to let actual baseball fans get the opportunity to have a nice seat?
One thing I don’t understand though is why the players union, like any other union faced with a similar problem, would ever agree to a cap? I keep hearing that if the owner’s made certain concessions that players might agree to at least a soft cap. But right now players, especially the top players, rely on the fact that large payroll teams can jump into the bidding at any time (ala Tex with the NYY). If the payrolls were capped at, say, $150 million, and the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox were already at that number, how much would Tex possibly have gotten for an offer? 50% of what he got? 60%?
Like I said at the beginning, I’m sure you’ll find this quite ignorant or naive, but I know that going in. And I know anything that would lower revenues for MLB would be shot down. But as a theory, do you like the idea? And if so, can you think of a way to tie ticket prices and payroll caps together that would also increase MLB revenues?
Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back from you.
Tim
Tim,
I’m not trying to be brash here, but I don’t know why (understand any circumstances) any employee would accept a capped salary from their employer. Unless the players union was completely against the wall, the union wouldnt accept any sort of cap. I don’t blame them, I sure as hell wouldn’t from my employer.
I don’t buy the owners argument and I really have trouble buying the fans argument. By fans argument I mean the the premise of “if our team was good we would show up to the games. We’re not paying good money to watch a bad team and the cap would level the playing field and allow us small market teams to compete and win games.” Tampa Bay had a great season from start to finish and were geniunely exciting to watch. They averaged 22 thousand fans per game. A salary cap would change that?
Part of the problem is there are teams in cities that simply don’t have the population to put 50k people in the stands everynight. I don’t want to rid the league of small market teams, but a salary cap wouldn’t change that.
Just my opinion, might be flawed.
-Chuck
Or put another way, if the teams can get $300 for a front row seat between the dugouts, why would they ever reduce that price? Even if payroll was cut in half, why would it ever make sense for them to throw money away like that? The bottom line is that ticket prices drive player salaries, not the other way around.
As for looking at industries where people complain that workers make too much money, look no further than the US auto industry. The federal bailout has given every wish-I-were-WFB the opportunity to slam the UAW, but I haven’t seen the same vehemence targeted at the upper management who decided to bet the farm on $50/barrel oil.
Personally I am not in favor of salary caps even though in English Soccer it is becoming a bit predictable as the league table is ordered with minor exceptions by money. However I an a neutral who loves the game and would rather see the best players in England that result.
However MLB has things that create a better balance: the game itself is more variable: play off championship: the unpredictability of pitching from game to game never mind season to season: no meaningful international market for the top players to go elsewhere.
I think it helps baseball to have a variety of teams of different sizes and philosophies. Sure some cannot compete every year but watching the Mets and Yanks spend into a cul de sac and then go in again and try again is fun.
I know even as a Jays fan I cannot wait to see how New York, Sox and Rays go next year.
The tenure story was in ‘Feeding the Monster. I’m not sure if Mnookin got a firsthand account or not though.
Keith, two things —
1) I did a study two or three years ago, which I really ought to update and publish goddamit!, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that hitters perform differently with RISP than otherwise. E-mail me if you’re interested in the details.
2) You have very fine taste in literature and your lack of familiarity with the best literary science fiction is only detracting from your joy in life. Try _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_ and _The Book of the New Sun_ by Gene Wolfe (who has been called the greatest living English language writer, and I wouldn’t disagree), _Engine Summer_ by John Crowley, _Dhalgren_ by Samuel R. Delany, and _The Dispossessed_ by Ursula K. Le Guin for starters. (And given your #1 choice and the inclusion of both _Brave New World_ and _1984_, I’m shocked at the omission of Yevgeny Zamyatin’s _We_ (if you haven’t read it, the Clarence Brown translation is the best, according to a team of Russian speakers and translators).
Saying Catcher in the Rye was “somewhat self-absorbed” is like saying RBIs are a somewhat overrated stat. I’ve always considered Holden one of the most insufferable characters I’ve ever come across in literature.
Highly enjoyable chat, as always.
KLaw,
What are your thoughts on the writing of David Foster Wallace? I doubt you’ve spent the time on Infinite Jest but what about his non-fiction? Clearly he was always the smartest guy in the room and he tops my list of greatest writers born after 1950. Where do you rank him?
Keith,
Does Andruw Jones to the Yankees on an incentive-laden deal make any sense? Seems that he could man CF and allow them to deal Melky and/or weak bat until Jackson is ready at the big league level. I suppose they would have to keep him away from the buffet for this to work out. Also to that end, is there any precedent for a “weight incentive” in contracts where the team can terminate if the player packs on the lbs, but the player would receive additional $$ for certain fitness/weight benchmarks? I assume the union would be highly opposed and agents wouldn’t let their clients sign such a deal, but in cases like Andruw’s, seems like it would mitigate a good bit of the risk.
If none of this is possible/likely, is a minor league deal the other option?
Remember who the narrator is in Catcher in the Rye and how old he is supposed to be. I think this explains the self-absorbed nature of the prose.
I for one, have read it multiple times, although never before the age of 21. I try to break it out once every 5-6 years to see how my reaction to the characters has changed as I’ve aged.
Keith,
I’ve been thinking about this on and off since yesterday and it’s still nagging at me so…
In your chat you said something to the effect that you can’t fathom why anyone would want to attend the Obama inauguration.
I can understand you not having any interest in being there. I gather that you didn’t vote for him (or did so but with a great deal of reluctance). But can you really not imagine why another person would want to be there in person?
Rob, I do recognize why many people consider it a great book and love it so much, and I understand that there is reason for the self-absorption. With that said, I did read it in 9th grade, at approximately the same age as the narrator, and I found him insufferable then.
Eric, I’d certainly be interested in that study, because I was under the impression that other studies have proven fairly conclusively that there is little difference in hitters’ performance based on the situation. I’d just like to see both sides before I draw a conclusion myself. Logically, I don’t think it makes a great deal of sense to imagine certain players doing better in high pressure situations – as many have said, why don’t they do that well all the time, if they can? However, it does seem possible that certain players would handle the pressure better than others and thus be able to maintain their full abilities better in high pressure situations. Likewise, I can see the argument that certain players become less focused and thus perform at below their best in blowouts.
Todd,
I live in the DC area, happily voted for Obama, and you couldn’t pay me to go to the inauguration. In fact, I’m purposely leaving town this weekend. It’s going to be insanely crowded, almost impossible to navigate the city due to security concerns (many streets, bridges, and metro stops are being closed off), and the temperature is not supposed to get above freezing. Throw in a severe shortage of public toilets and, all in all, it sounds pretty miserable.
Re: Catcher in the Rye-
I read it as a teenager and felt the same way. When I read it again when I was older, I had a much firmer grasp of the character and the point of the novel. That’s not to say your characterization of him is inaccurate; rather, it’s one that can be more easily understood and even identified with as an adult.
Re: Olive Oil
I recently wandered into a fancy, high-end olive oil store (O & Co.). Their pitch was insufferable for a variety of reasons, but they kept talking about this worldwide olive oil conspiracy, particularly with regards to how even supposed high-end olive oil is often full of synthetics and that olive oil is like wine and should taste/look slightly different from year to year and batch to batch if it is genuinely pure. I don’t know if I bought it, since it was a great way for them to make sales, and I haven’t found any information elsewhere on it, but I also wouldn’t be shocked if SOME of it is true.
I know you are a big fan of olive oil. Do you know anything about this? Where do you get yours? When I lived in NYC, I would get Fairway, as they had a really nice selection of their own oils. Now that I’m in Montgomery County Maryland, I haven’t yet found a specialty shop that has something I like. Is ANYTHING in a big grocer worth buying?
Mr. Megatons,
Get what you’re saying, but that’s also pretty good company you listed (Cirillo excepted, he had a couple good seasons but a meh career). Chipper I would imagine is a very good bet for the Hall and Rolen may eventually be if his body lets him go for a few more years. Matt Williams was terrible at getting on base and probbaly gets more hype than he should because of a few massive power years. Dawson-esque, although at a tougher position in the field. And not to be redundant, but Ventura did play his career in pitcher’s parks. I imagine his career line (.267/.362/.444) goes from very good to great if he gets some years in a favorable home park.
Regarding defense carrying a 3B in: Brooks Robinson? Not a bad hitter by any means, but without his defensive rep, is he in the Hall?
(Also, while I’m pretty sure there are acknowledged issues with WARP3, Ventura’s 108.8 would almost definitely indicate he should be in relative to position, especially when factoring in a relatively short career for Hall standards.)
(Nice use of two different versions of the word “relative” in one sentence, eh? I should proofread more.)
Kenric,
That’s totally understandable. It’s not my scene either, though I will be watching with great interest, pride and joy.
At the same time I also understand someone feeling the need to be there in person. Judging by the attendance projections and your own comments, there are plenty of people who fall into that category.
Todd, Kenric, and others-
The only argument that has really compelled me to attend the inauguration is the whole, “You can tell your kids you were there when he was inaugurated,” which seemed cool in a certain way. Then I realize I never once asked any of my parents (or any elder of mine, for that matter) where they were during an inauguration. Granted, this carries with it a special significance, but I still don’t know saying that I was 10 rows deep from the street as some black cars rolled by is something to brag about.
This isn’t knocking people who are going. Power to them, and I’m sure it will be an event to be remembered. But I think I’ll stay home in the warmth and catch it on HD
This is for Tim (a few posts above):
Your premise (if I understand correctly) is that a salary cap would keep ticket prices down.
This premise is faulty because of a thing we like to call capitalism. There is nothing tying the cost of tickets to the cost of players. In fact, there IS something tying the cost of the players to the cost of the tickets. (A implies B but that doesn’t mean B implies A)
The market value for MLB tickets has been set. People know exactly how much they’re willing to pay for baseball tickets. If there were all of a sudden a salary cap implemented, do you think that would CHANGE how much people would pay for tickets? No that’s illogical!
Example: I personally am willing to pay about $10 per game (Pujols pack of 10 games for ~100 bucks is a deal!) This is because I’m a law student with a big fat pile of debt. Tomorrow if baseball institutes a salary cap, am I going to CHANGE what I’m willing to pay? No. The same thing goes for someone who is willing to buy a luxury
(Ugh, my mouse on my laptop clicked… and well you get the picture)
box.
The owners KNOW that the market value of tickets is set too. That means that if they get a salary cap and all of a sudden they get to spend 10% less on salaries, they make a windfall of 10%! Where is their incentive to reduce ticket prices? The demand in many markets is already through the roof!
Boston has sold out the last 5 seasons worth of baseball. Why would they even consider reducing prices when the demand is already above the supply?
The only teams that would even consider reducing ticket prices are teams that don’t draw attendance. And if you aren’t drawing attendance, odds are the players on the field are driving that more than the price of the ticket. The only reason owners should ever lower ticket prices is if they are not filling the seats simply because the cost is too high. That has nothing to do with how much the players are being paid.
Douglasbox,
My point wasn’t that a salary cap would keep ticket prices down. What I was saying was that if MLB were to cap ticket prices at a specific number and have it increase at the same rate as inflation, much like social security, it would in turn control salaries and put revenues on a slightly more equal footing. Think about every city that a baseball team plays in, do you think it would be impossible for Miami, San Diego, Kansas City, etc to attract 40,000 to a baseball stadium? I don’t think so. If a team is run well and successful, more people would be willing to see the team. However, it’s easier for a city like New York and Boston to charge an average of $40-$50 per ticket because there are more people capable of paying the price. If all teams had to charge no more than, say, $25 as an AVERAGE price (obviously the better the seat, the higher the price) then it would create a more equal playing field. Granted a New York team has certain advantages that are impossible to get around, but the game will never be equal.
This would also keep salaries from exploding at the current rate (obviously now due, in part to the economy, spending is down).
That said, baseball revenues are in the multiple billion dollars and that number is unlikely to drop anytime soon. As I said in my initial comment, I would never turn down a pay raise and I don’t expect anyone else to either. However, at what point is it too much? Is it currently considered okay for CEOs of companies to take in multi million dollar bonuses to “keep them motivated”? Or Golden Parachutes for doing a sub-par job?
Tim
Tim,
It all comes down to supply and demand. The point at which it is too much is a decision that each ticket buying person or business must decide for themselves. With the devastation on Wall Street and New Yorkers losing jobs at an alarming rate, it will be interesting to see the impact on attendance at the new stadiums. If the Yankees draw 4,000,000 fans, you can expect them to spend again next offseason like they did this. On the other hand, if they draw 2.5M, 1/3 of their suites are empty and advertising revenues drop on their TV and radio networks, they may have to reign in their spending. Imposing caps on how much a free market business can charge for their product or how much an employee can earn is not the answer.
I know it is somewhat off topic, but I find it very interesting that so many come down hard on the Yankees for getting public money to build their stadium and for spending so much money on players in these tough economic times while no one comes down hard on the Twins, who received public money as part of building their stadium and they pocketed the money instead of using it to buy better players. It is bad enough – including what happened in my home state of PA to build 2 football and 2 baseball stadiums – that these billionaires are receiving public hand-outs to build larger, better revenue producing stadiums. At least the Yankees are using the money to try to put the best product possible on the field.
Why is the tenure story considered to be inappropriate and will open a racial debate?
Because it’s clearly built on assumptions about how African-Americans talk. To me, that’s not appropriate.
Fair enough. Thanks.
H,
The Yankees are the easiest target because they spend the most, which is because they put more of their profits towards the team. As oppose to a lot of the teams receiving funds from the revenue sharing that pocket the money. I only used them as an example because they’re the most obvious choice. I’m not going to talk about the outrageous ticket prices the Twins are charging because, compared to the Yankees, it’s not outrageous. Then again, it would be interesting to compare the average family’s income of each city and compare it to ticket prices to see where they all stand. For all we know, the Yankees could be charging the most reasonable ticket price compared to the income of the local residents (minus those $2500 tickets).
Tim