Stick to baseball, 4/1/23.

Since the last roundup, I’ve written three new posts for subscribers to the Athletic – my annual predictions post, my first dispatch from spring training (mostly Cactus League), my annual breakout player picks, and a draft blog post on three potential first-rounders from Wake Forest and Miami.

Over at Paste, I reviewed the cooperative game Paint the Roses, which has simple rules but poses a difficult deductive challenge for players, working best with three or more.

I appeared on the streaming Scripps News Network to talk about why major-league salaries keep rising while minor leaguers’ haven’t, although this was recorded and aired before the recent CBA announcement.

My podcast will return now that my spring training travel is over, with David Grann lined up as my next guest. I did send out a new edition of my free email newsletter about two weeks ago.

And now, the links…

Comments

  1. Graham’s article would be a tad more persuasive if he spent more than a sentence or two mentioning the actual changes to the Democratic Party since Obama. As usual, Freddie DeBoer is one of the few on the left who takes this issue head on:

    https://open.substack.com/pub/freddiedeboer/p/of-course-you-know-what-woke-means?r=1ju3r&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

    Too many on the left spend so much time dancing around any hot topic nowadays and as a result, too often let the right win the narrative with their twisted, distorted b.s.

    • Thank you for the link.

      I remember ’08 well and am sometimes shocked at how unproductive political discourse on the left has become in 15 years.

  2. Can’t believe Milkshake Duck didn’t make the list; I guess you could argue it’s more reflective of Twitter Narratives than the crossover to wider news/politics that most of these tweets exhibit.

  3. Brian In ahwatukee

    Did you review blind assassin by Atwood? I saw a note about it in American pastoral but was confused by that.

  4. I’m consistently puzzled by fact that law enforcement organizations aren’t supporting stricter gun control measures….after all, its law enforcement officers who are arguably most at risk from armed private citizens.

    • Perhaps they do not see it that way.

      I would think that armed, trained police officers are less likely to be victims of any sort of violence than untrained, unarmed citizens are. Especially when they have access to Kevlar vests and other tactical gear that ordinary citizens generally lack.

      I’m not actually advocating any particular position here. I’m merely trying to give a possible explanation for Law enforcement’s hesitance to embrace stricter gun control laws. (If that’s actually the case; I did not fact check this at all. I’m taking your assertion at face value for the sake of discussion.)

      Do we have any firm statistical information about how law enforcement generally feels about gun control legislation?

      Because if it’s true that law enforcement is not supportive of such legislation, maybe we should all ask some important questions, rather than expressing bewilderment. If what you say is accurate, I would hypothesize that the law enforcement community does not feel that the various proposed gun control laws would have the intended effect. As you said, why else wouldn’t they support such efforts?

    • My lazy, uninformed take — we’re so many years into anti gun control measures that most of today’s police do not remember a time when guns weren’t omnipresent. Hence, they enter the force easy to convince (also via siloed media consumption) that the police/public relationship is inherently adversarial and dangerous, and also that the ability to “protect” oneself in their off-hours is paramount to any other consideration. This arms race mentality also serves to gussy them up in military-style tactical gear, which they like. A lot. They are fully in their element in the current environment.

    • I agree that we have a serious problem in this country with gun violence (and violence in general). And a lot of other problems. I wish I had some good solutions.

      I do believe people should be allowed to defend their homes and their families, and that isn’t easy to do with a steak knife or pepper spray.

      So, until I am willing to provide personal home security for [some person]. I am not going to try to dictate to [some person] what [some person] can and cannot possess to defend [some person’s] home and family.

      Because, ultimately, if bad people are in the house attempting to do harm, most people are going to call the police and hope the police show up in time. In other words, they are going to call people with guns to solve the problem. That’s fine – for them. Others would rather eliminate that time delay and be the person with the firearm already in place to try to deal with the bad people before anyone gets hurt.

      Taking a simplistic view of things, when a vioe held accountable for severe errors even when those errors result in the death of pets or innocent people. lent crime occurs against a random victim, it means the police were unable or unwilling to get there in time to stop the crime. And that happens a lot.

      Not to mention, sometimes the police actually do bad things when they show up. They’re only human, and they make mistakes. I can see why some people would not want the police anywhere near their property, especially since they generally do not appear to b

    • That got cut off for some reason.

      Especially since they generally do not appear to be held accountable for their severe errors, even when those errors result in the death of pets or innocent people.

  5. Brian in SoCal

    Something I’ve been saying for the past several years, apropos of baseball and the “socialism”/”wokeness” observation:

    Analytics is like socialism. They’re both terms where millions of Americans have no idea what the terms actually mean, but they know they’re against them.