→ August 2, 2019
→ By

Amity and Prosperity.

If you’ve heard of fracking at all, it’s probably for bad reasons; the practice of fracturing rocks to free and capture natural gas has caused substantial environmental damage, from earthquakes to groundwater contamination to air pollution, across wide swaths of the Midwest, down through Oklahoma and Texas. The practice was once hailed as a way for the United States to achieve energy independence, or at least reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East, and was even embraced by some Democrats, including Barack Obama, who would have said in the next breath that they favored policies to protect the environment.

Eliza Griswold’s Amity and Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America documents the horrendous effects of fracking on one town, Amity, in western Pennsylvania, where the drilling company Range Resources ran amok, ignoring environmental regulations or simply lobbying the state to alter them, sickening local residents – possibly to the point of causing cancer – and making multiple homes unlivable. She reported for eight years on this story, getting close to two mothers in the area in particular whose children and animals were sickened by groundwater and air pollution from Range’s fracking and mishandling of waste materials, and won this year’s Pulitzer Prize for Non-Fiction for this book. No Range executives were fined or charged; the company was only modestly fined, despite violations of environmental regulations and false claims in its advertising; and the homeowners most adversely affected received a pittance after years of litigation against Range and Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection.

The story all takes place in the northern Appalachian region, atop the Marcellus Shale formation of sedimentary rock, which it turns out contains a large quantity of natural gas that must be retrieved via hydraulic fracturing, now called “fracking” for short. This involves the high-pressure injection of a slurry of water, sand or other proppants, and various additional chemicals to hold the fractures open, reduce friction, lubricate the drill bit, prevent scale deposit buildup, or serve other purposes. The result of the process, in addition to copious supplies of natural gas, is a lot of wastewater that can contain hydrogen sulfide, ethylene glycol, arsenic (released from the rock that has been fractured), and other chemicals or elements that are harmful to human health when ingested or inhaled. The national desire for cheap domestic energy sources, the (mistaken?) belief that natural gas could serve as a “transitional” fuel between coal/oil and renewable energy sources, and extensive lobbying by the oil and gas industry have led to a regulatory environment that is, to a large extent, dictated by the companies the agencies, including Pennsylvania’s toothless DEP, are supposed to be monitoring and sanctioning. The DEP, in this case, was defanged by Democratic governor Ed Rendell, then further hamstrung by Republican governor Tom Corbett and the GOP-controlled legislature, which passed a law that was likely written in large part by the oil and gas lobby; it should surprise no one that the DEP completely whiffed on the Range fracking endeavor in the Marcellus shale region, but it should surprise and enrage you to hear that lawyers for the company and the agency worked together in the lawsuits filed by the sickened homeowners.

Fracking continues largely unabated in states controlled by the Republican Party, which touts their job-creation potential (and that isn’t in dispute) and potential to provide cheap energy from within our borders, although many, many Democratic politicians have gone along with fracking for their own reasons. What is clear, however, is that the process requires substantial regulation if it could ever be made safe for citizens anywhere in the vicinity of the wells. Any drilling within a mile of community water sources puts the water at risk of contamination, and that’s even if the fracking company handles its waste water correctly. Range, according to Griswold, used open waste “ponds” to store its toxic sludge, didn’t line them properly, and then ignored evidence of leaking while fighting any effort to get them to take responsibility. (Several Range executives Griswold named not only escaped any accountability, but have since moved on to better jobs in the industry.) One of the two mothers Griswold profiles, Stacey, kept diligent notes on the appearance of foul odors in the air (hydrogen sulfide, like the smell of rotten eggs, which can indicate bacterial contamination as well) and the increasing illnesses of her kids, one of whom missed a year of school because of fracking pollution, and the deaths of many of her animals. Yet despite all of this evidence, the state of Pennsylvania tried to pass a law, some of which was struck down by the state Supreme Court (but not all!), that would have prevented local governments from banning or regulating fracking in their area; prevented doctors from discussing poisoning cases possibly caused by fracking with each other; and excluded private water wells from pollution/leakage notification requirements.

Griswold’s telling of this story is fundamentally humanist – she never, at any point, loses sight of the people suffering from Range’s actions, the people who reside at the heart of the book – but it is also very much a story of institutional failure. Pennsyvlania, which was gerrymandered into another dimension, let many of its citizens down in the most basic way. We take certain government protections for granted, yet here, the people who were supposed to be protecting the state’s water, air, and land resources – it’s one of only three states with an environmental rights amendment to its state constitution – did no such thing; at best, they looked the other way when Range wanted to drill and frack, and at worst, they aided and abetted the polluters, including helping them fight against the state’s own citizens when the latter tried to assert their rights under the amendment. It bears repeating: Pennsylvania didn’t just do nothing. They worked against their own citizens. If you live there, you should be angry. If you live anywhere in the United States, but especially somewhere where there’s fracking, you should be angry. Once this garbage is in the groundwater, entire towns will become unlivable, maybe for generations. If you’re cool with wide swaths of Oklahoma looking like the Love Canal, I guess that’s your choice, but I wasn’t okay with it before I read Amity and Prosperity and I sure as hell am not okay with it now.

Next up: Jeff Vandermeer’s Annihilation, the story of how he threw two consecutive no-hitters.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
→ July 31, 2019
→ By

Raiders of the North Sea.

The tabletop game Raiders of the North Sea was the first of Shem Phillips’ series of worker placement games that will reach its fifth title this fall with the release of Paladins of the West Kingdom, and earned a Kennerspiel des Jahres nomination in 2017, two years after its initial appearance. (I didn’t review or rank it that year because it wasn’t actually a new title; release dates in the board game world are a nebulous thing, and I’m sure I’ve missed titles here and there because of it.) Each game in the series, which includes three North Sea games and now two West Kingdom titles, has some different quirk in how you place or use your meeples, part of how Phillips has managed to extend one theme over so many different titles.

Raiders of the North Sea now has a gorgeous app adaptation from Dire Wolf Digital, makers of the app versions of Lanterns and Lotus as well as the digital card game Eternal (soon coming to tabletop), although I think the initial release of the app could use some updates. If you haven’t played the physical game, or like me had very little experience with it, it’s a great introduction to the title, but I did find that after a handful of plays I was too good for the one AI level included in the app.

Raiders of the North Sea

The Raiders board has two parts – the village where you’ll place meeples to recruit warriors, collect food, and exchange plunder for more food or for points; and the various harbors, outposts, and fortresses you’ll raid over the course of the game for points and glory. The big difference between this and most worker placement games is that all meeples are shared, and you get two actions on your turn: one when you place the meeple you had to start the turn somewhere in the village, then a second when you remove a meeple from another location in the village. Each location has a unique action, and you thus get two different actions on every turn when you do stuff in the village. Once you have enough warriors, food, and sometimes gold to go raiding, you instead use one meeple to go attack a specific location on the top of the board, taking the plunder shown on that space, gaining a different meeple, and possibly getting points if your warriors’ total strength exceeds the lowest listed value on the space. (You always get the plunder, even if you’re not strong enough.) Most spaces you’ll raid include one or more black skulls, which means you’ll have to sacrifice one of your warriors, sending them to Valhalla, when you attack.

The new app looks fantastic, and the animations for the attacks are particularly fun. Dire Wolf has taken all of the game’s distinctive artwork, animating some portions of it and pulling some of the character images off the cards to show who’s in your crew (as opposed to the characters still in your hand). Their decision to depict the board isometrically was brilliant; the physical board is big and quite long north to south, and the app only shows you a portion at a time – the village fits into a single screen, and then you can scroll up to see all of the potential targets for attacks.

I did have a few small technical issues, including occasional crashes when first loading and difficulty moving the meeple from the lower right corner of the screen to place it if I had the map oriented in a way that there was a village location too close to the same spot. The app only comes with one AI level right now, and I found it too easy, mostly because it would do suboptimal things like attack some targets without sufficient strength to garner points. I also would love a one-touch way to jump between the top and bottom halves of the board, as scrolling is awkward, and the app doesn’t automatically reset you to the village after an opponent attacks.

The app also comes with a campaign mode that includes multiple rules variants, most of which are fun and require you to think a little differently, although I don’t think the campaign bears playing more than once. It’s similar to the campaign mode in Jaipur, but those variants were good enough to try multiple times, while here I always felt like the variations were cool but not as good as the base game.

Games take 10-20 minutes against the AI, depending on how quickly you try to move to the top; I’ve found the long play is best for beating the current AI options, because they don’t try to rack up the largest bonuses up top. I am assuming/hoping some of the minor bugs will disappear with updates, along with a stronger AI option, because the way this app plays and looks is outstanding.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
→ July 30, 2019
→ By

Curios.

Curios, which will be released this week at Gen Con, is a fun trifle of a deduction game, playing two to five players in a very quick little game that asks you to bet on which of four ‘artifacts’ will prove most valuable based on the cards in y our hand and those you see. It’s a clever little idea that could probably have been built into a more significant game, but instead it’s a fast-playing filler.

The heart of Curios is a deck of sixteen cards in the four colors of the artifacts, showing the values 1, 3, 5, and 7 for each. Regardless of player count, the dealer sets up the game by dealing one random card from each color, face down, next to each artifact’s card, which will be the value of those artifacts when the game ends. Each player then gets some cards at random to start the game, the number depending on the player count, and will then place their tokens on each of the artifact cards to claim artifacts based on the values they deduce from the cards they hold and others revealed during the game. Once the supplies of two of the four artifacts are exhausted, the game ends; the four hidden values are revealed and players add up the values of the artifacts they’ve collected during the game.

Where the game goes a bit awry for me is in the way the players claim those artifacts. Each card has columns with one space, two, three, and four columns (two); to place your tokens on a card, you must fill the leftmost empty column. You start the game with five such tokens, so you run out of ways to bid on different artifacts very quickly in each round. When you fill a column on a card, you take one artifact of that color; when all players have placed all of their tokens (or can’t place any more), the player with the most tokens on each card gets a bonus artifact.

At the end of a round, each player may choose to reveal one of their hand cards and gain an extra token for the next round. The benefit of having an additional token probably justifies doing this, although by revealing a card you share useful information with other players; in a five-player game, you only get two cards apiece, so it may make more sense to hold one back there than in a two-player game, where you each get four cards. Regardless of player count, the way the columns work means you find it very hard to ‘bet’ on more than one artifact in a round, which means that you end up with a lot of luck involved in every game – maybe too much in a game of deduction, especially with five players. I think it’s ideal with three, and it works as well with two because you set up a neutral third deck of the remaining four cards and reveal one each round, and it’s pretty portable, so as a quick filler game for travel that can introduce novice players to deduction games, it’s fine, but I prefer deduction games that rely more on your mind and less on luck.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
→ July 29, 2019
→ By

The Vanishing Velázquez.

I’m largely a philistine when it comes to art, and was completely in the dark when it came to Diego Velázquez, a Spanish painter from the 1600s whose work remained tremendously influential into the 20th century. He is known for his ability to create illusions in two dimensions, for his brushworks, and for the complexity of his portraits. His work influenced painters whose names or work you probably do know, including Picasso, Dali, and Manet.

Velázquez’s magnum opus, now hanging in the Prado in Madrid, is Las Meninas, a complex scene that includes the young Infanta Margarita Teresa, the daughter of the Spanish King Philip IV; and the painter himself, at a canvas, looking out at the viewer. It is a complex image of various people, at least most of them real, in various poses and at varying distances from the viewer, a cross-section of personages at the royal palace that plays with light and focus to give the illusion of depth.

In the 1840s, a Reading, England, bookseller named John Snare purchased what he believed to be a previously unknown portrait of Charles Stuart, painted by Velázquez, at the era’s equivalent of a yard sale, paying a few pounds for a painting that should have been worth a few thousand. His story is the backbone of Observer art critic Laura Cumming’s book The Vanishing Velázquez: A 19th Century Bookseller’s Obsession with a Lost Masterpiece, in which Cumming intertwines what she could piece together of Snare’s tragic life with a history of Velázquez in general and Las Meninas in particular. It’s an interesting, erudite book that I also found intermittently confusing, as Cumming is so invested in explaining to us the importance of this still (I think) somewhat obscure Spanish painter – certainly his name and work are less known than Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, et alia – that she often loses track of Snare’s story. I was confused at several points about what paintings she was discussing, especially since, as was the custom of the time, Snare’s portrait of Charles Stuart was untitled.

Snare grabbed the painting at the country house auction, consulted a few experts, had the painting cleaned up, and concluded that he had a lost Velázquez. He exhibited the painting locally, taking a small fee for visitors to come see it, but kicked up two controversies that would eventually send him and the painting into exile. Two art critics decided, perhaps for the wrong reasons, that the painting wasn’t a Velázquez, but was by the Dutch painter Van Dyck or someone else less important in art history. The estate of the local earl, where the painting was presumed to have previously hung, decided to file a frivolous action against Snare, even seizing the painting briefly and forcing him to defend himself in court at great expense, a proceeding which Cumming can recount in some detail thanks to court records.

Snare eventually fled to the United States with the portrait, leaving his pregnant wife and three children behind, never to see them again. His exact reasons for doing so are unclear, and while he exhibited the painting in the United States, Cumming also can’t tell us what Snare did with the proceeds – he lived in impoverished circumstances in New York, so perhaps he sent the money back to England, but this is all speculation. He died around 1884 in New York, bequeathing the painting to his youngest son, Edward, who traveled to the United States to meet his father for the first time, but after the painting appeared at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1885, it vanished from sight and all records. It may still exist somewhere in a private collection, or even be stored somewhere, but its fate is unknown, and no images of the portrait survived either.

Cumming tells this story well enough given the paucity of source material, but she largely alternates chapters about Snare with those about Velázquez’s life, work, and masterpiece Las Meninas. The latter parts are informative, but I can’t say they’re interesting; even when she goes to great lengths to explain why the Spaniard’s work remains important and influential, without seeing the paintings – the book has fewer than a dozen images of his paintings, including Las Meninas and Juan de Pareja, a portrait of Velázquez’s slave who became his student and whom the painter granted his freedom – it’s hard to grasp Cumming’s finer points about brushstrokes or how the painter created the illusion of three dimensions on a canvas. Perhaps you need more of a foundation in art, or specifically in the type of baroque art in which Velázquez excelled, to fully appreciate this part of the story. I found myself a bit lost in these explanations, and for parts of the book was unsure which painting exactly Snare had found. I will say, at least, that Cumming made me want to see some of his work up close, and I’d especially love to see Las Meninas in person some day to appreciate a painting that Picasso tried to emulate in 58 separate sketches and that Manet called “perhaps the most astonishing piece of painting that has ever been made.”

Next up: Ira Levin’s A Kiss Before Dying.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ July 27, 2019
→ By

Stick to baseball, 7/27/19.

My two ESPN+ posts this week covered a slew of low-A and short-season prospects for the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, and Orioles, including Roansy Contreras and a third look at Grayson Rodriguez; and my wrapup of this year’s Under Armour game, full of high school prospects for the 2020 draft. I held a Klawchat on Thursday.

At the moment, it looks like I’ll be in Bristol on Wednesday for ESPN’s Trade Deadline special, driving home that night and flying out to Gen Con the following morning. That probably spikes a chat for this week, but I’ll return for one on the 7th or 8th.

You can still subscribe to my free email newsletter to get additional writing, typically of a more personal nature than what you find elsewhere. My deepest thanks to all of you who sent such kind replies to my most recent newsletter, and a seriously-fuck-off to the one guy who decided it was a good time to be an ass to me.

And now, the links…

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , ,
→ July 25, 2019
→ By

Klawchat 7/25/19.

Keith Law: Motives changing day to day. Klawchat.

Wilson Ramos: Do you think BVW pulls a Preller? The Mets have a solid number of controllable assets to trade, and they have time to rebuild a team around McNeil and Alonso.
Keith Law: He should pull a Preller, but McNeil is 27, likely to be 30 by the time this team is good again, and not someone you’re building around. I wonder what he’d be worth in trade, given his minimum salary and the high probability he’s peaking right now.

Matt: Prospect junkies seem to always be looking for the next mega prospect. On the heels of Guerrero and Franco, who do you see as the next fixation? Luciano? Someone else? Thanks.
Keith Law: There isn’t a next Franco or Vlad (or Tatis). There are some very good teenaged Latin American prospects in low-A and short-season, including Luciano, Ronny Mauricio, George Valera, and Diego Cartaya, and don’t sleep on Corbin Carroll.

Brian in Austin: Doesn’t it make more sense for the Rangers (indeed, any team in the same position), to just keep Minor and Lynn since they are signed beyond this year, as opposed to trading one or both for some middling prospect(s), which seems to be the only type of prospects teams trade anymore?
Keith Law: I doubt Minor gets traded for middling prospects. Lynn, maybe, but Minor is worth more than that.

Ker Pal: If you were running the Jays, would you trade Stroman or extend him? He’s only 28, appears willing to stay, and is the only MLB-caliber starter they have at the moment. Why deal him?
Keith Law: Because they need more than just him, and there isn’t much other pitching there in the majors or high minors beyond Pearson.

Greg P: In reading Joe Sheehan yesterday, he still seems to think the Giants should be sellers despite this recent hot streak. I tend to agree. What say you?
Keith Law: I completely agree with Joe.

Jim L: Do the Cubs have any internal options to help their playoff push or who should they target? Also, when are you going to The Athletic?
Keith Law: Seems like Alzolay in some role is the only internal help they’re likely to get. My contract with ESPN is up at the end of the year; I can’t tell you where I’ll be writing in 2020.

JT: Is the Nomar Mazara experience always going to be this boring, or should we have more appreciation for a consistent performer at his age?
Keith Law: Both of these things can be true at the same time.

JR: So, Jonah Fucking Keri, huh? Fuck him.
Keith Law: I might not have phrased it exactly the same way, but I agree with your sentiments.

Jerry: Have Whitley’s or Tucker’s ceilings taken a hit this year? Should the Astros be willing to deal either or both for a Syndergaard, Stroman, etc?
Keith Law: Ceilings, no. I certainly wonder if Whitley is truly healthy. Tucker would be my “good prospect most likely to be traded” for this year.

If only I could hit: I follow the Yankees so this may be true of other teams as well, but I’ve been struck at how well the AAA players employed this year in stints of varying length with NY have played. It made me wonder what percentage of Triple A players might be able to carve out a career if luck intervened, but otherwise might never get to the show. Do you have a sense of this? Thanks!
Keith Law: My inference, without hard evidence, is that the Yankees are doing something differently in evaluating players to bring in as AAA filler, and finding guys whom they can help make adjustments who can be productive essentially for free.

Scott: Miss you on Twitter but hope it’s helping your mental health. I was surprised to hear your personal news also but glad that is going well for you.
Keith Law: Thank you. I miss Twitter’s ability to catch me up on news quickly, but given the continued trash fire in my replies in my daily glances at it, I’m not sorry I took it off my phone.

Ryan: What are your thoughts on Dylan Cease? Results at the big league level have not been great so far. Can he be a top of the rotation guy?
Keith Law: I don’t think he was ever a top of the rotation guy … when he was throwing super hard, he couldn’t stay healthy. I get questions like this a lot, but I wonder why it’s always about “ace” or “top of rotation?” If he’s an above-average starter, that’s a huge win for the team – those guys cost a mint in trade or free agency. And I think Cease can be that, given time.

Chris: Thanks for doing these chats. If the Red Sox are still a few games out of the wildcard race by the trade deadline, should they trade some of the players on the last year of their contracts or hope that things turnaround with their rotation and bullpen for the remainder of the season?
Keith Law: I don’t know if they could get any real value from trading the Porcello types; given their market & owner expectations, they should probably ride it out.

Michael: Should Cleveland trade Bauer? Will they?
Keith Law: Yes. I’m not sure, but I would certainly do so.

Zihuatanejo: Will all of Ruiz, Smith, and May to still be in the Dodgers organization on August 1?
Keith Law: My guess is no. Ruiz feels most likely to be traded with Smith ready now and Cartaya looking like a GUY.

Jack: Was there any indication Tatis was this good when the White Sox traded him? I saw him the other day and he’s electric.
Keith Law: I’ve had him highly ranked since the trade, and I know the Padres couldn’t believe their luck in getting him.

j: Thoughts on Anthony Seigler?
Keith Law: Three major injuries in 13 months, and he’ll finish this year with just 54 pro games since he signed. He has ability but he needs at bats he hasn’t getting, and catchers who get hurt a lot are worrisome propositions.

Deke: An interesting thing to ponder: At this point, would you say Trump’s presidency has been better than you expected, about as bad as you expected, or even worse than you expected?
Keith Law: Worse.

JAS: How good can Tarik Skubal be? He’s really pitched well the past few weeks, and he’s at AA and dominating. Is he a top 100 candidate?
Keith Law: He is a real prospect, but not likely to see my top 100.

Dan: Ok, notwithstanding that the Rays subs were (probably?) done legally and had no bearing on the outcome- how much more bungling from Angel Hernandez can MLB possibly tolerate at this point? Is the ump union that powerful to protect someone so utterly incompetent? In any event, I at least hope he is not allowed within 500 miles of a postseason venue this October after his debacle last October.
Keith Law: I only saw this after the fact, but the umpires’ lack of preparation really showed, and I agree it reflects poorly on Hernandez in an objective sense – yeah, we all pick on him, because we think he’s bad at his job, but this was an actual failure.

Jay: Do the Yanks have enough to land Thor? I assume any package would have to center around Garcia.
Keith Law: Buster said to me on the BBTN podcast this morning that he can’t imagine the Wilpons trading Thor to the Bronx and risking having him turn into an ace. I agree. I mean, we know the Wilpons aren’t rational.

Adam: Please tell me it’s okay to buy in to Manuel Margot’s last 40 game sample size.
Keith Law: He’s always had a good eye and high contact rates; now he seems to be starting to turn more contact into times on base. I’m in.

Frank: If you are the Giants please tell me the right move is still to sell the desirable pieces and not make a push for a one game playoff. Logic would seem to say they are most likely more of the team of the first 80 games than the team of the last 20.
Keith Law: Absolutely. Outscored on the year, bunch of overperformers on the roster.

Gloria: How are the Dems so bad at this? They have literal sound bites of Mueller essentially calling Trump an un-indicted felon, plainly stating he obstructed justice and all the talk is on optics? And why did nobody ask him about Cohen and if Trump directed that behavior?
Keith Law: The leadership is bad at this, and when younger Democrats disagree with the “shoot self in foot” strategy, the leadership goes after the dissidents. The Keystone Kops were better at catching the bad guys.

ben: You flagged Leonardo Rodriguez as a sleeper a couple years ago. He’s had a great start in Aberdeen this year but is a little old for the level. Is he still a legit prospect worth watching?
Keith Law: I saw him again last night – he hasn’t progressed.

Mike: Kiriloff has had a few injuries this year, but all in all hasn’t been as dominant in 2019 even when healthy. Any cause for concern?
Keith Law: Zero cause. Still a star.
Keith Law: And his injury this year was to his wrist (two IL stints), which you would expect to sap some of his power and contact quality. So saying he’s “had a few injuries” (it was one injury, and one that affects hitter performance even after it heals) isn’t really fair to him.

Wander: What could the Mets get for Dom Smith— a prospect in the top 150ish? Rockies seem like a fit but I cant think of a player coming back who’d make sense, Freeland maybe?
Keith Law: I think he’s worth more than that although the Mets haven’t done much to support his value.

Adam: So, umm, the first unanimous baseball HOF’er is an unabashed Trump supporter? That’s…something.
Keith Law: I was pondering this – if the news, not just his Trump support but his alignment with an openly anti-Semitic evangelical pastor, had come out before the vote, would he not have been unanimous? I can’t say it would have stopped me from voting for him, but I think it would have stopped someone.

Billy Pilgrim: Should the Tigers call Rodgers up?s The guys they’re playing at catcher seem to lack a pulse.
Keith Law: He’s not the solution either.

Adam: How arrogant are front offices about their prospect development processes? When a struggling player leaves their system and succeeds (like Alex Dickerson), then turns around and “criticizes” the coaching of their prior team, do the teams re-evaluate their process or shrug such things off as an anomaly?
Keith Law: Depends on the people, right? Some folks take the criticism personally, some see it as a chance to improve. I’m not comfortable generalizing here.

Matt : If you are the GM of a team like the Giants or As who have real shots at the wild card but a low chance at a deep playoff run how would you handle the trade deadline? A shot at a play in game isn’t worth getting value on tradeable pieces, right?
Keith Law: I’d never give up prospects if I didn’t have a shot to win the division. More so for the Giants, who I think are a mirage.

Amir: As an Afghan American who still has family living in Kabul, hearing the President muse about wiping out 10 million Afghans is both frightening and infuriating. It also makes me all the more frustrated that Dem leadership refuses to start impeachment hearings; It’s like they don’t have the same sense of urgency as their constituents. Just needed to get that out.
Keith Law: It is maddening. A party that once had many policy positions I supported doesn’t give a shit about the country or the planet as long as they get conservative judges and tax cuts.

Gloria: Alzolay is hurt. Seems to be done for the year
Keith Law: Ah sorry, I missed that, thought he was supposed to return.

Pat D: Would you consider trading Garcia as part of a package for any of Stroman, Syndergaard or Bumgarner, even though the latter two are highly unlikely to end up in the Bronx for differing reasons?
Keith Law: I think they’d have to, but I’d probably only include him for Stroman, maybe Thor, not Bumgarner.
Keith Law: My guess is the Yanks trade from their next tier of pitching prospects – guys like Gil, Gomez, Contreras, etc.

Mike: Lewis Thorpe of the Twins intrigues me, he’s got pretty nice k:bb numbers in the minors. Can he be a mid rotation guy, or is he more back end rotation?
Keith Law: More back end, but I like him and root for him to give us an Australian player with enough impact to help grow the game.

Todd: Does Luis Gil have Deivi Garcia type upside?
Keith Law: You couldn’t pick two more different players. Both prospects, but Gil is at least five inches taller, with more velocity and spin, more physical, without Deivi’s deception or mix of offspeed.

Trace: Were/Are you friends with Jonah Keri and what are your thoughts on that situation? It seems as if the baseball community has been quiet about that
Keith Law: I knew him but was not friends with him. I don’t agree the baseball community has been quiet – I’ve seen criticism all over. Julie DiCaro weighed in pretty early. Craig Calcaterra did. Jay Jaffe commented. Every site that used him cut ties right away.

danny: Did I hear you actually gag when Buster said Angel Hernandez’s name on the podcast today?
Keith Law: I laughed.

Big Fan: Is there any merit to Austin Riley going back down to AAA, or does he need to be at the MLB to figure out the adjustments he needs to make?
Keith Law: I think he’ll just go beat up AAA pitchers again.

Sage: Addison Russell days as a Major League Cub over?
Keith Law: Fine with me!

GJ: Went to Pizzeria Bianco this week before the O’s/Diamondbacks game based on your recommendation. Needless to say it was awesome! Do you believe in the resurgence of Corey Sedlock? Former first rounder finally healthy and pitching well. Future starter or bullpen piece?
Keith Law: Based on what I saw I think a bullpen piece.

Nathan : Not sure you’re a Sinclair Lewis fan but have you read Babbitt? Seems like a book due for a revival
Keith Law: I’ve only read Arrowsmith and It Can’t Happen Here, the review of which I boosted in March of 2016 when it appeared that it could indeed.

Mark: Would Eloy’s injury, though not as bad as originally feared, give you concern to move him to 1B/DH? Seems like the White Sox have a lot of prospects geared towards that position, albeit not as talented a hitter as Eloy.
Keith Law: Yes, and yes. But you probably have to leave him in RF and hope he can be a 45 defender there because they’ll have too many 1b/dh types unless they can convert someone else (e.g., Vaughn to 3b).

Lark11: Hey Keith, Any reason for concern on Reds Taylor Trammell? His control over the strike zone and athleticism still stand out, but he’s struggled at double-A. Just the usual struggles/adjustments to a higher level of competition? Or, cause for concern? Thanks!
Keith Law: No concern.

Jay: “I can’t tell you where I’ll be writing in 2020” – meaning, you know but can’t say, or you legitimately don’t know?
Keith Law: Meaning I don’t know.

Zihuatanejo: “Hey Keith, it’s Twitter. The Worst People In The World send their regards.”
Keith Law: Exactly.

JC: I assume Kristian Robinson is one of the youngest players in the NWL and he is destroying the ball right now. Any chance he jumps Chisholm for you next update?
Keith Law: No chance. Good prospect, though.

Gus: How concerning is Duplantier’s shoulder injury?
Keith Law: Very, since he’s had it before (sophomore year at Wayne Graham’s School of Arm Shredding).

Jerry: It was only a couple of years ago that Frances Martes was a highly ranked prospect. After TJ, suspension, and now visa problems, is there any reason for optimism that he’ll ever be a contributor to the MLB club?
Keith Law: Contributor, sure. Star, unlikely.

Curt: Thoughts or rumblings on Touki Toussaint? Seemed to be developing into an ace the last couple years but seems like that has stalled and now he’s destined to the bullpen. Only 23 still, but have the Braves mis-managed him?
Keith Law: I don’t think they’ve mismanaged him, but they have a lot of starter candidates and can’t give him starts he hasn’t earned (yet) as they try to win. I think he’d be a very valuable trade piece, though – how can you not love the combination of stuff, athleticism, youth, and makeup?

Ryan R: Is Griffin Roberts already a wasted pick? Many reports on him when he was drafted suggested he was one of the most MLB ready players in the draft but his current stat line suggests he is struggling mightily at A+ despite being old for the level. What’s the deal with Roberts?
Keith Law: He was never going to be a starter, and they should just put him in the pen.

Eric: Do you listen to music on vinyl at all?
Keith Law: Never.

Ridley: We miss you on Twitter but don’t blame you at all. Are you going to use any other platform to fill the void, or are you thinking of just reducing the social media time/effort/exposure?
Keith Law: Still on Facebook, IG, the dish, here. Plenty of places to find me, but where I have a bit more control over the conversation and can rid the place of any vermin who show up.

Dan: Has Deivy Grullon improved his stock or is his ceiling still a No. 2 catcher in the Majors?
Keith Law: I’m not sure why he would have improved his stock at all.

Matt: The Angels have inched their way back into the race but have almost no pitching left. What would you do in their spot?
Keith Law: At least explore trading for one. Adell off limits, make anyone else potentially available.

Eric: Do you have a garden at home? We’re about to build ours out (we currently have guava, lime, blood orange and plum trees, and passion fruit vine) to include herbs and veggies so our kids can learn where their food comes from. What are some of your garden essentials?
Keith Law: I do, mostly tomatoes and herbs right now, although I try to grow peas every spring (rabbits got ’em this year) and typically grow arugula and other leafy greens.

Matt: Reynaldo Lopez just threw his third strong start after the ASB, is his best long-term role still likely a high leverage reliever, or is he good enough to project as a quality back-end starter going forward?
Keith Law: Still a future reliever for me. And that last start came against one of the worst teams in baseball.

Jason: If Riley isn’t quite ready to hit consistently, and the alternative option is Inciarte in center, does it make sense for Atlanta to bring up Pache now? Or is he just not ready with the bat?
Keith Law: Love Pache, obviously, glove was ready yesterday, I think he’d post a .280 OBP right now.

John Zirinsky: Keith: Since the SP market is pretty thin, if you’re the Yankees do you cross your fingers, hope Severino returns and maybe get some additional bullpen help, or say “screw it” and overpay for a Stroman since you have a chance to win it all this year?
Keith Law: I wouldn’t cross my fingers on Severino … he’s been out so long, I’m not sure you can bet on him starting.

Todd: Where do you expect Spencer Howard to fall in next year’s prospect ranking if he stays healthy the rest of the year?
Keith Law: Around the same range he was at last winter, I think. Missing time with shoulder soreness is a concern.

Jason: Not too familiar with Yordan Alvarez’s journey to the bigs, but how do the Dodgers trade a guy like him for a middle reliever?
Keith Law: I think they got him in, saw the body & lack of athleticism, and had some quick buyer’s remorse (they had just signed him) that undervalued him.

Eric: I never thought I’d see a player as ridiculous as 2000s cartoon-numbers Bonds, but, man, Trout is there. He’s gonna end up the greatest player ever, isn’t he?
Keith Law: I think so, or at least good enough that we can have a rational debate about it.

Andres: Hey Klaw, this might be nuts to suggest. But, I think Smith has a brighter future than Pete Alonso. Would it be better for the Mets to explore an Alonso trade and play Smith in the future? I think Alonso, with the numbers and years of control, would fetch a nice amount.
Keith Law: I like Smith a ton as well, but I can’t see them considering trading Alonso given his hot start, 5+ years of control remaining, and popularity.

Billy: Are Adam Duvall or Travis Demeritte worth anything as trade fodder, or is it the juiced AAA ball?
Keith Law: I tried to buy into Demeritte when he was first traded, but he hit .222/.316/.416 while repeating AA last year, and when a guy does that, then goes to the juiced ball and goes bananas, I’m skeptical. I haven’t heard any good reason to think he’s a different player. (He has always had great bat speed & power, though. That’s real.)

Greg: The Indians would be crazy not to trade Bauer right? But could they at least wait- should they wait- until after the season?
Keith Law: Yes, if they don’t like the offers they’re getting now they could wait, but I don’t think they want to wait past this winter, as his value will drop … he’s had all of one good season, and he’s otherwise been really inconsistent.

Frank: Could Dodgers get Edwin Diaz for a deal around Keibert Ruiz? I’d do that in a second, but sounds like the Mets are looking for something like May and Ruiz (maybe we could get Wheeler + Diaz in a deal like that?)
Keith Law: Yes, I think that deal has potential – and Buster essentially said the same on the podcast today. He and Passan are more in tune with what’s likely than I am.

JAS: Is Bryan Mata the next great Red Sox starting pitcher? They haven’t developed a homegrown starter in a long time, but does he have a chance to break through? He’s 20 at AA and holding his own, with increased velocity this year…
Keith Law: Velocity was good last year too; it’s a tough delivery for a starter though.

Manny: What do you think about all the Royals college guys who have come through Wilmington? It looks like a pretty impressive group but how would you rank Lynch/Kowar/Singer/Bubic/Bowlan/Cox? Seems like we have seen a lot of deviation in how analyst have ranked them.
Keith Law: Lynch was the one sure starter (if healthy) of the group for me. Bubic second most likely to start. Kowar > Singer for me. The hitters, though … they’ve struggled a lot.

Nick: Hey KLaw, I really appreciate the chats, I read every single one! I know comps aren’t in for minor leaguers anymore. It’s a high bar, but I see a little Tim Lincecum in Deivi Garcia in terms of stuff and mechanics. Am I just a dreaming Yankees fan? Thanks again!
Keith Law: I don’t see it, sorry. Deliveries aren’t similar, Lincecum threw harder with a better CB (more vertical, too), Deivi has better deception and better SL/CH than Lincecum did at this age.

Pat D: Leaving aside the question of whether they SHOULD get in, do you think Vizquel and Yadier WILL one day get in? I’m assuming you’re a no vote on both.
Keith Law: I’m a no on both. Molina might, Vizquel unlikely.

Pete: If you run the Indians and, as you say, try to trade Bauer, how do you sell that to the fanbase that you’re trading one of your top pitchers in the middle of a playoff race?
Keith Law: He’s a pitcher; is he a top pitcher? A 4.18 FIP, leading the league in walks. He’s valuable because he takes the ball every fifth day, not because he’s an elite performer, and we haven’t even discussed what you’re getting off the field.

JR: Will Parker Meadows be as good as his brother?
Keith Law: I don’t think so given the hitch in his swing.

Matteo Salvini: We await your arrival to our paradise Mr Law. We love all immigrants. About my Mets: Have you seen SWR at all this season, enough progress to reach top 100 status?
Keith Law: No, reports are great, but I haven’t gotten to see Columbia yet. They’re on my hope-to-see list for August. Charleston & Greenville are up here this weekend, so I’ll see them.

Yanns: RE: Rivera, I’m sure politics changed some votes for Schilling so I definitely could see it having an impact for Rivera.
Keith Law: Schilling made comments on his beliefs; Rivera simply had those beliefs. And Schilling’s comments were virulent – he reposted a meme about killing journalists, and openly attacked Muslims and transgender people.

Keith: Do you see Luis Robert more like Starling Marte or Lewis Brinson?
Keith Law: I see him go 0-fer every time I’m there, so I’m the wrong person to ask. (Probably Marte. Maybe more K%.)
Keith Law: OK, gotta run, radio hit & digital video thing coming up shortly here. Thanks for all the questions. I may not chat next week depending on whether I go to Bristol at all for the deadline, but then would return to chat on the 8th, after Gen Con. Have a safe weekend.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:
→ July 23, 2019
→ By

The Ghost Road.

Pat Barker’s The Ghost Road is the third book in a trilogy, but the first I’ve read since it won the Booker Prize and I wasn’t even aware it was the third book in a series until I picked it up to read it. I was expecting something bleak, even dreadful, given the description on the back of the book – it’s set during World War I (humanity’s deadliest), and involves two men, one a psychiatrist evaluating soldiers who’ve returned from the front, one a soldier who has returned and wants, against all logic, to go back. It’s surprisingly brisk, even dryly funny, even though the book doesn’t shy away from war’s horrors and the denouement is just as grim as you’d expect; it compares quite favorably to Evelyn Waugh’s war trilogy, written several decades earlier and from a very different point of view.

Rivers is the psychiatrist in question, based very much on a real doctor of that name, while Billy Prior is the soldier, surrounded in war by real historical figures, and himself based on Barker’s own readings of historical documents of soldiers’ experiences at the front. Rivers is presented regularly with the absurdity of war and its effects on the men who fought it, including hysterical conditions that we’d recognize today as post-traumatic stress disorder but that were dismissed at the time as a sort of dubious madness. He treats Prior as one of his patients, and is more frank with this particular soldier due to some shared experiences, owning up to the pressure form above to clear as many soldiers as he can to return to active duty.

Prior is strangely eager to get back to the fight, even though he’s long lost any faith in the reasons for the war – I imagine this is one of the great separators between those who fought for the allies in World War I and those who did the same in World War II – and knows that the more tours of duty he does, the more likely he is to die there. He’s engaged to be married, finding out just before his return that his fiancée might be pregnant, but is hoping to be absolved of that responsibility one way or another, because he, like Rivers, is gay.

Ghost Road doesn’t set out, at least, to be a novel of gay men in a war of masculinity literally gone toxic – wars are always begun by men, and World War I seems especially to one of the more pointless of all wars, a battle of egos that cost millions of young men their lives. Instead, it seems that Barker creates a parallel between the alienation of men fighting someone else’s war and the isolation gay (or bisexual) men would have felt in a time where homosexuality was criminalized in much of the world, including the UK where the novel is set. The sexual encounters described in the book are matter-of-fact, furtive trysts that are entirely devoid of emotion, let alone any sense of intimacy – fitting for a war that seemed to reduce men to their barest selves, sentient beings powered by rage or controlled by their survival instincts.

Rivers is the stronger character, even though Prior gets to fight and thus has a good bit more to do on the page. Rivers, however, gets to observe and interpret for the reader, and the reader in turn sees more of the turmoil inside of him, especially as he knows the futility of his work – that he’ll be sending men back to the war who have no business returning to the battlefield. His interactions with patients also provide the bulk of the book’s humor, without which it would be the tenebrous slog I feared it would be. At the same time, Barker’s characterization even of these two men falls more on the technical side than the emotional; the descriptions of their internal monologues even tend towards the precise, perhaps lacking some of the depth of feeling you’d expect of characters facing the effects of wartime trauma and the guilt involved with surviving or believing you should go back.

For those of you who’ve read this far, I wonder if it would surprise you to learn that Pat Barker is Patricia Barker – that a novel about two gay men in World War I, a novel with no female characters of any substance whatsoever, was written entirely by a woman. It certainly surprised me, not in the sense that I thought a woman incapable of doing so, but that I thought a woman might be less interested in telling a men’s story in a world of men’s stories. There’s apparently some reason behind this – that, early in her career, Barker was tired of praise that was always tempered by commentary that her books were about or for women – but it’s still fascinating to me that she made this choice, and then executed it so well.

Next up: about 2/3 of the way through Laura Cumming’s The Vanishing Velázquez: A 19th-Century Bookseller’s Obsession with a Lost Masterpiece, which is just $1.99 on the Kindle right now.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
→ July 22, 2019
→ By

Billion Dollar Whale.

When I reviewed Bad Blood a few months ago, one of you recommended Tom Wright and Bradley Hope’s book Billion Dollar Whale, since it’s in a similar vein – another story about a con artist who took very wealthy people for a substantial ride. While Elizabeth Holmes got caught, and may even stand trial next year (although I hold out little hope of serious punishment), Jho Low, the “whale” at the heart of this book, remains a fugitive from justice, and still has a lot of the proceeds of his massive scam – maybe the biggest in world history.

Low was a Malaysian nobody with a little bit of family money who somehow talked his way into the good graces of Malaysian President Najib Razak and some of his myrmidons, and thus ended up in control of a new sovereign wealth fund in Malaysia called 1MDB. Low, with the help of other officials in Malaysia and co-conspirators in the United Arab Emirates, managed to loot the fund of several billion dollars, using the proceeds to party his way around the world, but also to invest in or start legitimate businesses. He invested in EMI Music, bought real estate in the United States and the United Kingdom, and even funded a Hollywood production company called Red Granite Pictures, co-founded by the stepson of President Razak, which produced the Oscar-nominated film The Wolf of Wall Street as well as Daddy’s Home and Dumb and Dumber To. Meanwhile, Low kept his position of power by providing Razak’s wife with millions of dollars in gifts and jewelry, while using state funds to drum up support to keep Razak in office. He did all of this with the help of major western investment banks, notably Goldman Sachs, which profited handsomely from Low’s looting of the Malaysian government’s supposed investment fund, as well as a Swiss bank called BSI.

Wright and Hope spin an unbelievable yarn here, going from Low’s childhood to his years at Wharton, where he already showed the sort of pretension and penchant for not paying his debts, through his rise and partial fall as the de facto leader of 1MDB. Low befriended Leonardo DiCaprio, giving him millions of dollars of art as gifts, and dated supermodel Miranda Kerr, giving her $8 million in jewelry. (DiCaprio and Kerr forfeited all of those gifts, voluntarily, once the FBI began its investigation into 1MDB.) He also hung out with Jamie Foxx and producer Swizz Beatz, the husband of singer & musician Alicia Keys; Swizz Beatz in particular continued to support Low even when it was clear that the latter had come by all his money via fraud.

Low’s con was really simple as cons go – he covered up his pilfering of the till with a series of paper transactions, doing so with the cooperation of other con men in Malaysia’s government and with the sovereign funds of Arab nations, all of whom took payouts to participate in the scam. What is hard to fathom, and what Wright and Hope spell out so well, is how thoroughly Low et al bamboozled western banks and accounting firms – or how little they cared about the provenance of the funds as long as they were getting paid. Billion Dollar Whale could be a textbook in a class on “Know Your Customer” rules, and what happens when banks fail to follow those procedures. Low skated repeatedly at points when someone should have told him no, simply because he could get someone else to forge a letter to support him.

Wright and Hope try to explain some of Low’s personality and choice to go into a life of fraud, but largely end up stymied by how bland he was – socially awkward and introverted, granted access to famous people and women by his money but still every bit as inscrutable. He also studiously avoided attention throughout his tenure with 1MDB, so there was minimal press coverage of him, and he didn’t start to appear in the media coverage of the scandal until after several stories had already appeared. So it’s not a biography of Low in any sense, but a story of a con – a completely fascinating one because of how many people either went along with it (to get rich) or failed in their fiduciary or legal duties to stop it.

A huge part of Low’s ability to get away with this scam for years was the tie to Razak, who was finally ousted from office in an election in 2018, after which he and his wife were arrested for corruption. Just this week, prosecutors in his trial showed that his wife spent over $800,000 in one day on jewelry, spending that went through the 1MDB fund; I assume this is the same story Wright and Hope tell of Low taking Razak’s wife to a famous jeweler. Low, however, fled to China and appears to still be running around the country with access to at least some of his ill-gotten gains, which means the Chinese government is, for some reason, okay with him doing so in spite of an Interpol warrant out for his arrest.

Next up: Laura Cumming’s The Vanishing Velázquez: A 19th-Century Bookseller’s Obsession with a Lost Masterpiece.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , ,
→ July 20, 2019
→ By

Stick to baseball, 7/20/19.

No new ESPN+ pieces this week but I expect to have several next week. I held a Klawchat on Thursday.

Over at Paste, I reviewed Century A New World, the end of the Century trilogy that began with Spice Road and continued with Eastern Wonders.

If you read my free email newsletter, you learned at least two interesting things this week, one of which is that I’ve backed away from Twitter by logging out of it on my phone. I find the entire atmosphere on the site too toxic for my tastes, which even continued on Friday as I checked it on my laptop to find someone angry I didn’t tweet about a particular story that broke yesterday.

I’ll be at the Under Armour Game at Wrigley Field on Monday, a great event that showcases many of the high school players who’ll be drafted in the first round next June. It’s free to attend; you can request tickets ahead of time or just get them at the ticket windows that day. The game starts at 2 pm and I highly recommend it.

And now, the links…

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , ,
→ July 19, 2019
→ By

Exit: The Catacombs of Horror.

I’ve been a huge fan of the Exit games since I first tried & reviewed them a year and a half ago. The series, which won the Kennerspiel des Jahres in 2017, comprises a series of single-play games that mimic the experience of an escape room, asking you (solo or in a team) to find a series of codes to solve the puzzle, generally destroying the game’s components as you go. They’re fun, appropriately difficult, usually playable inside of an hour, and come with a structured system of hints in case you get stuck. My daughter and I do these as a rainy-day activity, and I think we’ve played at least five so far, enjoying most of them.

The series steps up in difficulty with its newest title, Exit: The Catacombs of Horror, a longer title playable over two sessions, with puzzles that promise to be harder to solve … which is true, because this game was almost certainly not playtested, with puzzles that are far less straightforward than those in previous titles. The puzzle you have to solve to finish the game is a joke – even after reading the third hint card, which is supposed to explain the solution, I still have no idea what the designers expected players to do. There’s a huge failure of design here: You don’t make puzzles more difficult by making them too obscure to solve.

Exit’s puzzles come in all sorts of forms, but there are some common types, from deciphering codes in texts, finding hidden characters or images in printed materials, cutting and/or folding the materials to reveal patterns, or finding images that look like numbers. All of the game’s codes comprise three digits, so you know that will always be your goal; you use a decoder disk, entering the three digits under the symbol for the puzzle you’re solving, and you get a number for a card in the answer deck, which tells you if you’re wrong or refers you to the next clue. These puzzles generally range from very direct to a bit weird, often when the game wants you to see a number in an image or in something you’ve drawn; they take an especially liberal view when it comes to visual representations of numbers in sketches or lines.

The Catacombs of Horror, however, increases the difficulty by making things harder to see or to follow. One puzzle requires cutting images out of one of the cards, but the dashed lines that would tip you off that the designers want you to cut are almost impossible to see; my vision is fine, and I had a hard time spotting the lines, so I can’t imagine how hard it would be for older players or anyone requiring glasses. Another required finding blue dots on a large poster, except one of the blue dots was located on a teal flashlight, so the colors were nearly identical. There’s a puzzle that requires assembling a little cardboard box and threading a string through it, then looking through cutouts in the box’s sides and deciphering the number shown by the strings, once they’re pulled taut, which was a complete flop – yeah, I get why they said that looks like the number 2, but no average person is going to get that. It’s too inside-boardgaming for me, and I say that as someone who’s played most of the titles in the series.

Then there’s the final puzzle, which I won’t spoil because I can’t. I still don’t really get what the designers wanted me to do, even after a detailed reading of the last card – and my daughter, who loves these games but had lost interest before we finished this one, didn’t understand it either. It involves a lit candle, a ‘column’ with arrows that you place in a little plastic stand (which didn’t work – the column was way too flimsy and narrow for the stand), and then … a shadow? It’s the only time we’ve played an Exit game and given up. There’s no way they tested this final puzzle with regular game players, and I feel like the English translation of the last hint card (the third – each riddle has three hint cards, the first just a guide to start you, the third the solution) was inadequate.

I’m still interested in the series – there are four other new titles this year, and I see at least three previous titles we haven’t tried yet – but I can’t recommend The Catacombs of Horror unless they revise it, especially the final riddle. If you’d like to try the Exit games, I suggest The Abandoned Cabin, The Pharaoh’s Tomb, or The Secret Lab as a starting point – and feel free to ask me questions in the comments if you get a little stuck.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,