Satchboogie3

I made a pretty good haul from MA this past Friday with a couple nice surprises. I made a stop at my favorite store in MA and was happy to see they had fresh Maharaja, a beer I've heard a lot about and really wanted to try. Grabbed a BORIS, DORIS, Avery Reverend Quad, Racer 5, and Hoptimus Prime. I headed over to the next store, a place I heard had '09 Bourbon County Brand Stout left. I arrived and found 2 4-packs left in the back cooler with plenty of bombers as well. So I grabbed the 4-packs, saw that last batch of Nugget Nectar, so I grabbed a bomber of that and Java Stout too. I was already pretty giddy seeing these, but it got even better. The owner came over and chatted and mentioned they had a single bottle of KBS left out back. SCORE! On the way back I stopped back at the first store to spread the news on BCBS bombers (and cheap) and NN, both of which are pretty much gone from North Shore MA. I got to the store just as their truck unloaded the latest batch of Founders Double Trouble. Another win! I cracked bombers of Nugget Nectar, Pretty Thing's St. Botolph's town, and a bottle of KBS and BCBS that night with some friends. Last night I decided to try the Maharaja. I've heard a lot about this beer, both good and bad (mostly about the latest batch). I thought it was a pretty delicious hop bomb with massive malts and a good bit of sweetness, though not cloying. While it didn't quite have palate-destroying pine bitterness, it was a massive, balanced flavor with a lot of depth. In that category, it probably was the best DIPA I've had, though I do prefer less sweetness. It was a pretty fantastic weekend, the Sox won the Yankees series and my Ipod is back in my life. (I lost my ipod early this winter, and as I feared, it was lost in a snowbank all winter. I found it and was able to clean it up and dry it out and it works! I swear this thing is indestructible. Tonight it's pizza, Hoptimus Prime, and Red Sox/Rays series. A beer that was last brewed almost a year ago, another company (I believe Ruckus manages small breweries under their name, though I could be wrong) bought them and their lineup and just released Hoptimus Prime under their new name. Hopefully it will be just as good as before.

If only I could get Bell's in MA/NH. Tonight I needed something big and tasty to ease my pains from an 0-4 start from the Red Sox. My choice: I'm now in euphoria. It's been 4 months since the last/first time I had this beer and my palate has come a long way since then. What was insanely hot and overpoweringly bourbon to me then is bliss to me now. It's still pretty hot and bourbon definitely takes the center stage, I get everything else and it's nothing short of amazing. I can't imagine how good the Rare must be. I even poured a little over some Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream and it was probably the best dessert I've ever had. What a great way to end another wise miserable night! I've only one bottle of the '09 BCBS left, I think I might need to call up some stores and secure any that might be available.

I like Rogues stouts (Shakespear and chocolate are great), but overall, I'm not a big Rogue fan. Overpriced and they don't date their bottles (yet put plenty of other useless information on the bottles). Tonight I had my new 2nd favorite Stout, '11 KBS. This is exactly what I thought would be the perfect bourbon barrel aged stout. Amazing. My first ever KBS!

I really hope the Sculpin 6-packs show up on the East coast. I love that beer, but $10 for a bomber that might end up being too old, no thanks. As for Lost Abbey, the pricing in MA is pretty steep as well, I haven't tried anything from them yet because of it. Tomorrow they will be at a tasting I'm going to though, hopefully they'll have some good stuff to sample. Tonight I went with my first of De Dolle, their oerbier. Damned fine ale! I can't wait to see what they bring to the tasting. Can't wait for tomorrow; I'm picking up KBS, Firestone Abacus & Double Jack, and a fairly sizeable beer tasting with apparently some surprises in store.

My first Kate Day! I have to say, this beer (Portsmouth's Kate The Great) lives up to the hype and then some! Easily the best Stout I've ever had, maybe the best beer period. Cheers!

After loving Rochefort 10, I went with my first 8. Pretty darned good, but I definitely prefer the 10. ^Do you prefer Green Flash's Imp IPA to the West Coast IPA?

^Who let Gore in (or should I say out?)? I'm listening to Friday Night in San Francisco (Paco De Lucia, Al Di Meola, John McLaughin) and it's simultaneously making me want to practice more and quit.

^If I'm reading the date coding right (22IJ) it's from 9/22/10, not bad for a belgian ale. I'm generally not worried about dates for Belgians, I had a 19 month old Orval a couple weeks ago that was killer. As for Pliny/Hopslam, I haven't had the opportunity to try either yet. I'm considering trading for PTE sometime soon. I picked up some double trouble and Nugget Nectar recently, so those will have to do for now!

I had a Dogfish Head Palo Santo Marron last night (probably my new favorite brown ale/American Strong Dark Ale) and I've got a glass of Augustijn Blond Ale right now. It's a bit of a let down, I got it as part of the mixed 6-pack of Van Steenberge beers. I'll probably stop with this, anything more and my guitar playing will greatly suffer.

Again, that would be about moneyball, not sabermetrics. Sabermetrics are about trying to figure out the worth of a player. It's useful when you are trying to figure out which player to keep, which free agent to go after, etc. Chemistry does play a big part, but I don't think the Phillies are a good example against Moneyball. They had the best lineup in the NL (one of the best in the majors), so it is no surprise they went to the WS. In fact, just about every team that was expected to make the playoffs did and both the Yankees and Phillies were one of few teams expected to reach the WS. I agree that chemistry is important and you can't predict everything. That said, it doesn't mean you should TRY to make good predictions and make decisions on analysis.

First, nothing like proving your point by insulting. It is a theory that can not be proven right or wrong. Plus, your info was from a group that is pro-sabermetrics. Here is a wonderful anti-sabermetrics article http://www.tnr.com/article/against-moneyball The article is the truth. Some random stats can not fight money. Money, like in life, is what produces results. Just ask the Yankees. I'm not just talking about moneyball. Moneyball IS NOT sabermetrics. Moneyball is a baseball philosophy on building a team that in corperates some sabermetrics. Sabermetrics themselves are not "wrong". I agree that a 100% moneyball approach won't likely result in a championship caliber team, but the concept are very valuable. It works great when you don't have the money (Rays). Again though, sabermetrics themselves aren't debatable. If you don't want to use them, fine, but you can't argue that their not accurate or don't do well with predictions.

It isn't even about Boston, it's about baseball in general. I just can't stand being belittled because someone is ignorant to what they are talking about. DO YOUR RESEARCH Here are a TON of links that discuss sabermetrics: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sabermetrics.htm http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~albert/papers/saber.html http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/manifesto.html http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/?column=31 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/sabermetrics-in-the-mainstream baseball prospectus and fangraphs have almost limitless amount of information and stats, they are two great sites. Behind-The-Scenes is also a great book that details how teams use statistical analysis in building and managing teams and in-game situations. There is also a very interesting sections that discuss teams that failed to follow the stats and suffered because of it. Anyways, Congrats to the Yankees. They realized they had holes in the off-season and went out and got difference makers. They deserve this. I only hope this makes Theo active this offseason. What a way to open the New Yankee Stadium.

BeemerBoy, do you realize that MANY MLB GM's use Sabermetrics? Do you realize that a lot of AL teams rarely bunt because they realize it generally isn't the right decision? As for the "6 on 1", just because a number of people believe in something doesn't make it true. Everyone but very few thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and ridiculed the few that knew the Sun was, it didn't make the majority right. Heck, the majority of the people on this planet believe in god, that doesn't mean there is a god. Anyways, this is a theme park site, I don't expect the people here to be sports/math savy. However, go on any good baseball forum and I'm sure you will be in the minority. In all of the baseball forums I post on (or any sport for that matter) the overwhelming majority believe Sabermetrics and statistical/mathematical analysis to be important. Things like RAR (runs above replacement player), WAR (Wins above replacement player), FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average based on UZR), etc are all extremely important when comparing players and it is exactly these things that a lot of GMs use. Theo Epstein of the Red Sox is famous for using Sabermetrics. Are you seriously about to say he doesn't have a clue about baseball. You yourself said baseball guru's use this stuff, yet you don't agree with it. However, you can't lend ANY insight as to why it's wrong. It's because it isn't wrong. I actually used a baseball forum to find info on bunting success in the majors and they found it funny that people still refuse to accept sabermetrics. I implore you to go on any good baseball forum or talk to any baseball guru's about sabermetrics. Do some research before claiming something is wrong and trying to belittle people.

It's a point of reference, if you want to actual get detail, there are loads of sites and books you can look at. Instead of explaining WHY you don't think sabermetrics is accurate or useful, your just going to point out the site I linked? Doesn't sound like much of a rebuttal. As for sports ruling peoples lives, I enjoy sports, but I am not afraid to get engaged in discussion when people are incorrect.

By your rationale, why do I get the feeling anybody who ever went into a slump would be benched for the remainder of the season? How would that be my rationale? I'm saying I base my decisions on statistical and mathematical analysis, how is that bad? What should you base your decisions on, your gut? How do you think managers decide which reliever to take into the game? Do you even understand the math and statistics behind the game and how to use them? Some of the advanced statistics and analysis are very accurate and very complex, we aren't talking about fielding %. I'm also not suggesting you make decisions based only on stats, there are a lot of factors, I'm simply saying that situations aren't always what they seem and that it's more important to make informed decisions on actual data rather than just tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabermetrics Check out exactly what Sabermetrics are and how they are used. You can say all you want, but the fact remains that sabermetrics are very accurate and do a good job of making predictions. No amount of trying to belittle me will change that, it's fact. Stop living in the past and accept modern thought.

Where did I ever say you should never bunt? I said it is often incorrect to bunt, BUT there are certain situations where you can. I specifically said a must win game. Anyways, in respect to that actual play, it was a pretty good play given the situation (and how the defense was playing), however I'm not sure it was the correct play to make. Just because some does or doesn't work out doesn't mean it was the right move to make. You could point out hundreds of examples where a bunt worked or didn't work, but it's pointless. All that matters is what play gives you the greatest chance to win. That's it. As for the moneyball approach, Billy Bean isn't the only guy in baseball to use it, most GMs have adopted it. Teams with a higher OBP tend to score more runs. There is a high correlation, much much higher than a correlation to batting average or anything else. Anyways, do you really think 1 teams success of 4 seasons is a smart sample size to go on? I don't. If you actually look at WHY Oakland hasn't had much success over the last 4 years, you will see it's because A. They aren't spending money and B. they actually aren't following a money ball approach effectively. Their teams don't get on base enough (bottom of the AL in OBP) to drive in runs and they have let their pitchers go over the years. My point is simply that statistic, math, analysis, etc should play a big role in how you think about baseball and what decisions you make.

The problem with this is that I'd rather take my chances with Pedroia hitting. Pedroia is a good hitter and again, the less outs you make, the greater your chances of scoring. The problem with bunting to score 1 run is that you generally only score 1 run, it doesn't lend itself to big innings. Its better to swing away and sometimes have a big inning, sometimes have a 1 run inning, and sometimes not get anything. As for bunting, I found the evidence I've been looking for. THE MAJOR LEAGUE SUCCESS RATE OF BUNTING (for sacrifice) is UPWARDS of 85%. 85% of ALL sacrifice bunting in the major leagues are successful. Here is the study right here: http://www.actasports.com/sow.php?id=163 The MLB bunting success rate is almost TRIPLE the league OBP and you're trying to tell me it's more difficult and skillful than hitting? Just because you have played baseball your whole life does NOT mean you understand what it takes to play at the highest level. I'm not talking about high school baseball, I'm talking about competing against the best in the world, it's not the same thing. About your comment on "That is their job, to hit a FB", you do realize it takes great college hitters YEARS to become good MLB hitters, if they ever make it at all. Most college guys spend years in the minors and even after that, it generally takes more than a year in the bigs to become successful. We are talking about some of the best college baseball players who still need years and years of work to be able to compete in the majors. As for Bill James and Money Ball, you are seeing PROOF that it is the correct approach across the league. That preaches that the most important thing for an offense to do is NOT make outs, ie, high OBP is far more valuable than just batting average. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but statistics and math are important in everything. I agree that you shouldn't just use one stat as a be all, but when you look at a lot of good stats and analysis, it becomes extremely useful. There is only so much you can infer by watching the game, you simply have to do an analysis beyond what you see to be able to get a better understanding of what is actually going on. Anyways, the greatest baseball minds and owners/mangers/coaches believe that statistics and analysis are extremely important to building great baseball teams and playing most efficiently. Do you seriously believe they are all wrong and that math lies?

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2008/04/bunting_is_bad_1.html http://www.burntorangenation.com/2009/6/1/895218/on-the-subject-of-bunting Good reads on why bunting is rarely the correct choice. The point of offense is to score runs. The most valuable way to do that is to NOT make outs, so why give up outs to produce runs? Doesn't make sense, and the math RARELY backs it up. The only real time to bunt is in the perfect situation in a game where you are down by 1 run and it's a must win game. Other than that, the only time you should bunt is if you have a pitcher up or a fast guy who can drag bunt for a base hit.

I agree. As to why bunt instead of swing away when it requires more skill?... Its more reliable. Even an all-star batter is going to get out 2/3 of the time, why not at least take the out and safely move the runner over? Those people are nuts to think a fastball with a fairly predictable trajectory is easier than going up there and trying to hit pitches with 14" of break. In a batting cage? yeah, duh, the faster you crank the wheel the harder it will be to come around. But once you get adjusted to the speed, you can hit 120mph pitches. It will sting like hell with an aluminum bat, but the speed isn't super hard to deal with at all. Hitting a 90+ mph fastball isn't hard because of the trajectory, it's difficult because of the timing. It's extremely hard to get around fast enough to make contact. Do you honestly think there isn't a correlation between a guy like Papelbon, who pumps 95mph fastball after fastball, and an extremely high strikeout rate? The best hitters on the planet have trouble hitting well placed 95 mph fastballs, even when they are looking for it. And I'm not just talking about hitting a fastball, I'm just talking about hitting. Do you honestly think it is easier to get a hit off a Pedro Martinez (in his prime) than a bunt? That's insane. Making good contact at the major league level is incredibly difficult. Timing is one of the big reasons to that, as you said. Hitting a nasty curveball at 70 mph still isn't as difficult as hitting a 95 mph fastball... if you know it's coming. Breaking pitches are effective because they keep you off balance. I mean, heck, statistics alone prove my point. What is the batting average or slugging against that top pitchers in the majors allow? It's not that high. In his career, Pedro averaged giving up 18 HRs per 162 game season, or 1 HR ever 47.7 batters. His career average batting against is .214, with .276 OBP and .337 SLG. What do you think is harder, getting a hit off a guy who only allows a .214 BA against, getting a HR when you have about a 1 in 48 (~2%) chance of success, or getting a bunt down? This is absurd. There is a reason why players who suck at hitting, bunt, while those that can hit, don't bunt. The other thing you have to realize is that bunt because it has a higher success rate does NOT automatically mean it gives you the better chance to score runs in the long run. Swinging away when you have less than 2 outs and 2 runners on will often lead to more runs scored than bunting them over into scoring position. You don't bunt because it increases your chance of scoring, you bunt because you have a guy at the plate who can't hit. Derek Jeter has faced tons of scenarios where other hitters might bunt, but Jeter doesn't (rare rare occasion he might). Why?, because he can hit. Finally, even if bunting was more difficult than hitting, it would only hurt your argument. If bunting didn't have a great success rate, it would make it even less effective at producing runs. If a hit is easier to get than a bunt, why bunt? Makes no sense. Putting the ball in play via a swing obviously leads to more runs produces (and that's not debatable, that's fact) than putting a well placed bunt into play. Even if they were equal difficulty, it would make sense to bunt unless the player at the plate didn't have a chance in hell at getting a hit. The object in baseball is to score runs. It doesn't matter how, just that you get runs. A lineup with good hitters will always score more runs than a lineup of hitters who need to bunt and play small ball to scrap together runs. You don't bunt because it's more effective or better than hitting, you bunt because you don't have the personel to be successful hitting.

The original Texas Chainsaw is NOT gory, don't get it confused with the terrible remakes and sequels. The original was ALL about building tension. It is twisted, no doubt, but it isn't a gore fest at all, it's just the theme of the movie that is twisted. I just re-watched Paranormal Activity and I just don't get why people think it is so good. I think it could have worked (the last 20 minutes) if they hadn't botched the first hour. Micha was really a stupid character and I mean script wise. The way he acted just made no sense. It was incredibly boring and cliche (especially the "psychic") and I couldn't take it seriously. It just didn't draw me into the movie to build up tension, it actually repelled me. Tension isn't just about what you don't see, it isn't just about subtle "noises", it's about building a creepy BELIEVABLE atmosphere around good acting and believable characters. This movie didn't do any of that.

As someone whose been playing for 30 years. I do. That's the problem with stats nerds. They think the game is easier than it is. Again I beg the question, if bunting requires more skill, then why do pitchers bunt? Heck, a lot people say hitting a 90+ fastball is the hardest thing to do in all of sports. Lets just discuss this in a bit of detail. Bunting doesn't really require great mechanics, its all in how/where you hold the bat, the angle of the bat, and where you meet the ball. Your stance, power distribution, etc doesn't really matter. It's fairly easy (compared to hitting) because you let the ball come to you. When you are hitting, you are attacking the ball. Hitting requires a lot more mechanics (and they are more important). Every little motion is greatly amplified when you are violently swing a bat (as hard and quick as possible) at the ball. Just being able to generate the power is difficult, you have to make sure you are using your full body (feet, legs, hip, etc) to generate power. On top of all of the mechanics, timing is extremely important. Remember, you aren't letting the ball come to you, you are attacking it. It is a LOT harder to "square" up on the ball when you are attacking it vs. letting it come to you. I understand (and agree) that there is skill and mechanics to bunting, but calling it more skillful and harder than a good swing is ridiculous. Heck, the best hitters practice in the cage all the time, yet they still can easily get into a funk if just one little problem arises (mechanics, timing, hand eye coordination, etc).

If bunting to advance runners is more skillful than trying to hit a fastball, then why bunt? The fact is that most pitchers can't hit. Also, I'm not buying the "Oh, but it's good strategy, you get to see small ball". Plenty of AL teams use a lot of small ball in their play. A pitcher bunts with runners on and less than 2 outs because they simply can't produce runs often enough (when swinging) to overcome the times they make outs. I'd also like to see exactly who thinks a bunt is more skillful than hitting a 92mph fastball well enough to produce extra base hits. That's absurd.

DH is a has-been? Are you serious? DH's tend to be good hitters, it's all they do. Just this year, there were 14 teams with a DH spot. Out of those 14 spots, you had Adam Lind (.305 BA, .932 OPS, 35HR, 114 RBI), David Ortiz (.238 BA, .794, 29 HR, 99 RBI - after 2 months of nothing), Jason Kubel (.300 BA, .907 OPS, 28 HR, 103 RBI), Matsui (.274 BA, .876 OPS, 28 HR, 90 RBI), Travis Hafner (.272BA, .826OPS, 16HR, 49 RBI in 94 games), plus a lot of part time DHers. One of the great things about the DH is that it allows a manager to give guys a rest from playing defense for a game and gives bench players more playing time. As for pitchers hitting well, it's a joke. Pitchers average under .200 BA, but more importantly, have virtually no pop or on-base skills (OBP under .250, SLG under .300). As for strategy, I don't think it makes all that much of a difference. In the AL, you have an extra lineup spot to fill, so there is a lot more variability. It is also just as tough to make pitching changes during the game because you don't have the benefit of auto-outs or facing bench player. It's simply a more difficult game. It's tougher on pitchers, which is what I like. Finally, do people actually enjoy seeing a pitcher at the plate with the bases loaded and 2 outs? It's just too easy on the pitcher. Also, I want to make it clear that BA isn't a very useful stat. When you say "they hit a HR or bust", it sounds like you don't understand where run-value comes from. OPS is the most useful stat to go by. Players like Adam Dunn get a lot of crap because of their low BA and high strikeout total, yet they are FAR more valuable hitters than a lot of guys with high batting averages. For instance, Jack Cust in 2008 hit .231, yet he had a .375 OBP, an .851 OPS, 33 HR, 77 RBI, 111 BB in only 481 AB. You may laugh at him, but he is a more valuable hitter than someone who hits .330, but doesn't get on base as often or have as high an OPS.

So here is some data to support my stance that the AL is the better league: Since 1991, the AL has won 11 championships and the NL 6. The AL won 56 WS games and the NL won 37 (.600%). For Interleague play, since 1997, the AL holds a 1,674 to 1,534 lead. Since 2004, the AL has won 169 more interleague games than the NL. Obviously the Al has won 12 straight All-star games, however I agree it really doesn't mean much. The league averages (in hitting/pitching) really doesn't mean a whole lot. The AL obviously has the better hitting stats (avg, OPS, etc) than the NL. The one thing I found interesting, though, is pitching stats. Since 2000, the AL has averaged a 4.48 ERA compared to the NL 4.30 ERA. The AL is only .18 runs more, or a 4.2% increase. If you consider that the AL has a tougher lineup because they have to face an extra hitter, it suggests the AL to have stronger pitching (only a 4.2% higher ERA while they face a 12.5% increase in quality hitters). The AL has had more "dominant" teams than the NL (90+ wins) since 2001 (40-29). For the wild card, the AL wild card winner has averaged 96.4 wins (.600), the NL wild card winner has averaged 91.3 wins (.560). For players switching leagues, I'll post their AL vs NL stats. CC Sabathia (AL: 3.77 ERA, 2.59 SO/BB. NL: 1.65 ERA, 5.12 SO/BB)* Josh Beckett (AL: 4.05 ERA, 9.0 SO/9. NL: 3.46 ERA, 8.2 SO/9) Cliff Lee (AL: 4.01 ERA, 6.7 SO/9. NL: 3.39 ERA, 8.4 SO/9)* Roger Clemens (AL: 3.21 ERA, NL: 2.40 ERA - did this late in his career). Rudy Seanez (AL: 5.45 ERA, 1.51 SO/BB. NL: 3.62 ERA, 2.3 SO/BB) Ted Lilly (AL: 4.52 ERA, 2.07 SO/BB. NL: 3.85 ERA, 3.27 SO/BB) Joel Pineiro (AL: 4.50 ERA, 1.99 SO/BB. NL: 4.14 ERA, 3.05 SO/BB) Brady Penny (BOS: 5.61 ERA, SFG: 2.59 ERA)* John Smoltz (BOS: 8.32 ERA, 7.4 SO/9, STL: 4.26 ERA, 9.5 SO/9)* Randy Johnson (AL: 3.6 ERA, 2.57 SO/BB. NL: 2.92 ERA, 4.6 SO/BB) *small sample size. As for hitters, it appears that there really isn't much of a difference between leagues. The small differences may be accounted for by park factors, lineup spot, and pitching strength. I think the DH makes a big difference. The NL team has a clear disadvantage when playing with a DH. That is why I believe the AL has had the edge on interleague matchups (regular and post season). On top of having an extra good hitter on the team, the AL pitcher also have the tougher experience. AL pitchers face the toughest lineups all year, where as NL pitchers get to work with a free out, thus it is more difficult for a NL pitcher to adjust to facing a DH.

Maybe I should have clarified "superior". I believe the AL is the better league, but they certainly aren't miles beyond the NL. The 2 leagues are still fairly close in talent, but the AL clearly has the edge. I wasn't trying to say that the NL is a joke compared to the AL. As for the different rules, I don't like having a pitcher hit. It's fun during interleague play, but I much prefer having a DH. From a fans perspective, who would you rather see at the plate 3-4 times a game, a pitcher or a David Ortiz? One of the reasons why the AL tends to have stronger teams is because they have an extra hitter. In the NL, you generally wont see a team with 9 good hitters, while in the AL is almost standard.