Beaneball

One of CNN's headlines right now: "SI.com: May be out for season, Barry Bonds whines." Yeah, the media isn't biased against Bonds at all.

Posted by jason in Baseball at 06:40 | |

Thank goodness! Someone finally said it! Benicio Del Toro says in the current issue of Esquire (April 2005), "Researching a role isn't Method acting; it's common sense." Ever since I learned what Method acting really is (which is not so long ago, I'll admit; maybe a little over a year), I've noticed the complete lack of understanding in the press and even, perhaps, among actors, of what Method acting actually entails. When Viggo Mortensen wandered around New Zealand with a sword strapped on his hip, that wasn't Method; that was getting himself into a physical mode where he could convincingly play the character of Aragorn. When Nicole Kidman interviewed abused women for her role in The Human Stain, that wasn't Method; it was, as Del Toro alludes to, research that she would have been stupid not to conduct. Russell Crowe was quoted telling a story in the March 2005 issue of GQ:

Also, until I was 25, I had one tooth missing. When George Ogilvie cast me, he asked me about it, and I told him the story and that I thought it was very false of me to go and get a tooth cap. He was very nice about it, listened to it all, and said, “All right, well, let me put it this way, Russell. You’re playing the lead character in my film, right? The character of Johnny has two front teeth ...”

Chris Heath, the interviewer, responds, "He Methoded you into it!" No, he didn't! Method acting isn't looking the part, and that's all Ogilvie said: I want you to get your tooth capped so that you can look like the character I wrote. That's got nothing whatsoever to do with Method. From the website of the Stella Adler Studio of Acting comes this excerpt from the mini-bio of Konstantin Stanislavski, the creator of Method acting:

To reach this "believable truth," after years of research with actors of the Moscow Art Theatre, Stanislavski began employing new and original methods, such as "emotional memory." He felt at that time that to work on a particular emotion in a role that involved fear, the actor might remember something that frightened him from his own life. Stanislavski believed that an actor needed to take his or her own personality onto the stage when he or she began to play a character. This innovation was a clear break from previous modes of acting that held that the actor's job was to become the character and leave his or her own emotions behind. Later, Stanislavski concerned himself with the creation of physical entries into these emotional states, believing that the repetition of certain acts and exercises could bridge the gap between life on and off the stage.

Certainly, the people who've taken Stanislavski's Method and taught it, including Adler and those who followed her, have added their own twists, changed things, and otherwise put their own stamp on the original idea. Indeed, Lee Siegel wrote in Slate in March, 2004, that

there were two antagonistic versions of the Method: Strasberg's emphasis on how actors should draw from their own experience to inhabit a character; and Stella Adler's insistence that actors must pay closer attention to the play's circumstances than to their own memories and emotions.

I recently had a discussion with a "mainstream media" journalist (editor) whose main criticism of the blogosphere (with emphasis on political blogs) is that far too many bloggers are lazy and uninterested in doing the groundwork necessary to have a relevant and believable opinion. He's right, of course, but I might haul out this seeming industry-wide lack of understanding of an easily-researched issue as evidence that mainstream journalists aren't much better these days (or were they ever?).

Posted by jason in Movies, Reading at 17:46 | |

On the one hand, if this list of Mark Prior's historical comps at Minor League Ball doesn't alarm Cubs fans, nothing will. On the other hand, that's the way it works with the early career of any great starter, isn't it? If PECOTA and Bill James had been around when Steve Carlton was breaking in, his comps would have been all these other guys who burned out. This isn't to say there's nothing to worry about, but it is to say that historical comparisons, when made fairly, are bound to be pessimistic, simply by the nature of the game: there are vastly more burnouts and failed careers in the annals than there are Hall of Famers.

Posted by jason in Baseball at 08:52 | |

Unrelated to the A's, here's a piece at Braves Journal criticizing Baseball Prospectus for, among other things, being inconsistent in its criticisms of Chipper Jones's defense at third base. I won't address the other criticisms (for example, about whether BP's defensive stats are accurate) because I'm completely incapable. But do the writers ignore their own stats when they call Jones a butcher at third? The argument posited is that Jones, while certainly below average, has "usually" put up above replacement-level numbers. That's true: he's been at or above replacement at third base five times and below thrice. On the other hand, five out of eight doesn't sound like a great performance record. Let's compare that to the other regular third basemen in the league last year. I'll decide on "regular" by using these pages at ESPN to see who played at third most often for each team.

Player	Team	Above rep.	Below rep.	% above
Chipper Jones	ATL	5	3	63%
Melvin Mora	BAL	0	1	0%
Bill Mueller	BOS	9	0	100%
Aramis Ramirez	CHC	5	2	71%
Joe Crede	CHW	3	0	100%
Juan Castro	CIN	2	0	100%
Casey Blake	CLE	2	0	100%
Vinny Castilla	COL	10	0	100%
Eric Munson	DET	1	1	50%
Mike Lowell	FLA	6	0	100%
Morgan Ensberg	HOU	2	1	67%
Joe Randa	KCR	8	1	89%
Chone Figgins	ANA	1	0	100%
Adrian Beltre	LAD	7	0	100%
Wes Helms	MIL	0	2	0%
Corey Koskie	MIN	6	0	100%
Ty Wigginton	NYM/PIT	2	0	100%
Alex Rodriguez	NYY	1	0	100%
Eric Chavez	OAK	6	0	100%
David Bell	PHI	4	1	80%
Chris Stynes	PIT	4	1	80%
Sean Burroughs	SDP	2	0	100%
Edgardo Alfonzo	SFG	6	0	100%
Scott Spiezio	SEA	1	1	50%
Scott Rolen	STL	8	0	100%
Aubrey Huff	TBD	2	0	100%
Hank Blalock	TEX	2	1	67%
Eric Hinske	TOR	2	1	67%
Tony Batista	MON	5	0	100%
Total (w/o Chipper)	---	107	13	89%

So no other member of the 2004 Third-Basemen's Social Club has had more than two seasons below replacement, but Chipper has had three. Among the guys with enough data under their belts to really count on (not to mention most of the guys with just a season or two), Chipper has the worst percentage of "decent" seasons with the glove, by BP's measure, and he's well below the league average. Do remember that I'm not arguing whether Jones is actually a bad defender or not, since I can't defend the BP defensive system on its merits (nor attack it). However, I can challenge the notion that the writers aren't following their own (perhaps flawed) statistics when writing their articles. In other words, when BP writers call Jones "iron-gloved," they are accurately reading their statistical reports. "More seasons above replacement than below" isn't so hot when the majority of your colleagues have never put up a below-replacement season.

Posted by jason in Baseball at 11:40 | |

I found Concerned (but Powerless) in my referer logs today and cruised over to take a look. Happily, I found this essay about ESPN that describes exactly how I feel about the site (ESPN, not the blog). We are in definite agreement about Scoop Jackson especially.

Posted by jason in Reading, The Blog at 18:49 | |

Klutts, who's becoming a frequent commenter around these parts (I encourage it!), mentions in response to my last post

I was surprised to learn that the A's were 2nd in the AL in most times scoring 3 or fewer runs with 71 last year (KC was 1st with 84). The hitting is again looking a bit spotty this ST. If the A's are to have any chance, Crosby and Swisher will have to put up pretty good nos. unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on it.

An interesting thing about the A's in-game scoring droughts is that they managed to finish right in the middle of the pack by runs scored, at fifteenth overall, in between the Cubs and the Astros. This might imply that the hitting was inconsistent more than it was bad: if they're about an average offensive team, but score very few runs many times, they must also quite often score many runs. Luckily for us, Baseball Prospectus keeps stats on records by run differential, runs scored, and runs allowed. A table!

Runs scored	Frequency
0	3
1	15
2	18
3	35
4	16
5	17
6	14
7	12
8	9
9	9
10	2
11	2
12	1
13	3
14	1
15	1
16	1
17	1

Grouped into sensible ranges:

Runs range	Frequency
0-3	71
4-6	47
7-9	30
10+	12

The A's scored what might be termed "a lot" of runs (7+) 42 times in 2004. How many times did the teams immediately around them in the runs rankings do this? The Cubs bashed opposing pitching for seven or more runs 46 times, while the Astros did it 45 times, so the A's aren't necessarily picking up garbage runs in blowouts any more than other teams are. Where the A's appear to be getting their "extra" runs from is actually within that "few runs" category. Oakland was actually tied for the fewest times shut out in 2004, with Boston, Houston, and San Diego. Notice that they scored three runs over eleven times as often as they were shutout. The Cubs, on the other hand, had 12 shutouts to 24 three-run games while the Astros had just 18 three-run games. In fact, the A's scored exactly three runs more than any other team in the league. They lost almost two-thirds of those games, though, which is precisely their losing percentage in games in which they plated just two men. Maybe what all of this means is that Oakland scored more on their bad offensive days than most teams did? If so, it didn't mean much for their winning percentage. Getting back to Klutts, though: Bobby Crosby had a disappointing year with the stick, certainly regressing from his excellent 2003 in Sacramento. PECOTA still thinks he's ok, though: his weighted mean projection puts him adding almost ten VORP over last year, despite a playing-time projection that's probably conservative (I see no reason to expect him to lose 60 AB's or so from last year, as the projection has him doing). Swisher's PECOTA isn't online, so I guess I have to wait until I can pick up the BP book at the post office tomorrow to find out what they have to say about him. Not that PECOTA is the end-all in terms of projections, but just as Klutts says he wouldn't bet on the pair of youngsters putting up good numbers, I wouldn't bet against it happening.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 23:21 | |

From Inside Bay Area comes this:

Manager Ken Macha offered his most revealing comment yet on the starting rotation, suggesting the final two spots are for rookies Joe Blanton and Dan Meyer to lose. Macha told reporters the Oakland Athletics have a "Plan A" and then listed the five starters in this order: Barry Zito, Rich Harden, Dan Haren, Blanton and Meyer.

I'm very surprised that he's come out and said this, especially since it had been apparent until now that Meyer would get some more time in AAA before joining the rotation. What's interesting is that it isn't like the other options have pitched themselves out of contention: Seth Etherton in particular is pitching quite well and it's unlikely that Keiichi Yabu or Kirk Saarloos would embarass themselves in the fifth spot. I wonder if Macha is on the same page with the front office on this.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 09:44 | |

Not that Athletics Nation needs more publicity, but Blez has an interview with David Forst up right now. Forst isn't quite as forthcoming as Billy Beane was in his Q&A, but Blez asked some questions that no front office member would ask, so it's not surprising. I hate to complain too much, and I don't know Blez's background as far as journalism and whatever goes, but does anyone else feel that his questions pack too much stuff in? Questions like

Blez: Mark Ellis seems to have come back better than ever. Even though it's only spring games, how impressive is what Ellis is accomplishing? Does he have the inside track right now over Ginter and Scutaro because of his defense? And how do you think his throwing strength is?

don't seem to really get answered as well as they could be because it's hard for the interviewee to focus on all the stuff, so he just ends up answering one portion of the question.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 08:57 | |

Scoop Jackson introduces himself to the masses on ESPN's Page 2 with a list of things he "believes." Unfortunately for his credibility, he says

I believe Pete Rose should be in the HOF. (It isn't like he was the only one gambling – he just was the one who got caught).

So what if he's the one who got caught? If you get caught, you're out. I can't believe "everyone else was doing it" is actually seen as a justification for being allowed the game's highest honor despite doing one of its greatest mis-deeds. If it came out conclusively that Babe Ruth bet on games, I'd want him out of the Hall, too. I still look forward to Jackson's work on ESPN, especially with the sudden and recent passings of Ralph Wiley and Hunter Thompson, but there's a line between saying incendiary things and making statements that don't hold up under any type of logical scrutiny.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Reading at 15:08 | |

So Chad Bradford is out until, possibly, June or July with a back injury that'll require surgery. Larry Davis, the A's trainer, mentions that it's something he's had before and that he's come back from successfully, so I'll hold out hope that he can come back at least for a nice stretch run with the A's. In terms of the bullpen, this might allow Oakland to keep Rule 5er Tyler Johnson, though Joe Roderick also tosses out the names Jimmy Serrano, Huston Street, and Tim Harikkala. I'd be most excited if the A's kept Johnson, since Serrano and Harikkala are probably just classic AAA re-treads/depth and Street shouldn't be forced into the majors earlier than necessary. Jairo Garcia just occurred to me as well.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 08:55 | |

Here's a new A's minor league blog, open as of 2/28.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 13:23 | |

Apparently, the hitters are back ahead of the pitchers. No word from Ken Macha on whether this should be considered typical. Also, no word from Jeff Fletcher about the possibility of opening a betting tips hotline after missing the final score by just two runs.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 13:16 | |

Says Ken Macha, "Typical early spring training game. The pitchers are ahead of the hitters." Of course, since the game finished 2-1, he's allowed to say that. If it had been 10-8, he would have only reversed the order of pitchers and hitters and still called it typical. Plus, Scott Hatteberg would have still followed up with, "As always." Jeff Fletcher noticed this, too, and says it here:

The A's lost 2-1. Ken Macha said it was a typical early spring game, because the pitchers were ahead of the hitters. Of course, Friday's game could very well be 12-10...

Scott Hatteberg, by the way, seems to be quoted in just about every story on the A's this spring. He seems to be becoming the go-to guy for the Bay Area newspapers, which is an interesting role for someone who's name was basically made in a controversial book and who seems to me to be unlikely to carry on with the A's for much longer.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 21:42 | |

My old friend Julio posted a comment to my last entry. I responded to part of it there, but I thought I'd put some thoughts and responses up on the main section here, as well, for those who don't descend to comment-land. First,

One of the key issues in education today that has been put on the back burner, is tracking. Many of the issues we see in high schools today is students that have been tracked at early grade levels and are left with a lack of motivation to excel, since in their minds they are "stuck" taking certain courses.

There are definitely issues with tracking that I see within my school. As I mentioned, due to tracking on a macro (city-wide) level, we don't have that many strong kids in the first place, and now the strong ones we do have are being placed in different classes from the other ones. I happen to have drawn one of the weakest ninth grade classes this year (I think; it's not really official). However, since it was apparently based only on reading level, I do have some kids whose mathematics ability is quite good. That said, it's an incredibly tough class to manage because many of them gave up on school and being able to do well a long time ago, just as Julio mentions. The kids in there who are failing run the gamut: there's the thug archetype; the immature kids who, less than not caring, just don't yet realize the importance of school; the socially-awkward kids who are trying to gain acceptance and neglecting work in the process; and then there are the kids who don't really fit any of these but just don't have the mathematical ability to succeed in high school. With few real peer role models in class, there's nothing really driving these kids toward any level of success. Now, I do believe in the necessity of tracking to some degree. Having every kid in a high school in the same math class isn't good for the kids who want to be doing calculus while their peers are still struggling to master geometry. In addition, it's tough on teachers, not just to try to create lessons that meet the variety of needs their kids have, but also, as I alluded to before, in management. When kids are bored, they become problems. When you add problems to a class that already has kids who would be problems in almost any setting, it's a recipe for disaster. That said, there's a difference between leveling and tracking. When you track somebody, they can never get off that track. When you put them in rooms that are a little bit level-homogenous and give them the opportunity to work to the next level, that's not so onerous. Sure, you lose the benefits that hetergenous classes provide (the aforementioned peer role models, for example), but it allows teachers to not have to worry about meeting five or six different levels of need within one class. This sounds like common sense, but there are plenty of places where being in a certain science or math or English class in the freshman year dooms the student to never be able to get to Advanced Placement or honors classes later on. Some children bloom late and tracking does that group a great disservice. Julio also mentions

What educators both in K-12 and higher education are faced with today is standards-based education, one of the most controversial methods to educate youth. Adding to the pot, the fact that schools are struggling financially, doesn't make the situation any better.

Now, I hadn't ever thought about strict standards causing issues in higher education the way they do in K-12, but, as I consider my teacher education program at Lehman College, I realize that Julio is, of course, dead on. My current education class (essentially a teaching methods course for 11th-12th grade math) revolves around the graphing calculator and how to teach pre-calculus and calculus using it. On the first day of class, the professor explained the evolution of the course: it had formerly been a simple methods class, not necessarily focusing on technology more than any other class. Lehman, however, wants to have and maintain NCATE accreditation because it supposedly indicates that "the Unit's Programs in Teacher Education meet the highest national standards." In order to get this accreditation, Lehman needed to institute a greater focus on technology, so they re-arranged how this course was taught to satisfy the accreditation group. That Lehman is forced to use technology in its classrooms is not a bad thing, of course. The problem is that the school has to follow what appear to be rather rigid rules (another example is that the syllabi in every one of my education classes has looked exactly the same) and structure its program precisely as NCATE tells it to. There's great potential here for stifling of creativity, which is precisely the same problem we find in the K-12 public schools. It's hard to come up with new, creative ways to teach when you are being told exactly the model of instruction to use, exactly the timing the various components of your lesson must use, and so on. (Thankfully, my school backs off of us a lot; we're still teaching the same curriculum as everyone else in the city, and on the same pace, but the infamous Workshop Model is great de-emphasized in favor of finding whatever method or methods work best in any given lesson or unit. There are other schools in my building where the teachers are not so lucky to be able to develop their own methods, though.) If innovation and creativity can't be used in the classroom, whether at the K-12 or higher-ed level, the country's education system is going to fall into greater disarray than ever. There can't be a lack of oversight, of course, and teachers have to be held accountable (though not in the usual way, by examining the test scores of their students), but let's bring this back to baseball. A general manager often has great say over what goes on in his organization. He doesn't control the budget, but he controls almost everything else. He is, like Billy Beane, like Branch Rickey, allowed to innovate in order to make his team better. If his innovations just end up being wheels spun uselessly, he loses his job. If his innovations work, or if he is able to realize when things aren't working and fix them, he keeps his job. If I'm the general manager of my classrooms, then I'm essentially Brian Cashman, of the Yankees, at this point. Cashman is, it seems, a GM in name only. George Steinbrenner seems to be calling a lot of the shots. When he wants a big-name pitcher, regardless of the cost, Cashman has to get it done. When someone on high decides that I'm supposed to teach the slope-intercept form of a line to kids who still count on their fingers, I have to get it done.

Posted by jason in Education at 15:56 | |