One of the things that bothers me when you approach some people with advanced baseball stats is that they complain how complicated they are. “OBP? SLG? Give me a break. I’ll stick with BA, HR, RBI, thanks.” Okay, but some of these stats that we’re so used to aren’t really that simple! Joe Posnanski recently pointed out how complicated the win is as a statistic, but today let’s consider how complicated the RBI is. Don’t believe me? Here, take this quiz and see how well you do.
Imagine a situation in which the bases are loaded and no one is out. For each of the following situations in which the runner from third scores, does the batter get an RBI if …
a) he is hit by a pitch
b) he walks
c) the pitcher throws a wild pitch
d) he strikes out but reaches on a wild pitch (this requires there to be two outs)
e) he hits a sacrifice fly
f) he hits a ball to the same spot as in (e) but the outfielder drops the ball for an error
g) he hits the ball to the same spot as in (e) but the outfielder drops the ball over the outfield fence
h) he grounds out to second
i) he grounds into a double play
j) he grounds into a sure double play, but after recording the out at second the ball is dropped and the throw to first is not made
k) he grounds to second but reaches on an error
l) the runner at third steals home
m) he pops out, the infield fly rule is invoked, and the runner from third tags and makes it anyway
Okay, I know it happened a week ago, but I can’t stop watching the video of Bengie Molina tripling against Boston last Friday. I love everything about it — the slowest man in baseball “running” around the bases, the Rangers’ announcers egging him on, the dugout exploding in smiles and laughter … it’s terrific. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a video more. It also reminds me of the crossword puzzle I’m proudest of writing — you can get it here. It was my first puzzle with the New York Sun and … well, editor Peter Gordon should really get co-author credit on that one.
Nothing fancy about today’s Kaidoku — just fun, I hope. See you Monday!
Why do people use the phrase “[such and such] cannot be underestimated”? This is baffling to me. To wit: if something were very, very good, it would be easy to underestimate it. If something is very bad, one cannot underestimate it. Right? Am I missing something? What are people trying to say here? “[something] cannot be understated”? That’s probably it, I guess. The official Kaidoku blog recommendation is to avoid this turn of phrase entirely. Cherish this advice, young ones.
First things first: today’s puzzle is a variety Kaidoku. Here are the rules:
In today’s puzzle, five (well, actually four) of the entries are non-words.
I think that not everyone will understand what the five non-words are, or why they fit together, so I’ve included a spoiler/explanation in the comments. Okay, now on to other things.
Here’s what I don’t get about LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh going to Miami together next year (and for the next 5 or so). Over the last two seasons, we have the following.
Win Shares: James 38.8 | Wade 27.7 | Bosh 19.3
Now, I can’t seem to find out how these guys rank over the past two seasons, but here’s the point: LeBron is far and away the best player in the NBA over the past two years. Wade, as far as I can tell is second (with apologies to Kobe fans … but he didn’t play all 82 games this past year). Then, down in the pack somewhere is Bosh. Where was the need to give Chris Bosh a ton of money? LeBron and Wade by themselves would totally dominate the league. But then, throw in all the players the Heat could have picked up with Bosh’s money … and consider how limited they are right now to make any further moves … why did this happen? If I were GM, I would have made a run at Wade and LeBron and ignored Bosh, or offered him less. But since that didn’t happen … it tells me that Pat Riley wasn’t the one calling the shots. Wade and LeBron were. They decided that they were going to play with their friend Chris and that was it. if his contract is an albatross around the neck of that franchise for the next five years, so be it.
Enough about basketball! Enjoy the puzzle! See you Monday.
It won’t be long before we get a smartphone that will do absolutely everything, right? I mean, sure, now they can surf the internet and act as voice recorders and phones, etc, but can you imagine it replacing every small electronic device you own? How about remote controls? USB drives? Flashlights? Rokus? Heck, we’re almost there now. They’re now starting to have HDMI output ports and projectors, too, so you may not even need a computer for long! Now of course, I’m still on a pre-paid cell phone and mine isn’t great, so the revolution is a long way away for me. That’s probably a good thing … I’ll hold out until a device comes around that can replace everything I own.
Yes, usually we have a puzzle every Monday and Thursday. But today is a holiday, so we’re taking it off. Let me just leave you with what I thought was a dead-on XKCD webcomic I saw recently (make sure to mouse over for the title text, which is priceless). See you Thursday, with a new Kaidoku! Promise!
If you’re like me, you’ve been watching at least some of the World Cup over the last week or so and you may have wondered, “hey, how come we call it soccer and the rest of the world calls it football?” Well, I don’t have an answer for that. However, I do believe I have an answer of where the term “soccer” came from, at least. You see, when the rules of soccer were being established in the late 1800s, there were two camps: those who preferred “rugby football”, where you were allowed to carry the ball, and those who preferred “association football”, where you were not. At the time, it was the fashion to abbreviate words and add an “er” to the end, as in “brekkers” for breakfast. So naturally, “rugby football” became “rugger” and “association football” became “soccer.” Pretty cool, huh? The question remains for me — why did “soccer” travel across the pond, and why did “soccer” never catch on in Britain?
I like the way today’s puzzle turned out; I think you will too. Have a nice weekend!
Gosh, what can I say about the U.S.-Ghana game on Saturday? The better team won. I’m disappointed, but the U.S. was just outplayed. They held their own, sure, but I’m glad for Ghana. And my fleeting interest in the World Cup has just vanished. Maybe I’ll watch the final. Maybe.
The other game from Saturday that caught my attention was the Braves game. The Braves won, but … well check out the video of the final pitch. Not even close, right? The PitchFX data backs this up:
A win’s a win, and this finally appears to break the curse of Kenshin Kawakami, who had been winless up until that point. I think the baseball gods are getting back at him for throwing that perfect game earlier this year (sorta).
Matt’s offering today is relatively easy, I think. What did you think? How were you able to jump in to this puzzle? See you Thursday.
