THE CITY THAT WORKS
Last Sunday the Chicago Tribune Magazine had a short essay on "having a guy." Of course, L and I have become like gay Simpson's characters and only read the New York Times, so we missed the article. Thankfully our friend G (a guy for this sort of thing) sent a copy of the article to me. However, because of the Tribune's silly links policy (they expire very quickly), there is no link. In addition, because I do not wish to violate copyrights, I will not be reproducing the article in whole. Instead, I will be reproducing parts of it in the context of journalistic criticism. I'll try to discuss all of the good parts.
I GOT A GUY, YOU GOT A GUY, ALL GOD'S CHILDREN GOT A GUY--IF THEY HOPE TO GET ALONG IN CHICAGO By Terry Sullivan, Chicago Tribune Magazine, February 29, 2004.
First, the author gives a very succinct definition of the term Gemeinschaft as used by sociologists. It is, "I got a guy. I know a guy. It's how we solve problems here, as opposed to those places (Gesellschaftenburgs) where you're supposed to go to court, prepare an argument, appeal to logic, like that, even hire a lawyer." In his case, his uncle drank with Joey Aiuppa, who, not surprisingly, was able to fix parking tickets in Cicero, Illinois. Going to a guy who had people whacked just to get parking tickets fixed seems a little bit of overkill to me, but he was just a college kid, so he had not refined his sense of using his guys.
After college, during the throws of a war in, "a Southeast Asian country I sincerely did not wish to visit" the author "arrived home from my honeymoon to discover a letter from Lyndon [Johnson] in the mail, inviting me to report for my physical." At the time, six weeks after the physical people were drafted into the military. This left very, very little time to get an exemption of any sort. Thus, the author needed a guy very badly. As luck would have it (now they call it "networking"), his new wife had a female friend whose sister had a former husband who . . . had a guy. Thus, the author went to a National Guard recruiting station, indicated who he had been sent by, and became a National Guardsman in time for, "six years, four riots, one Democratic convention and a tornado, which beat the bejesus out of attending the Tet offensive." This was a very, very well calibrated use of a guy.
An even more time-honored use of a guy than fixing tickets and avoiding military duty is the experience his mother-in-law has had. As he relates it, "my sainted mother-in-law, Lil, also relied on having a posthumous guy. She drove in Chicago for 60 years without ever getting a traffic ticket. Not that she was never stopped, but because she had a great deal of well-placed faith in the sentence: 'Young man, I'm a policeman's widow.'" No better words in the Chicago language. Boy, what I wouldn't do to be related to CPD.
Now the funny thing about all of this is that people from those Gesellschaftburgs see this as corrupt, unfair, or otherwise wrong. I couldn't disagree more. This is part of being in a community. When I find I don't have a guy when I need one, it means I have not been involved enough. It means I have ignored an aspect of my life. Thus, when I am at work, I have guys (some of whom are women) who I know I can call and not just be a person on the phone. At home, there are things I have a guy for, and things it hardly seems worth it for. However, in every case where I have a guy, it is because I am an active member of the community—and sometimes I am someone else's guy. I think more places could use more of this, because it makes it absolutely necessary for you to engage the people around you.
Besides, it's nice to get a little something, you know, for the effort.
OUR NEW ALLIES
NATO has a program called Partnership for Peace, the purpose of which appears to be to surround Russia with US allies. However, as is always true when indiscriminately gathering "allies" you sometimes get more than you bargained for. The Moscow Times carried a story about a murder in Hungary that illustrates this nicely.
Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war after the collapse of the Soviet Union over the region Nagorny-Karabakh. The war cost 30,000 lives, and displaced a million people. The two countries still don't get along. However, both are Partnership for Peace members and send officers to Hungary to learn English (!) to be in the program. Two weeks ago, an Azeri officer from a displaced family allegedly snuck into the room of an Armenian officer and hacked him to death with an axe.
We'll end up like the Habsburgs in World War I, with the Romanians deserting to the Russians, and the Slovaks and Hungarians shooting at each other if we keep collecting these random allies.
WELCOME TO MARCH
March means two things to right-thinking Americans. First, the NCAA basketball tournament is close. Very close. Second, and maybe more important, all teams have all of their players at Spring Training. If I needed to tell you that I am talking about baseball, click here and find yourself on the list.
Still, here? Good. Baseball never really left my mind (a strange, unexpected consequence of my team actually playing in October). However it is roaring back lately. Today Baseball Prospectus has a piece on the strikeout. The whole goal of the article is separate perception from reality. The perception is that as a hitter a strikeout is the worst thing you can do, and as a pitcher, you just need to get outs, by strikeout, or any other means.
The article examines those in light of the statistical evidence and finds a few surprising things. First, since 1950, teams that strike out often don't score fewer runs than teams that don't. Personally, I think this is a factor of playing big ball (striking out, but going for the three run homers to win) versus small ball (not striking out, and playing for one run at a time). However, it is interesting. They also have a statistical correlation of all players from 1950-2002 with more than 300 plate appearances that seems to indicate that guys who strikeout often are not worse offensively than guys who do not. However, this has an "averaging" effect by comparing strikeout to plate appearance for all players, rather than focusing on the high strikeout guys. In other words, Sammy Sosa strikes out too often, and Mark Grace did not. When you average their offensive performance they had MANY strikeouts, lots of home runs, and good small ball numbers. It doesn't mean that Sammy's strikeouts don't matter though. Too esoteric? You ain't seen nothing yet, baby.
On the pitcher side, the Baseball Prospectus makes a very strong argument that strikeouts must be the bread and butter for a pitcher. The line of reasoning is that the fewer balls put in play, the lower the number of hits, the lower the number of runs. Thus, is 2003, Kerry had 11.35 strikeouts per nine innings, and an ERA of 3.20. Joe Mays had 3.46 strikeouts per nine innings, with an ERA of 6.30. Anecdotal to be sure, but still interesting. They also conclude that pitchers with many strikeouts age better than pitchers without strikeouts. Of course, the great strikeout pitchers have been fast ball pitchers, and the fast ball puts much less strain on the arm than breaking pitches, so this may be a case of using the wrong metric to track the wrong statistic.
By the way, since at bats are a zero sum game, in which there is a winner and a loser in every at bat, doesn't seem counterintuitive to say that strikeouts for hitters are irrelevant, but for pitchers they are necessary? Seems like a flawed model to me. I still want to see Sammy strikeout less.
Last Sunday the Chicago Tribune Magazine had a short essay on "having a guy." Of course, L and I have become like gay Simpson's characters and only read the New York Times, so we missed the article. Thankfully our friend G (a guy for this sort of thing) sent a copy of the article to me. However, because of the Tribune's silly links policy (they expire very quickly), there is no link. In addition, because I do not wish to violate copyrights, I will not be reproducing the article in whole. Instead, I will be reproducing parts of it in the context of journalistic criticism. I'll try to discuss all of the good parts.
I GOT A GUY, YOU GOT A GUY, ALL GOD'S CHILDREN GOT A GUY--IF THEY HOPE TO GET ALONG IN CHICAGO By Terry Sullivan, Chicago Tribune Magazine, February 29, 2004.
First, the author gives a very succinct definition of the term Gemeinschaft as used by sociologists. It is, "I got a guy. I know a guy. It's how we solve problems here, as opposed to those places (Gesellschaftenburgs) where you're supposed to go to court, prepare an argument, appeal to logic, like that, even hire a lawyer." In his case, his uncle drank with Joey Aiuppa, who, not surprisingly, was able to fix parking tickets in Cicero, Illinois. Going to a guy who had people whacked just to get parking tickets fixed seems a little bit of overkill to me, but he was just a college kid, so he had not refined his sense of using his guys.
After college, during the throws of a war in, "a Southeast Asian country I sincerely did not wish to visit" the author "arrived home from my honeymoon to discover a letter from Lyndon [Johnson] in the mail, inviting me to report for my physical." At the time, six weeks after the physical people were drafted into the military. This left very, very little time to get an exemption of any sort. Thus, the author needed a guy very badly. As luck would have it (now they call it "networking"), his new wife had a female friend whose sister had a former husband who . . . had a guy. Thus, the author went to a National Guard recruiting station, indicated who he had been sent by, and became a National Guardsman in time for, "six years, four riots, one Democratic convention and a tornado, which beat the bejesus out of attending the Tet offensive." This was a very, very well calibrated use of a guy.
An even more time-honored use of a guy than fixing tickets and avoiding military duty is the experience his mother-in-law has had. As he relates it, "my sainted mother-in-law, Lil, also relied on having a posthumous guy. She drove in Chicago for 60 years without ever getting a traffic ticket. Not that she was never stopped, but because she had a great deal of well-placed faith in the sentence: 'Young man, I'm a policeman's widow.'" No better words in the Chicago language. Boy, what I wouldn't do to be related to CPD.
Now the funny thing about all of this is that people from those Gesellschaftburgs see this as corrupt, unfair, or otherwise wrong. I couldn't disagree more. This is part of being in a community. When I find I don't have a guy when I need one, it means I have not been involved enough. It means I have ignored an aspect of my life. Thus, when I am at work, I have guys (some of whom are women) who I know I can call and not just be a person on the phone. At home, there are things I have a guy for, and things it hardly seems worth it for. However, in every case where I have a guy, it is because I am an active member of the community—and sometimes I am someone else's guy. I think more places could use more of this, because it makes it absolutely necessary for you to engage the people around you.
Besides, it's nice to get a little something, you know, for the effort.
OUR NEW ALLIES
NATO has a program called Partnership for Peace, the purpose of which appears to be to surround Russia with US allies. However, as is always true when indiscriminately gathering "allies" you sometimes get more than you bargained for. The Moscow Times carried a story about a murder in Hungary that illustrates this nicely.
Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war after the collapse of the Soviet Union over the region Nagorny-Karabakh. The war cost 30,000 lives, and displaced a million people. The two countries still don't get along. However, both are Partnership for Peace members and send officers to Hungary to learn English (!) to be in the program. Two weeks ago, an Azeri officer from a displaced family allegedly snuck into the room of an Armenian officer and hacked him to death with an axe.
We'll end up like the Habsburgs in World War I, with the Romanians deserting to the Russians, and the Slovaks and Hungarians shooting at each other if we keep collecting these random allies.
WELCOME TO MARCH
March means two things to right-thinking Americans. First, the NCAA basketball tournament is close. Very close. Second, and maybe more important, all teams have all of their players at Spring Training. If I needed to tell you that I am talking about baseball, click here and find yourself on the list.
Still, here? Good. Baseball never really left my mind (a strange, unexpected consequence of my team actually playing in October). However it is roaring back lately. Today Baseball Prospectus has a piece on the strikeout. The whole goal of the article is separate perception from reality. The perception is that as a hitter a strikeout is the worst thing you can do, and as a pitcher, you just need to get outs, by strikeout, or any other means.
The article examines those in light of the statistical evidence and finds a few surprising things. First, since 1950, teams that strike out often don't score fewer runs than teams that don't. Personally, I think this is a factor of playing big ball (striking out, but going for the three run homers to win) versus small ball (not striking out, and playing for one run at a time). However, it is interesting. They also have a statistical correlation of all players from 1950-2002 with more than 300 plate appearances that seems to indicate that guys who strikeout often are not worse offensively than guys who do not. However, this has an "averaging" effect by comparing strikeout to plate appearance for all players, rather than focusing on the high strikeout guys. In other words, Sammy Sosa strikes out too often, and Mark Grace did not. When you average their offensive performance they had MANY strikeouts, lots of home runs, and good small ball numbers. It doesn't mean that Sammy's strikeouts don't matter though. Too esoteric? You ain't seen nothing yet, baby.
On the pitcher side, the Baseball Prospectus makes a very strong argument that strikeouts must be the bread and butter for a pitcher. The line of reasoning is that the fewer balls put in play, the lower the number of hits, the lower the number of runs. Thus, is 2003, Kerry had 11.35 strikeouts per nine innings, and an ERA of 3.20. Joe Mays had 3.46 strikeouts per nine innings, with an ERA of 6.30. Anecdotal to be sure, but still interesting. They also conclude that pitchers with many strikeouts age better than pitchers without strikeouts. Of course, the great strikeout pitchers have been fast ball pitchers, and the fast ball puts much less strain on the arm than breaking pitches, so this may be a case of using the wrong metric to track the wrong statistic.
By the way, since at bats are a zero sum game, in which there is a winner and a loser in every at bat, doesn't seem counterintuitive to say that strikeouts for hitters are irrelevant, but for pitchers they are necessary? Seems like a flawed model to me. I still want to see Sammy strikeout less.
posted by David at 1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home