Joey Bats: Seriously, is it time to start worrying?

In what has become a discomfortingly familiar sight, Bautista pops out last night. Photo by Nathan Denette.

Jose Bautista is off to an awful start. But don't take my word for it - here's a simple comparison of his ratios from the past few years:

	PA	AVG	OBP	SLG	ISO	BABIP	BB%	K%	wOBA	wRC+
2009	404	0.235	0.349	0.408	0.173	0.275	13.9%	21.0%	0.339	102
2010	683	0.260	0.378	0.617	0.357	0.233	14.6%	17.0%	0.422	166
2011	655	0.302	0.447	0.608	0.306	0.309	20.2%	16.9%	0.441	181
2012	99	0.190	0.333	0.329	0.139	0.179	16.2%	11.1%	0.301	88

In every category but K-rate, (strangely, but more on that later) Joey Bats' numbers have taken a nose-dive. He's walking less than last year, his batting average on balls in play is absurdly (and unsustainably, thank god) low, and his isolated power is actually below league-average. And overall - and this is what you see in those last two columns, weighted on-base average and weighted runs created plus - he's about 10% below league-average on offense. The Bautista that we see in 2012 looks nothing like the one from 2010 or 2011 - he doesn't look much like the one from 2009, either, but if we were compelled to choose the best comparison...

"But", you're saying, "this is a small sample-size. If his BABIP were closer to his career average (of .273) and just 1 or 2 deep fly-outs had left the park, we wouldn't be worried at all!" And you're probably right. But his BABIP has been low and he does only have 5 extra-base hits (after posting 92 and 69 in the past two years), so let's see if we can find an explanation. First, we'll check out the batted-ball details:

	PA	GB/FB	LD%	GB%	FB%	IFFB%	HR/FB
2009	404	0.98	16.7%	41.3%	42.1%	10.4%	12.3%
2010	683	0.57	14.4%	31.1%	54.5%	14.9%	21.7%
2011	655	0.79	16.0%	36.9%	47.0%	15.2%	22.5%
2012	99	0.85	13.7%	39.7%	46.6%	20.6%	8.8%

Again, given the caveat that these are small samples, it looks like some sort of explanation is starting to emerge, and it reconciles well with what the eyeball-test tells me - Bautista just isn't getting good wood on the ball, and is either driving it into the ground or blasting it sky-high. (In Sunday's game, he hit three IFFBs in one at-bat - one fell foul because of a miscommunication, one fell just a couple rows into the stands, and the last was finally caught by Seattle's shortstop.) His line-drive rate is noticeably down, his ground-ball rate is rising to pre-2010 breakout levels, and he's hitting harmless pop-ups at a really alarming rate. And when he does hit flies, they just aren't leaving the park. This also explains a lot of the BABIP, by the way - the expected batting average on LDs is about .700, while the expected average on IFFBs is almost .000.

Bautista wonders about the BABIP on bunts - hint: it's not enough. Photo by Mike Cassese.

So, why is this happening? Is he doing something different? Are the pitchers doing something different? Based on the next spread of numbers, it seems like that it's a bit of Column A and a bit of Column B.

First, the pitches he's seeing:

	PA	FB%	SL%	CB%	wFB
2009	404	59.9%	14.6%	10.7%	4.1
2010	683	49.5%	19.3%	12.7%	38.9
2011	655	50.3%	17.6%	11.3%	30.7
2012	99	59.6%	15.5%	6.9%	-0.7

This is where it starts to get interesting - pitchers don't seem to be afraid to throw fastballs to Bautista anymore. A typical MLB batter sees around 56% or 57% fastballs, but Bautista's 50% in 2010-11 was the 6th fewest among qualified batters - a number beaten only by other sluggers like Ryan Howard and Josh Hamilton. A 60% rate, though puts Bautista in the company of guys like Michael Bourn and Michael Cuddyer. Again, this seems to jibe with the eyeball-test (and, amazingly, with Pat Tabler's analysis) - pitchers who were previously afraid to throw the high-heat to Joey Bats are now throwing it routinely.

But they would only throw it if he wasn't hitting, right? And you can see that he's not hitting it well in that last column - the one that shows that Bautista has posted a negative run-value on fastballs in play, after two seasons where he hit fastballs better than all but two other players. So, let's look at what Bautista is or isn't doing with the bat...

	PA	Contact%	Zone%	O-Swing%	Z-Swing%	Swing%	O-Contact%	Z-Contact%
2009	404	80.1%	52.3%	17.5%	55.6%	37.5%	59.7%	86.0%
2010	683	80.5%	48.5%	22.0%	60.0%	40.4%	66.1%	86.1%
2011	655	79.3%	44.4%	21.2%	57.9%	37.5%	64.2%	86.3%
2012	99	80.4%	47.4%	25.3%	54.7%	39.3%	77.2%	82.0%

I could probably have started with this one chart and referred only to this one chart. That's because plate discipline is the one instance where the sample-size may not be an issue - swing and contact-rates in baseball stabilize much faster than anything else. (Of course, I'm going to break those rates down into sub-sets, which makes it a little questionable, again. Sue me.)

Now, Bautista's Contact% number looks pretty solid, but if you look at the other columns it's also a misleading number. Because, while the overall number looks consistent and encouraging, its components have changed pretty dramatically.

First, Bautista is swinging much more often at pitches outside the zone (O-Swing%) and less often at pitches inside the zone (Z-Swing%). Bautista's numbers in both columns are still well below-average (which are around 30% and 65%, respectively), because he's an exceptionally patient hitter, but the trend is obviously troubling.

Second, and perhaps more indicative of his problems, Bautista's contact rate inside the zone has dropped by a pretty sizable margin, while, again, his contact rate on pitches outside the zone has increased dramatically. Bautista has always made contact in the zone at a slightly below-average rate, but that's not surprising - power has a significant negative-correlation with contact, so power hitters do tend to whiff at a high rate. More remarkably, though, he used to miss outside pitches more often than league-average (68%), but is now making contact well above that average.

Especially when you think about how power and contact correlate, Bautista's contact rates are a bad development that goes a long way toward explaining the early season problems - if Bautista is making more contact with less hittable pitches, then it follows that the balls he puts in play will be more poorly hit. Not to sound like I'm hitting the panic button, but when I saw these numbers I was reminded of another power hitter who's infamous for his plate discipline and tattooing fastballs, but saw his Z-Contact% drop slightly and his O-Contact% increase dramatically last year, resulting in a complete inability to do anything useful against fastballs - Adam Dunn.

No one wants to be compared to 2011's Adam Dunn. Not even Adam Dunn. Photo by Jerry Lai.

So, where does that leave us? My quick and dirty summary is this: Bautista has to stop swinging at pitches outside the zone. Unless you're Vlad Guerrero in his prime, putting O-Zone pitches in play is deadly to a batter's production. And, really, it's not like he even has an excuse for chasing bad pitches out of the zone - he's seeing more fastballs in the zone than he has in years! (Less helpfully, I'd add that he needs to start hitting fastballs, again.)

No, all is not lost - not even for Adam Dunn, whose 2012 peripherals and production look a lot like his pre-2011 numbers, and is also back to destroying fastballs. In all likelihood, Bautista just needs to adjust his approach ever-so-slightly, to something more closely resembling what he did over the past two years. For what it's worth, this looks to me like a problem with discipline and patience - something that Bautista has been shown to have in spades.

Guest-blog!: Response to the Joel Ward blog

(Victoria Kannen responds to Neil's recent blog about the Joel Ward Twitter-controversy. Victoria may not choose to watch sports, but she does choose to watch The Jersey Shore, and is a doctor of sociology.)

While I agree with Neil's apt assessment that what Joel Ward experienced following his series-winning goal was fueled by systemic racism, I also believe that the responses by these "fans" speak to larger and more complex issues occurring within popular sport as of late. I, as an admittedly non-sports fan, have begun to recently consider the ways in which "fans" are responding to those who they seemingly idolize, support, and "employ." 

Upon reading Neil's discussion, I was reminded of David Beckham's visit to Toronto in early March, where "Beckham was far from a fan favourite from the opening whistle". The "fans" booed, threw streamers and, eventually, hurled a beer can at him. The resulting commentary on this incident was discussed in terms of "the few" who ruined the experience of seeing Beckham for "the many."

Photo by Steve Russell, Toronto Star

So, where does this aggression come from? In Beckham's case, unlike Ward's, the violent reactions were unlikely to be racially-focused, yet they were similar in tone. Attempts by "fans" to demean and humiliate those who excel at the sport they are supposedly fans of cannot be easily dismissed as strictly related to team loyalty.  I feel that the ways in which masculinity, class, and race are working together are particularly important when trying to think through these reactions. 

The complexity of being a fan for sports positions the viewer as one who is both powerful and powerless. Powerful for, as I implied earlier, "employing" the teams that one is watching - buying tickets to their games, donning their gear, blogging about them, etc. which all create the existence of professional sports teams to begin with. But, fans are simultaneously positioned as "less than" - unlikely to have the prestige, ability, or earning power of those that they habitually watch play these games. 

In Ward's case, hurling violent and racist comments was easily achieved by these "fans," as hockey is a primarily white-dominated sport. For Beckham, his beauty and fame could be symbolically tarnished by those who (momentarily) were above him (in the stands). As these sports reactions exist within a cult of incoherent masculinity, it becomes clear that the most basic way to engage with feeling of cultural and social inadequacy is to take it out on those you most resent - the hero for the other team.

The week past at Big Smoke Signals...

I don't want to just double-post every single sports blog that I make - I'm currently restricting them to the new Toronto-focused sports blog that I contribute to, Big Smoke Signals - but I also don't want to cut them out entirely. So, here's my compromise: I'm going to post a summary of whatever I've written about sports in the past week to this blog, every Monday. Sound good? Good!

• From Monday: My frustration with sports reporters reliance on tired narratives of redemption, especially when they don't fit the facts - starring the Blue Jays' Travis Snider.
• From Wednesday: A lesson on using bad stats, in response to a meaningless hockey "record" that was reported by the Canadian Press.
• From Friday: A critique of the knee-jerk reaction the racist Tweets targeted at the NHL's Joel Ward - you say "isolated", I say "nope".
• From Saturday: A stats-heavy analysis of the Blue Jays' decision to walk Dustin Ackley at a pivotal moment in the 9th inning. (The Mariners would subsequently tie the game and eventually win it.)

Greatest. Muppet. Show. Sketches. Ever.

This blog post is exactly what the title says - in a radical departure from my recent spate of politically-charged blogs about race, I'm going to post videos of my favorite Muppet Shows bits. And I'm going to let them speak for themselves, more or less. (Probably "more", because I can't resist commenting.)

One major caveat: I've only watched the first three seasons, each of which I have on DVD - the rest haven't been officially released. So, I'm omitting 40% of the show's output.

3x14: Harry Belafonte vs. Animal

I thought it would be excessive to choose more than one sketch from Harry Belafonte's episode, and chose this one arbitrarily, for the most part. Which isn't to say that the sketch itself isn't great - because it is. The "problem" is that the entire episode is probably the Muppets' very best.

2x07: "Time in a Bottle"


There's something additionally poignant about this song when you consider that a) Jim Croce, who recorded it 5 years earlier, died 3 months before it would be released as a single, and b) Jim Henson, who would die about ten years later, voices the mad scientist, who sings tragically about the inescapability of his own mortality, even as he tries desperately to escape it anyway. (Arguably, of course, both Jims have escaped death - Croce's version when to #1 posthumously, and Henson's legacy survives in the Muppets themselves.)

3x11: "Jamboree"

Gonzo is my favorite Muppet, and this song probably captures the wonder and emotional complexity of his character better than any other. (Also notable? This is one of only two songs that Frank Oz is credited with writing for the Muppets. The other, "The Rhyming Song", is purposely bad and intended as something of a joke.)

1x15: "Put Another Log on the Fire"

People often forget that the Muppets weren't originally meant to be a kid's program. In Henson's original pitch, he stresses that it's edgy and topical, and nothing like Sesame Street, an obvious resemblance - they both use Henson's Muppets - which needed to be actively and repeatedly disavowed. Instead, The Muppet Show was meant to be adult-oriented but family-friendly. And so, in the early episodes, you got sketches like this one, which were much more risqué and explicitly political. Candice Bergen is pretty badass, here, too. (And her episode is probably the best of the first season, which was, to put it kindly, uneven.)

2x13: "Something's Missing"

Interestingly, this was a UK Spot, that is a bit that was created exclusively for broadcast in Britain, where shows were mandated to be longer than in the US - and so probably wasn't even seen on this side of the Atlantic until the DVDs were released. It's incredibly sentimental and syrupy sweet. And sometimes? So am I.

I'm certain that some other spots - better spots, even - have slipped my mind, but that happens. If I ever get around to seeing the last two seasons, I may come back and update this. (Or, maybe, just create an entirely new post!)

Fun with analysis: Cordero vs. the intentional walk

In last night's Jays game, the Blue Jays made the decision to intentionally walk Dustin Ackley in the ninth inning. Here's how it happened: the Mariners, who were only down by one run, had a runner on first when Ackley came to the plate. With the count 3-1, (as I recall, but I can't actually verify it) J.P. Arencibia's pick-off throw flew 10 feet over Adam Lind's head and the runner, Kawasaki, advanced to third. And so the Jays elected to walk Ackley and go after the next batter, who was a pinch-hitter, John Jaso.

But was it a good idea? A bad idea? My first reaction was "ridiculous", but let's look at the numbers.

Here's how Ackley and Jaso stack-up against one another:

• For his career, Ackley has a .282/.355/.419 triple-slash against right-handed pitchers, about 15% above-average. And with a 3-1 count he becomes a much better hitter - his expected on-base goes up about .200 points, and he goes from being a hitter who's 115% of average to 115% above average. 
• Jaso is a somewhat weaker hitter than Ackley according to the rest-of-season ZiPS projections, only slightly above-average against right-handed pitching. (They're both left-handed bats, so the platoon-advantage exists in both cases.) But the pinch-hit penalty exacerbates the difference and turns this him into a hitter who's only a bit better than replacement-level - something like 15% below-average. 
• Also, they both become slightly better hitters because of the presence of a runner-in-scoring-position.
• But you know what? If you pitch to Ackley at 3-1, he has about a 55% chance of reaching base. That's really high, sure - only a 45% chance that you'll get him out and end the game right then and there. But if you walk him, intentionally? That's a 100% chance of reaching base, and no chance of ending the game.  

So, what are the odds, irrespective of hitter ability?

• With the walk to Ackley, Toronto's win-expectancy dropped from 87% to 83.1%. That seems tiny, in a vacuum, but it's significant.
• Seattle's run-expectancy with 2 outs and a runner at third is 0.373 runs; with 2 outs and runners on the corners it becomes 0.512. (Basically, the odds that Seattle will tie the game went from 1-in-3 to 1-in-2, which is huge.)
• The value of a 1B - which is what Jaso hit - with a runner at third is 0.85 runs; the value of a 1B with runners at first and third is 0.96 runs. (Because the runner at first is likely to advance in to scoring position, any hit is much more damaging with the added guy on first base.)
• I should add that Ackley's speed means that he stands a good chance of stealing second, which improves the run-expectancy (and, thus, win-expectancy) by a pretty large margin - to 0.626 - and the chances that a single scores the go-ahead run improves immensely, increasing the value of that single by exactly half a run, to 1.46.
• In the category of Harder to Quantify, we should also consider that the need to hold Ackley opens up a big hole on the pull-side of the infield for Jaso. I'm not sure whether a study exists that covers just how much that helps, but it does.
• In short, the Mariners' chances are improved significantly with the additional baserunner.

What's trickier - far too tricky for me to number-crunch with a great deal of confidence - would be coming up with context-specific numbers. That is, combining the base-state numbers and the Ackley/Jaso numbers. If I do something quick and sloppy, like multiply run-expectancy by wRC+, then the numbers are virtually identical. But the opportunity for Ackley to steal and that hole in the infield are enough to make me think that the intentional walk wasn't worth it.

Now, if only Pat and Buck would cover any of this...

Joel Ward and the racism of "a few people"

Hockey fans probably remember the NHL exhibition game that was played in London, back in September. Not for the game itself, mind you, but for the banana that a fan threw on to the ice when Wayne Simmonds, a black hockey player, skated on to the ice for his turn in the shoot-out. People were predictably outraged, but it still took several days to identify the banana-thrower, and the whole incident was widely dismissed as an isolated one because, we were assured, London is not a racist place. But, of course, it's not "isolated" - how many times do these things need to happen before we can admit that? - and no place is without racism. (I wrote about it briefly on my personal blog, at the time.)

So, I wasn't surprised when this happened. You've probably seen those tweets, because they're everywhere: the Washington Capitals' Joel Ward scored the series-winning goal against the Boston Bruins' Tim Thomas, and in so doing set the Twitterverse afire. Oh, and Joel Ward is black, so by "set afire", I mean "pissed off a lot of racists". (Actually, there is one thing about the responses on Twitter that surprise me. Of the forty tweets listed on that Chirpstory page, only three have been deleted, a full two days after they were first posted. Really? You still haven't figured out that posting a racial slur to your public Twitter account is a bad idea?*)

photo by Kevin Lamarque, Reuters

But one of the most interesting things to come out of this are the telling comments from Ward's mom, for whom this isn't isolated and who reminds us that even Toronto, where Ward grew up, is a racist place. In a Toronto Star article, she recalls "players and their families drawing attention to the young black player on the ice, telling him to play basketball, and even a referee calling him a monkey."

Equally telling, though, are all of the other comments from people involved in the game: Ward's teammate Jason Chimera describes it as a problem with "a few idiots", the Capitals' owner calls out "these folks", and even Ward reduces it to just "a few people". And here we are, sliding back into characterizing it as an isolated incident and a problem that belongs to only a very small number of people, rather than recognizing that it's one of many symptoms of a much larger, systemic problem. Plus ça change, and all that.

[* In the Toronto Star article that I've linked above, they quote one of those many Twitter users, who 'apologizes' to "anyone [he] may have offended". This is, of course, not an actual apology because he takes no responsibility for causing offense. He also adds that he's "not racist", and that it was said in "the heat of the moment". Yes, because every single one of us is known to drop the n-bomb when we get too excited, am I right? Only, no.]

Dumb and dubious "records"

Some stats and records just aren't worth writing about. From the Toronto Star:

"The Rangers are trying to avoid the fate that befell the Vancouver Canucks, the top seed in the West, who lost in five games to the Los Angeles Kings. That left Ottawa as the only Canadian team alive, a lunch-bucket crew who started the playoffs as a happy-to-be-here bunch and perhaps surprised even themselves with how far they’ve gone. But they find themselves fighting history. Never before has the NHL lost both top seeds in the first round since the conference format was set up in 1993-94."

So, why is this a dumb record? It implies that these are somehow dependent events - that Vancouver's loss is in some way predictive of Ottawa's chances and that it has in some way made it more unlikely that the Senators will win. Which makes no sense, because these aren't dependent events and Daniel Sedin's concussion has nothing to do with whether Daniel Alfredsson will come through on the power-play.

The history that the Senators are fighting - the history that has some bearing on their chances, and so would have made much more sense to report - is the woeful performance of #8 seeds in first-round match-ups against #1 seeds. ("Woeful" is relative, of course. Compared to the NBA, this record is stellar!) Since the turn of the century, the #8 team has won only 5 of 22 series. (My sincerest apologies for using a Bleacher Report link. I find their "slideshows" and pop-ups unbelievably annoying, but they were also the easiest source to locate for the info.)

So, if you need to give the Senators a historical record to fight against, use 23%, not 0%. Not only is it better math, but it also bears a much closer resemblance to reality. (Which, as I understand it, is something that journalism aspires to?)

Anders Breivik and what the question of his sanity says about us

As much as I am loathe to admit that I'm impressed by how smart a white supremacist mass murderer is, it bears mentioning that Anders Breivik actually has some half-decent insight into the way he's being framed by the media. And not just that he has any insight at all, but that he probably has more meaningful insight than the media itself.

Yesterday, Breivik made a couple of points about why his detractors want him to be found insane, some of which were surprisingly astute. (And some that were hilariously misdirected, but still not entirely wrong.)

• No one would question his sanity if he were a "bearded jihadist." Now, Breivik is wrong about the reason that this double-standard exists, but he's right that it needs to be pointed out: Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh were batshit nuts, but Osama was a coolly-rational evil genius. Indeed, we've been told that all "militant" or "extremist" Muslims - not just the "crazy" ones! - are capable of killing large numbers of people, and that such violence is the predictable - if not logical - result of having been raised that way. But those positions can't both be right - either the Muslim and Christian extremists are equally nuts, or they're not. But that similarity needs to be denied, repeatedly but softly, so that we can maintain that shaky line between "us" and "them". (We - and by "we", I mean mainstream white America/Canada/Europe - don't even really entertain the possibility, do we?)
• That he needs to be found insane, because it would "delegitimize everything [he] stand[s] for". Quite right, even if he gets the reasoning wrong. If he's insane, then we can deny the existence of racism among "sane" white people, and racism becomes something entirely exceptional and restricted to society's fringe.
• That racism is responsible for the differential treatment. Yes, though - and I'm sure I don't have to explain why - he's completely wrong about what kind of racism is at play, here.

What Breivik's observations illustrate especially well - unknowingly and unintentionally, of course - is just how invested Euro-American society is in disavowing its own racism. And the need to find him insane? That's just a symptom of the problem.

Wildrose bearing the White Man's Burden

So, there's a provincial election happening in Alberta this week, and it's largely being waged between an incumbent Conservative Party and an upstart even more conservative party called Wildrose. And this happened:

This is actually a pretty wonderful "teachable moment", even if it's a mildly idiotic statement. (I say "mildly" because, let's face it, it could've been a lot worse.) Because a lot of white people actually do believe this and would probably find themselves in complete agreement with Ron Leech.

What makes this particularly teachable, though, is how succinctly it manages to demonstrate three things that people who study race know to be true about what it means to have white skin:

• That white people often don't think they have a "race". In the discourse of critical race studies, we talk about how whiteness is akin to invisibility - that what actually marks "race" is its difference from white skin. Thus, someone who lacks those visual markers appears to lack race altogether.
• That having a race (or, perhaps, having too much race) is a disadvantage. What Leech says, here, is that people who have race also have difficulty seeing past it and their own race's interests. (Of course, this would hardly be inflammatory if he hadn't already removed himself from the tacit list of People With a Race.) To belong to a "special interest group", it's implied, is to have primary responsibility to that group, and only a secondary responsibility to society as a whole.
• Leech, though, demonstrates that he thinks he has no special interest group, and so his responsibility is to all of society. And that's because white people forget that they, themselves, constitute an interest group - but the only one that routinely mistakes itself for the whole of society.

There is, probably, a White Man's Burden thing happening here, too. Leech seems to be saying that the non-white folks in Alberta can't get along on their own, can't listen to or understand each other (but he can! ha!), and so the white man needs to take care of them and demonstrate what leadership looks like. (And I mean "looks like", of course, in both the literal and figurative sense.) Because, y'know, that kind of colonial thinking has always worked out so well in the past, right?

Travis Snider and annoying sports narratives

Some Blue Jays fans might be wondering how the loser of the only real Spring Training competition is doing in AAA - as it turns out, he's doing quite well! Explains the Canadian Press, "Travis Snider is sending the Toronto Blue Jays’ brass an early-season message. The 24-year-old slugger, who lost the battle for Toronto’s left-fielder job to Eric Thames at spring training, is off to an excellent start with the triple-A Las Vegas 51s."

Travis Snider, sans last year's mullet

Excellent might actually be an understatement - in 69 PAs, Snider has a triple-slash of .450/.522/.800, good enough for 153% better than the park-adjusted AAA average. (To clarify, that isn't 153% of average, which is superstar-level - that's 153% above, which is comparable to Barry Bonds vs. the MLB average in 2001-4.) That means it's completely unsustainable, of course, and that Snider is getting insanely lucky - especially because he's only (I should probably say "only") hit four homers in that span and has a ridonkulous .469 BABIP. But I'm already letting numbers get in the way of the narrative...

So, to what do we attribute Snider's seeming improvement? Tweaks to his swing mechanics? Some new workout regimen? Random variance? The fact that this is his third go at AAA, which means he's dangerously close to becoming one of those AAAA guys who, for some reason,  just can't hit Major League pitching and is successful by virtue of preying on much less experienced opponents?


The CP article continues, "While he’s had spurts of such productivity before, this time he’s doing it with a high level of confidence and maturity." Ah, I see. It's maturity. Snider also says something about focus, which also becomes part of the narrative, because "[t]hat renewed focus seems to be paying off for the Jays’ former first-round pick."

I've already hinted at how his performance is so far beyond explanation that we need to attribute some significant portion of it to fluke. But the CP article actually anticipates my next critique with its reference to "spurts of such productivity before". Because Snider was also excellent last year at AAA, where he hit .327/.394/.480. (And he was even better in both 2009 and 2008.) If he's found his focus at AAA this year, it wouldn't be the first time - and one hopes that he doesn't lose it as quickly and completely as he did last year. Which isn't to say that you can't build a story around "focus", but if you're going to frame the story that way, you need to account for last year, too, or the frame just flies apart at the seams.

I realize that the guy who wrote the article is just looking for an angle, but why go to the trouble of inventing one - especially one that's so boring? Why not put some work into it and try to find the actual explanation?

Update on my blogging habits

While I've only rarely blogged about sports on this blog, I've started another one that deals specifically with sports topics, and it can be found here: bigsmokesignals.blogspot.ca

This is probably going to affect my ability to post stuff here in any sort of consistent or timely fashion - although, let's face it, that's always a problem for me. But I've created a new blog for it because I'm also trying to convince some friends of mine - some who already blog about sports, no less! - to join me in making it a communal blog.

So, we'll see whether that actually goes somewhere, or if those thoughts eventually just migrate back here.

Brett Lawrie and 'playing the game the right way'

When the Oakland A's Eric Byrnes finally managed to stick with the big league team in 2003, it was with some serious concerns about his durability. Sure enough, Byrnes did a lot of The Right Things: when Fangraphs last deemed him worth writing about - in 2010 - they noted that he was both beloved and mocked for his "grit", and even his Wikipedia page notes that he was known primarily for his "hustle". Which is to say that he demonstrably tried really hard.

Byrnes, making a play on a routine fly ball. Because that's just how he rolls.

Of course, pushing yourself and hustling non-stop can certainly be a bad thing. (On a personal note: I play really hard, and I only play rec-league softball. Last year, I pulled my rib cage; the year before, I broke a bone in my foot.) Those concerns - made prophetically by scouts and analysts during his breakout in '03, when he was still hitting .350 and leaping for every ball in the outfield - had mostly to do with the fact that he tried too hard, played too recklessly, and couldn't last an entire season. And they were right: Byrnes hit .334 and was 50% better than league average on offense - according to Tom Tango's wOBA - in the first half of the year, which is superstar-calibre hitting; he hit .146 and was 50% below average the rest of the way, which probably isn't even deserving of a spot on the bench. (Though the split isn't as extreme over the length of his career, it remains: his best months were May and June, where he was about consistently about 10% above-average, and his worst were August and September, where he was about 25% below.) As for his durability, he would only once play more than 143 games, and in the eight years between his breakout and retirement - he retired at 34, which is very young for a once-star player with speed and fielding skills - he only averaged 120 games a year, or about 75% of a full-season.

But Brett Lawrie's name appears in the title of this post, doesn't it? And here I am, wasting hundreds of words on Eric Byrnes.

Now, granted, I haven't watched every Blue Jays broadcast so far this year. But when I have, one of Pat and Buck will inevitably make reference to how hard Lawrie plays - often invoking the cliché of "he plays the game the right way". And if you're really lucky, they'll say it repeatedly!

I would ask "what the fuck does that even mean?", but that would be disingenuous - because I do know what it means, and you know that I know what it means, if only because I just went through that whole Eric Byrnes story. (Also, you probably know what it means!) What it means, even if they're incapable of clearly articulating this, is that he runs hard on every ground-ball, he dives for everything remotely near him, and he slides hard into every base. Just like Eric Byrnes.

Lawrie, following an intentional-walk. Seriously, you should see this guy run out a ground-ball.

I actually have a surprisingly clear memory of Lawrie's first Major League triple. He hit it at home (against the Angels - I had to look that up) and it could have easily been a stand-up, because he's that fast. But, because he was probably too pumped up to notice that there was no play, he dove into the base, head-first and hard. Which seems pretty innocuous, but - and maybe you shouldn't take my word for this, because Lawrie has about 10x the pectoral muscle-mass that I have - holy shit, does sliding on your chest across dirt ever bang up your body. It was completely unnecessary. And it certainly wasn't the only time he's done it without having to.

And while all this might sound laudable, it really isn't. It doesn't actually make sense for an MLB player to run their hardest on every grounder, because 99% of the routine ones will be fielded, thrown, and caught cleanly. Likewise, it may make sense to ease up on fielding a difficult ball in a low-leverage situation, or choose to slide feet-first rather than the considerably more dangerous (but more controllable and possibly faster) head-first. Injury is probably the most important factor, here, (lemme say it again: Eric Byrnes) but common sense should come into play, too - don't use all your bullets unless/until you need to. Because, make no mistake, your body only has so many dives, slides, and full-speed sprints locked inside of it.*

But back to "playing the game the right way", and the full implications of what it means to say that. David Savran once wrote that masculinity is an accomplishment, but a particularly masochistic one - a constant struggle to measure up to an impossibly high standard, one where your failures and their accompanying pain are themselves the mark of normative manhood. It's not about "mastery" but "the act of being subjected, abused, even tortured". (I think there's space, here, for a totally different but entirely interesting discussion about why we like to celebrate the plucky guys who live on the fringe and hate/resent the guys who make it look too easy.)

So, part of what it means to "play the right way" is, in fact, to subject your body to unreasonable amounts of stress and risk injury - and to prove your worth and suitability through the accumulation of injuries. And while his career ended early, this style of play ultimately proved to be a pretty good investment for Eric Byrnes. How's that? Well, he parlayed his best season and reputation for grittiness into a $30 million contract, a contract that he would never come even close to making good on. But, obviously, what's good for your masculine credibility is bad for your body. (And bad for the team.) It would just be nice for the people within baseball, cheering on the masochism, to acknowledge that more often.


* I realize that this might sound contradictory or hypocritical, because in my first live-blog I criticized Pat Tabler for suggesting that guys "concentrate more" when the game is on the line. But this isn't a concentration thing - if anything, it's the opposite, because I'm saying that players like Lawrie lose their concentration and seem to let their adrenaline dictate their pace of play.

The NHL and Disciplining Fight Culture

First, I should confess: I think that fighting in hockey is stupid. It's certainly a part of the culture of the game - and not, as its proponents would argue, a part of the game itself - but it is nonetheless stupid.

How stupid, you ask? After Sidney Crosby and Claude Giroux - the former one of the leading scorers over the past 7 or so years, the latter the 3rd leading scorer of the past season - fought one another in a playoff game a couple days ago, Giroux's coach said “I thought it was great. A couple of the best players in the world dropping the gloves, going at it. In the end, that’s really playoff hockey, isn’t it?” Did I mention that both players have had concussion problems, and that Crosby's concussion issues have been so persistent and painful that there's been talk about whether he should just retire? And that fighters, in hockey, are notorious for collecting head injuries? And that the coaches already know this, and are encouraging their best players to engage in something that's incredibly risky and totally unnecessary? Yeah, that stupid.

Really, though, these guys already have about a half-dozen concussions between the two of them.

It gets stupider, though. Because the reasons that are generally given in support of fighting just don't stand up to scrutiny, and the people making these arguments should realize this, if they're paying any attention at all.

(So, if you're not on the same page as me after that, then you should probably stop reading right now. Okay? Good.)

We're told that fighting is a necessary, exciting part of the game, but it practically disappears once the playoffs start. (The present Penguins-Flyers series notwithstanding.) We're also told that it's simply an effect of the intensity with which the game is played, but it's all but absent from all elite hockey leagues outside North America and in international play. And we're told that it's a necessary policing tool to use in retaliation or as a deterrent to dirty play. That's probably the hardest argument to refute, but we can go ahead and do that anyway.

In a study by the pseudonymous advanced-stat gurus Hawerchuk and Tom Tango, the two found that most fights happen during blowouts, and that most fights are instigated not as a policing measure, but because the visiting team wants to take its frustrations out on the home team. (The home team also becomes increasingly likely to start a fight when they're losing badly, but nowhere near as frequently as the reverse.) Unsurprisingly, then, they find that "goons" (what they define as "the 'pure' enforcer... he has high fight totals but so lacks other talents that he is never used on special teams") see their ice-time increase late in the third period when the game is out of reach, and are effectively benched when it's late and close. The lesson here is that, regardless of the reasons that the pro-fighting lobby gives, fighting is still mostly a dumb exercise in beating people up because you need to assert the validity of your masculinity in the face of evidence (ie. the score) to the contrary.

So, what to do, given that fighting is the common sense solution to a non-existent problem? Well, I've been finding myself increasingly using the yellow/red card system from soccer and finding ways to apply it to the other major sports. This is admittedly a half-baked thought, but I'm going to roll with it, anyway.

• Award red cards to players who fight. They're out, for this game and the next. (Not that goons play much to begin with, but that would certainly prevent the Crosbys and Girouxs from involving themselves. It might also dissuade players from involving themselves in brawls, where more than one player might earn an ejection and a red card.)
• Do the same thing for egregious, intent-to-injure fouls - the kind that fighting is supposed to dissuade.
• Introduce a yellow-card for dives and suspected dives. (Maybe there's a committee that votes on suspected dives?) Yellow cards can also cover fouls that don't fall under 'intent-to-injure' but are serious enough, for whatever reason, to require a mild punishment. Two yellow cards in a defined period of time and you earn a red.
• The cards, except for fights, are given only after a post-game video-review.
• Also, make the suspension aspect cumulative. If a player has already received a red card once this season, the next one earns a two game suspension.
• I'm tempted to add another penalty to the red card, like refusing to allow the team to dress another player in that spot for the length of the suspension, but I can see how that might actually encourage fighting - a team with meaningless or relatively easy games might be tempted to start something with an opponent who has a tougher upcoming schedule.
• And, of course, other suspensions will still exist, but make the infraction and punishment much clearer. Create a chart with Infraction on one axis and Context on the other - because the length of suspension should be affected by the timing/location of the foul. And then stick to that chart in all but the most exceptional cases. (I wouldn't link suspension length to injury, normally, but this would allow for some flexibility - as in, say, the Bertuzzi-Moore incident, because I can't imagine that punching someone in the face from behind, away from the play, would normally be much cause for concern.) Also, apply the appropriate cumulative red card penalty to these suspensions.

All told, I suspect that the yellow card is probably the most useful and necessary addition, here: something to dissuade undesirable behavior before it becomes necessary to take drastic action against it. That is, bringing discipline to the sport within overtly disciplining the players. That kind of subtlety might just be the sort of thing they can get behind, too.(?)

(This yellow/red card system could probably be useful in other sports, too. Something to revisit later?)

One Direction and subtle misogyny

As if it weren't bad enough that boy bands are back with a vengeance, these are the sort of lyrics that they're giving us:

You're insecure
Don't know what for
You're turning heads when you walk through the door
Don't need make-up
To cover up
Being the way that you are is enough
Everyone else in the room can see it
Everyone else but you

This is from One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful", by the way. And this opening verse seems pretty innocuous, as if they're saying that the "you" should be more confident. Even the part about not needing make-up isn't necessarily judgmental, and could actually be a compliment that isn't saying anything specifically about make-up or what it signifies.

But, no, a subtly nefarious judgment does creep in, in the chorus:

If only you saw what I can see
You'll understand why I want you so desperately
Right now I'm looking at you and I can't believe
You don't know
Oh oh
You don't know you're beautiful
Oh oh
That what makes you beautiful

Because, as it turns out, the girl is beautiful precisely because she doesn't know that she's beautiful. That's the catch, and that's what makes those seemingly harmless lines about make-up a great deal more loaded than they first appear. A girl who doesn't wear make-up is, presumably, unaware and ignorant of her sexuality (ie. she's still pure and innocent) while one who does is comparatively world-weary and, ostensibly, has been around the block a few times.

So, that insecurity that they were complaining about in the opening line? That wasn't actually a complaint. It was actually a precondition for finding her desirable. And confidence? Well, if she should have it, it's clear that it should only come from the affirmation that the singer offers. And, by extension, that a girl's confidence only ever comes from guys. Which means that girls who are already confident and self-aware - the kind who wear make-up? Well, they must have gained that "knowledge" from other boys, and this, of course, means that they're not innocent and not actually beautiful.

One last bit on the logic of beauty, according to One Direction. Hilariously/disturbingly, the lyric holds that a girl can never actually know that she, herself, is beautiful. If unawareness of one's beauty is what makes them beautiful, then someone who is aware of their beauty would, ironically, no longer be beautiful. The only options are ignorance and self-deception. Super.


[These lyrics also reminded me of a story about a male high school student near Toronto who was suspended for distributing a letter that celebrated girls' "inner-beauty". Which he did, unfortunately, by not-so-subtly excluding the girls who "dress in revealing clothing". Who, clearly, couldn't possibly possess inner-beauty.]

Live-Blogging the Blue Jays Broadcast: Game 7

[I did this once, last year, on my personal blog, and I want to try doing this with some frequency. The basic idea is to snark about the nuggets of common sense analysis and conventional wisdom that the Jays' announcers - Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler, ranked 24th in the MLB by Fangraphs fans - have to offer. More productively, though, it's also about doing some homework in order to prove or disprove whatever it is they've claimed. Which is actually surprisingly fun.]

2nd inning

Buck: "Earl Weaver was playing Moneyball before it was called Moneyball."
Pat: "Great starting pitching and great defense. Moneyball."

If I knew nothing else about how clueless these two are, I might actually be fooled into thinking that they know what "Moneyball" means. Because it sounds like they think it means defense. And it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't actually refer to any specific element of the game - it refers to a way of buying/trading/developing players by identifying skills and player types that are undervalued. Or, to use the cliché, it's about finding "market inefficiencies." Ten years ago, that meant finding players who grade well according to advanced defensive metrics, and before that it was players who aren't particularly athletic but have good plate discipline. (ie. Guys who "know how to take a walk.")

3rd inning

Buck: "[Morrow] was really pounding the zone [last start]."

This sounded like one of those claims that Buck and Pat are just prone to making up, so I checked it out the PITCHf/x data on Fangraphs. In his last start, Morrow put 45% of his pitches in the strike zone. For his career, he's around 49%; the league average is just about 50%. So, no, not only was he not pounding the zone, but one could argue that he was avoiding it. Why it may have appeared that he was pounding the zone, though, was that he was not missing bats with his pitches - his contact rate was 88%, while his career rate is only 75%. So, many more pitches were ending up in play, which could certainly give the appearance that he must be hitting the zone with more frequency.

Pat: [in a response to a stat that says the Jays are hitting .203 as a team, but around .350 with runners in scoring position] "Make 'em count. Concentrate just a little bit more when you got to hit in a guy."

This is one of those bits of baseball wisdom that really doesn't make sense. It implies that you don't really need to concentrate unless runners are in scoring position (RISP), which would be a great way to lose your job, fast. On the whole, everyone hits better with RISP. But this is a particularly big gap, and looks significant until you consider that the season is six games old and the Jays have had about 250 plate appearances, which means... they've had 50 at bats, tops, with RISP. That means about 18 hits. If only four of those don't fall in - which, simply as a matter of luck, is perfectly plausible - suddenly we're talking about how badly they do with RISP and how they're failing to "concentrate".

4th inning

Pat: "Pitchers are pitching differently to Jose [Bautista] this year. They're pitching everything outside. I looked at the directional hits, and he has more to the opposite field."

I looked up the pitch data again, and even with so few games, Pat's definitely on to something. Strangely, Bautista saw only about 50% fastballs in the last two years - because he's absolutely destroyed them - but is seeing them 65% of the time so far this season. And he's posted negative run values against them. He's also seeing more strikes and making contact with strikes less often; but also making contact with pitches outside the zone more often. The conclusions are pretty easy to reach, here - if you miss balls in the zone, then you're missing the pitches that you can hit well; if you hit balls outside the zone, you tend to hit them poorly. (Not to overstate the matter, but this is the exact same kind of trend that we saw with Adam Dunn over the course of the whole season, last year.) I can't find data on where those pitches outside the zone are located, but I'm totally willing to trust Pat on this one.

Buck: "Bautista, with a one-out single, got things going."

He "got things going" only if you believe that Bautista's single somehow influenced Reimold to misplay Lind's flyball and Davis to miss Hunter's throw. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. (I know, this is just one of those things that announcers say, and he probably didn't mean it literally. But it's still dumb.)

6th inning

Buck: "The Blue Jays have won 39 of their last 44 home games against the Orioles."
Pat: "The Blue Jays play their best ball against the Orioles."

That's certainly shocking, but what's more likely - that the Jays are that good, against this one team, or that the Orioles are that bad?

7th inning

Buck: "[Arencibia] has now just picked up the first sacrifice bunt of his career."

This is notable precisely because it deserves to be criticized. Arencibia doesn't bunt, first of all, and this was a very bad bunt that probably should've failed. I couldn't quite tell whether the Orioles middle infield was caught off guard and failed to cover second, but Arencibia hit the ball really hard and almost directly back at the pitcher. So, Buck probably should've mentioned one of the following two things: that he was a bad choice for the bunt in the first place and that it was poorly executed. And this is to say nothing of the fact that bunts with none away and a runner on first usually don't actually help the team. But Win Expectancy is the simplest, clearest way for us to judge this decision: after the sacrifice, the Jays' WE dropped from 81.3% to 80.1%. It hurt the team, and that deserves to be talked about.

8th inning

Buck: "Interesting match-up here. Jones has only faced Oliver four times, but is 0 for 4. This shows you how much Farrell trusts Oliver. ... This is really an interesting move by Farrell. ... He likes the match-up with Oliver."

Well, he shouldn't. Jones is a right-handed batter and Oliver is a left-handed pitcher, and platoon splits in baseball are pretty significant. (And Oliver, specifically, is an elite pitcher against lefties, but only an average reliever against righties.) There are two right-handed pitchers warming in the bullpen, but you leave your lefty specialist in to face an above-average right-handed hitter? That's usually an obviously bad idea. There's absolutely no reason to leave Oliver in, unless you think that the 0 for 4 is really meaningful. And if you know anything about sample size, you know that it isn't. What's worse is that this is a one-run game with one out, a runner on third, and in the 8th inning - the leverage index in this situation is extremely high, which means it's incredibly important. This is exactly when you should look for every small advantage that you can find.

(Buck later speculated that Oliver was left in because Wieters will bat from the right side, which is his worse side. But Buck subsequently pointed out that there are three left-handed pitchers in the bullpen, right now.)

That Gaga/Foucault Meme

This has been circulating for months, (a year, even?) so my comments are beyond late. But anyway:


It's a cute joke. And it's right. But the meme only really works if you assume that Gaga's being totally sincere.

Now, I don't think she's being insincere. She's telling kids that they weren't born 'wrong', that they're aren't mistakes by virtue of being different than the norm. It's pretty basic stuff, but that's the audience it was written for, too - adolescents that have never heard of queer theory, kids in Middle America who aren't hearing this message from anyone else.

And seriously? Look at that picture. She has prosthetic spiky cheekbones and horns. I'm willing to guess that she wasn't actually born that way.

Zombies and Infinite Shotguns

I love to complain about The Walking Dead TV show. I really want to love it - I've read the first 48 issues of the comic book (as conveniently collected in TWD: Compendium One) and I think it's fantastic* - but it drives me nuts, what with the stupidity of the characters and predictability of the plotting. (Clearly, the screenwriters have never met a horror cliché that they didn't like.) The season finale was just as groan-inducing as the rest of the episodes, though I want to write really quickly about one particular element - Hershel's shotgun.

[* this isn't just one of those knee-jerk "the comic book is always better" reactions, either. because i've gone on record, elsewhere on this blog, as saying that the Scott Pilgrim movie was a huge improvement over the comic. just so you know.]

The joke surrounding Hershel's shotgun is that, like the magical shotgun that you can acquire after beating a Resident Evil game, it's an Infinite Shotgun. Hershel blasts away with that thing for at least a minute, never once stopping to reload. And this is obviously annoying.

For some of us, anyway. The first comment I found online about the shotgun was actually in defense of it, and it went something like this: "It's a show about zombies. Why are you complaining about an Infinite Shotgun in a show about zombies?"

Well, because the only spectacular thing about this show - the only thing that requires you to suspend what you know to be true about the laws of science - is the fact that zombies exist. That's it. We're supposed to believe that everything that does not have to do with the zombie plague should behave just like it would in real life. Cars still need gas. People still need food. And shotguns still have to be reloaded. Just show Hershel reloading the damn thing - zombies are slow, he'd have the time. I didn't write these rules, I didn't decide that the world of The Walking Dead is just like the real world, but with the exception of the whole zombie-thing. The producers did. So just stick to your own rules.

And relatedly - would it kill them (the producers) to show that bullets sometimes (often!) miss their target? Not only have we been told that most of these characters are inexperienced shots, but they're using imprecise weapons - shotguns, especially, aren't particularly accurate - and managing to hit zombies in the head every time. And, in the season finale, they're hitting moving zombies while firing from moving vehicles. You know who's able to do that in real life? No one.

Quick "Hunger Games" Thoughts

1.

I read the complete Hunger Games Trilogy over the course of a few weeks, shortly before the movie came out. One of the things that no one seems to mention (granted, I haven't looked very hard) but that I actually find most interesting and unexpected are the politics of the book - Katniss is an anarchist. She's tasked with assassinating the Bad despot, murders the ostensibly Good dictator, and has a generally fractious relationship with every other person in a position of authority. Except Boggs, maybe, though he's really just a soldier. (Even her mom is criticized for being a poor family matriarch, though she redeems herself as the series goes on.)

That might feel like standard teen rebellion stuff, but, of course, the book shows her to be right to distrust them in pretty much every instance - and really gives her no figure of authority to trust, or who proves worthy of trust. (She trusts Haymitch, in a way, but he's certainly no authority figure; and she begins to mistrust Gale - again, we learn, with good reason - just as he begins to gain actual power and influence within District 13.)

And Katniss resists taking any leadership role herself, and resents being thrust even into the position of symbolic figurehead. It's not even until (SPOILER ALERT) the epilogue that she's willing to become a mother and the head of her own family, which she agrees to only after a decade of cajoling by Peeta.

The one desirable type of community, it turns out, is the post-war District 12 of the epilogue, which is populated by about a thousand people who do their own thing, each of whom appear to live there precisely because it's beyond the reach and notice of the government. That's one hell of a surprising lesson about society to take away from a book ostensibly written for an audience of teenage girls. And the same teenager girls, no less - at least, according to the marketers - that devoured the absolutely awful and unapologetically conservative Twilight books.

2.

What has been getting a bit of discussion - little of it in the mainstream media, though - is the gendered double-standard that's apparent from the "is this too violent for kids?!" fear-mongering. Because no one asked this about Spider-man, where Uncle Ben is shot and the Green Goblin impaled and Spider-man gets the shit beaten out of him. Really, no one asks this question (except for the obligatory and generalized "the question must be asked..." type articles that pop up every so often) at all about teen boys' movies. No, what the question doesn't state explicitly, but what it's actually asking, is whether this is too violent for girls.

Added the next day: All that said, the movie really isn't much less violent or graphic than the book itself. (With the possible exception of, say, the exploding boils that are produced by tracker jackers.) What they have changed, though - possibly because of the teen girl audience - is Katniss' relationship with Peeta. And by that, I mean that they downplay it to a huge degree - there's virtually no romance, here, and certainly very few suggestions that Katniss is only pretending to love Peeta. Which might strike people as counter-intuitive, I'm sure - why would a movie with a majority female audience eliminate the romance? - except that it isn't, actually. Because Katniss is, during many moments in the novel, thoroughly unlikable for her willingness to manipulate the audience and lie to Peeta. And that is probably why it had to go. (On the other hand, she's redeemed to a significant degree when, after they win, Peeta is dying and taken away from her and she screams for him to come back. But maybe they thought that was too disturbing to include in the film.)

In any case, the violence discussion is a red herring. Clearly, it wasn't the violence that producers felt might be problematic - it was Katniss' ambivalence, her Machiavellian streak, and her rage. They couldn't risk the possibility that tween and teen girls might find her mean or cruel, and might actually dislike her.

3.

And then there's the horrifying Twitter responses of racist fans of the book who a) didn't read it closely enough to recognize that some of the characters aren't white, and b) are enraged that some of the actors are black. Not that it should matter if characters who are explicitly described as white happen to be played by black actors, (I've written about why this is even desirable, before) but it speaks poorly - sometimes hilariously so, but often just depressingly - of both their reading comprehension and the subtle ways in which racism and white supremacist thinking works itself into the most unconscious operations of our brains. From an article on Jezebel:

The ubiquity of whiteness in popular media is so overwhelming that, in the absence of any racial signifiers, I would guess that the majority of white people and a significant number of non-white people automatically assume that characters are white. I know I do. (To be clear: I am a white lady.) I mean, Jesus, the impulse to default to white is so strong that the above child prodigies defaulted to white even when explicitly told not to.

It's a good lesson to take away from this horrible thing, at least. That is, the recognition that a lot of us default to white when we're not told otherwise, and that this is not an unmotivated or unproblematic process, even if it is so automatic that we don't have to think about it. In fact, lemme rewrite that last part for emphasis: "especially because it's so automatic that we don't have to think about it". (And now the question is, what do we do about it?)

On Toronto's men and masculinity (or lack thereof)

Christie Blatchford is an irascible, reactionary columnist for the neoconservative National Post newspaper. (A friend of mine once aptly described her as the female Don Cherry.) And she's written another one of her typically awful pieces, this time about how Toronto men (and boys) are not properly manly. Rather, Toronto is a "city of sissies".

I could pick it apart, piece by piece, and complain at length, but I'll just grab a couple particularly hilarious parts:

"Do not mistake this as a plea for head-banging in sport, a defence of bullies, or a veiled anti-gay message."

However, that's exactly what she is doing. Blatchford criticizes bullies explicitly, sure, but the column itself becomes her endorsement of bullying - because she is herself being a bully. In the column's initiating incident, she is "mortified and appalled" at the sight of adolescent boys hugging, and proceeds to mock and deride the people whose policies she blames for causing this offense. She calls these men "delicate, slender, and arch", "delicate creature(s)", and "fey". Subtle, sure, but this is bullying.

And as for it not being a "veiled anti-gay message"? Well...

"It is possible to be a gentle and kind man without speaking in a soft, sibilant voice that makes all sentences sound to my ear as though they were composed entirely of Ss."

...no, it's not a "veiled" message. It's actually pretty obviously homophobic. Why rely on a stereotype of gay men, and use it pejoratively, in order to illustrate the point that something is wrong with straight men?

But what, might you ask, are men supposed to act like?

"I know men have feelings too. I just don’t need to know much more than that. On any list of The 25 Things Every Man And Boy Should Know How To Do, hugging is not one of them. Killing bugs is. Whacking bullies is. Kissing is. Farting on cue is. Making the sound of a train in a tunnel is. Shooting a puck is. Hugging is not."

So men are supposed to kill, whack, fart (on cue), sound like a train (what the fuck does that even mean?), do sports, and avoid emoting. Basically, Blatchford think that a properly masculine man should have all the complexity and depth of Homer Simpson.

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

When market researchers call...

Them: Can I speak to someone over the age of 18 who pays for the utilities?
Me: Well, we rent. So we just pay everything as one lump sum.
Them: [pause] So, you pay maintenance fees?
Me: No. We pay for it in the rent.
Them: A maintenance fee.
Me: No.
Them: [pause] How familiar are you with Toronto Hydro? Very familiar; somewhat familiar; not very familiar; did not hear about it before his phone call.
Me: Somewhat, I guess.
Them: On a scale of one to ten, how satisfied are you with your internet service?
Me: Eight, I guess.
Them: [aggressively] Eight?
Me: Yeah, eight.
Them: On a scale of one to ten, how satisfied are you with your natural gas service?
Me: Well, I don't pay for my utilities, so I don't even know if I have natural gas.
Them: You don't have natural gas?
Me: I don't know if I have natural gas.
Them: [pause] So, a one?
Me: [laughing] I could give you a number, but I would just be making it up.
Them: [annoyed] Well, I gotta put something.
Me: How about we just cancel this call?
Them: Okay, bye.

I'm not sure whether the communication failure is with the me, the caller, or her script... but that was kinda hilarious.

Political stuff, of the Ontario provincial variety

There's a provincial election in Ontario in a few days and a lot of mud flying, so I thought I'd capture some of it - and my responses - on here. (Really, some of it is right up there with the Carcetti-shaking-hands-with-a-slum-lord photoshop job from The Wire. That shameless, that manipulative, that bad.) If it's not for you, specifically, then at least it's for posterity:

1. The first bit is a shamelessly misleading set of charts from the Progressive Conservatives' platform. The designer came up with impressively deceptive visuals like a comparison of 5 stick-men (representing $64b in spending) and 25 stick-men (representing $113b). That's an apparent increase of 400% vs. an actual increase of 77%.
   
   Given that charts/graphs privilege visual cues - they supplement and even replace a textual-numerical explanation, even if the text and numbers are there - that's just horrifically misleading.
   
   
2. The more recent headscratcher is a pamphlet that's been handed out by Tory candidates that slags equity-based education in Ontario's kindergarten classrooms. Now known as "the homophobic flyer", the Conservatives and their leader, Tim Hudak, are standing behind it, in spite of the fact that its arguments have been denounced as largely misleading. (This site dismisses 4 of the 6 claims as "misleading", another as a splice that misrepresents its source, and confirms that only one point is "accurate".) Some of the inaccuracies are stupid-but-understandably-stupid - for example, the harmless suggestion that boys and girls should swap gender roles, which probably amounts to boys holding babies and girls playing with hammers and wrenches, is misinterpreted as an instruction to enforce "cross-dressing."
   
   But one is just hilariously (or disturbingly, depending on your mood) deceitful: a headline that says the Liberals are "keeping [Ontarians] in the dark" about the curriculum, which is attributed to CTV News. Only it turns out that CTV News was quoting someone in that headline. And who were they quoting? Conservative leader Tim Hudak.
   
   
3. I wish I had taken a picture of it, (foolishly, I thought it'd be easy to find online) but the Toronto Sun - a foaming-at-the-mouth-reactionary, lowest-common-denominator, and unabashedly right-wing rag - ran the most deceiving cover page that I think I've ever seen on an ostensibly mainstream newspaper. The background was solid blue (which is the color of the Progressive Conservatives) and it featured only the head of a smiling Tim Hudak and words of praise for him. You would swear that it was a paid ad. Only it wasn't.
   
   
4. Slightly off-topic... My daughter and I went to Ikea to pick up whimsical green shelves for her room. While we were sitting in the cafeteria eating ice cream, I overheard an entire phone conversation where a well-dressed 40ish white guy was pitching the formation of an "Ontario Tea Party, only we wouldn't call it that" comprised of "people in construction, farmers, landowners, people in Northeast Ontario, and people [who] are upset about the school curriculum." One small problem: the guy had a very smart man-purse, (Seriously, I was jealous of it.) and as my friend Alex noted on Facebook, "if anything is guaranteed to exacerbate the cultural rift with their Tea Party allies, it will be the Toronto Tea Partier's tendency to carry around a murse."