Bambino's Curse

Hive Power

Thanks to all of you who took the effort to get to the bottom of my "what is the difference between a bog and a fen?" question posed on Wednesday.

I had a good feeling that by using the power of the hive, the collective intellect of all the readers, I'd get a final QED answer, and I did.

This excerpt from an email reader Loni P. sent me is apropos:

I'm sure that there is a list somewhere of things that you can do while at work, but that are not at all work related. Well, add this quest to that list. You've posed an interesting question and at the very mention of a challenge that was not taken, I was all in.

To sum it up: The differences have to do with the acidity of the soil and where the water in the bog or fen originates. And a fen can, over time, become a bog. (It's more complicated than that, but you can read all about it yourself in the comments section of the post.) Also regarding the original Kilham quote from the bears book, yes, it does seem someone familiar with plant life would, just by looking, be able to tell if a portion of land is a fen or a bog since different plants thrive in different soil pH as home gardeners know so well.

You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round

You've all heard that the world is spinning faster on its axis as of late, right? Yes, as it goes, this is the fifth consecutive year in which we (and by we I mean those dudes in charge of such minutia) won't have to add a leap second.

I think this is fitting because in all of my years of following the Red Sox, I haven't felt a Spring Training approach so quickly and expectantly. Yes, yes, we are in the firmest icy grip of winter thus far, still, you know spring is coming and coming quickly.

The very earth beneath us can't wait for spring either, for even the heavens are excited to renew what ended prematurely on a cool night last autumn.

Schilling, Questec, Update 2

I'm trying to not get too star struck here, but you may have noticed in the comments to the earlier post on the Schilling/Questec bit that someone taking on the persona of Curt Schilling responded.

Well, I've done some checking around with sources who are in the know (i.e., do make regular contact with the star pitcher) and I can conclude with a fairly high confidence level that the comment published there was indeed made by Mr. Curt Schilling.

By all means, check out his response to those of you who commented on that post.

For instance, Schilling brings up a good point about how the way Questec says the machine is used during games can differ from the way it's actually used during a game. That makes sense. We'd never have had most of the accidents we've had (i.e.,, Challenger, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, etc.) if every procedure, checklist, contingency that was supposed to be carried out actually was. It's human nature to cut corners. So it makes sense that a Questec operator would not always reconfigure things for every at bat.

Watch Out for The Advanced Lubricating Strip Defense

I realized this morning I'm totally out of the loop regarding Patriots football when I first heard that fans (or perhaps the Pats PR dept.) have taken to calling Gillette Stadium "The Razor" on NPR of all places. Am I the only one who is just hearing this for the first time today?

In the NPR piece (link not available until 10am) the guy doing the story suggested that the nickname the Razor doesn't really work and I'd have to agree.

I mean on a gut level it just doesn't feel right, doesn't have the ring of "the Dog Pound" or "the Steel Curtain." But more than that, I think the real problem is that trying to imply the name razor is tough/nasty/dangerous/lethal actually is at odds with Gillette's own product marketing copy.

The whole impetus of Gillette's razor product branding is that it's easy on the skin and that by using a Gillette razor you won't get hurt, no nicks. Here's a sampling from Gillette's own site:

• spring-mounted Sensor® blades, an advanced lubricating strip, protective microfins
• causing less irritation
• Anti-FrictionTM blades, an ultra-soft protective skinguard
• the closest, most comfortable shave
• The Indicator® lubricating strip with Vitamin E features a new patented lubrication system, which releases even more lubrication over a greater number of shaves, improving razor glide and adding to shaving comfort
• Open cartridge architecture makes rinsing and cleaning the MACH3Turbo blades easier than ever
• Independently moving spring-mounted blades sense and adjust to every contour of the face, adding to the closeness and comfort of the shave.

See what I mean? That copy/message doesn't inspire fear. Here the razor is your friend.

Also tied up in this is the notion of a "close shave." As a fan, a close shave game is not at all what I'm hoping for as such games are the ones that give you heart attacks.

So What's A Henway? (What About After Fen-Phen?)

The other day I asked, "What is the difference between a bog and a fen?"

And not one of you, dear readers, took up the challenge.

My question stems from a passage in one of the books from my vacation reading list, Among the Bears: Raising Orphaned Cubs in the Wild (which I highly recommend by the way), when the author, Benjamin Kilham, writes,

Moose Bog is actually a fen, but most people around here, including the settlers who named it, don't make that fine distinction. In New England, they're pretty much all bogs. Except, of course, for that ballpark in Boston (p. 20).

I went to Dictionary.com but their definitions of a bog and a fen don't seem to gloss the distinction Kilham alludes to.

Are they any woodsmen (or woodswomen!) or naturalists or otherwise smarty pants folks out there who can clarify this for me? The pedantic side of my personality just won't let it rest. As a lifelong fan of a team that makes its home in Fenway Park built on a Boston fen, I need to know the precise difference between a bog and a fen, don't you think? Otherwise, we may as well call it Bogway Park, no? And where is the romance in that?

Update on Questec, Schilling, SoSH

The emotional conflict I spoke of yesterday hasn't abated.

As both Brad (in a reader comment) and Dave Pinto point out, an archived Baseball Prospectus interview with Questec's Ivan Santucci (great name!) suggests that Curt Schilling's statement re "First AB they [Questec operators] take a still photo, regardless of hitters stance, even if you square to bunt, and thats your zone for the game" is not correct.

Damn, that's disheartening. I wasn't hoping I was just being overly cautious in my skepticism.

On the bright side, there is still so much good to come from a player like Schilling interacting directly with the fans on sites like SoSH. We just have to remember to be critical thinkers and readers as we consider what anyone writes or says, be they Joe Schmoe down at Dunkins or Gehrig38.

Revved Up Like a Deuce (Another Runner in the Night?)

I'm emotionally conflicted this morning after reading Curt Schilling's latest off the record post on the SoSH board regarding his feelings toward the Questec system.

On the one hand, I am, of course, elated that Curt Schilling continues to go directly to the fans by way of the web and SoSH. As I wrote back in November when Schilling first ventured into the SoSH site, I think we are now witnessing first hand a real paradigm shift in the relationship between fan, player, owner, and management of which was only made possible by the technology afforded by the internet.

I feel the same way today, even more so. What Curt Schilling is doing is the quintessence of cool from a fan perspective.

However … I worry (yes, I'm a worrier, it's the nature of a Red Sox fan, no?) that what on the surface seems like more dialog and openness could be just the opposite.

You know we fans like to pooh-pooh the media for twisting things to fit their own preconceived notions or otherwise being overly negative and cynical with a dash of elitist "we the pros know what's best for you the fans and we'll give you only the info we choose" posturing, but let's remember to not throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water here.

Truth be told, the traditional media and its journalists and reporters play a very important function.

Here's what I mean. In the SoSH post, for example, Gehrig38 (AKA Curt Schilling) writes:

Questec calls balls and strikes approximately 4 feet or so from where the umpire is standing … You know how they measure a hitters K zone? First AB they take a still photo, regardless of hitters stance, even if you square to bunt, and thats your zone for the game.

OK. Those are two statements that we are supposed to take as fact. But are they? I don't know. I assume so. I know Curt Schilling knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do. But where's the chance to hear the opposing view? If this statement were on the record with a reporter, the reporter would at some point pick up the phone and call Questec and MLB to verify and/or get further explanation/elucidation on these points.

Perhaps Questec and/or MLB wouldn't answer or wouldn't return the calls or whatever and our trusty reported would indicate that in the story and that lack of info would be meaningful on its own. ("Hmm," the reader thinks, "if Questec is unwilling to publicly deny Mr. Schilling's claims, then those claims are probably true.")

See what I'm saying? In these cases the media acts as an arbiter, a middle man, between two opposing sides. And, to push this point, how is a player making statements in a vacuum about something, be it Questec or another subject, that different from a reporter saying "so and so player doesn't want to play in Boston anymore" without hearing it from the player himself. Isn't this the very thing players get pissed off about with the media and what has, in the case of Schilling, prompted him to go directly to the fans?

Moreover, am I the only one who gets a queasy feeling over the whole off the record and this can only be used by SoSH and DirtDogs? Does that mean we aren't even supposed to link to it? And if it's off the record yet exists on the mother of all public spaces, the web, can it really be off the record? (Cue sounds of Star Trek computer. "Illogical. Does not compute. Illogical.")

What happens if a reporter does lift a quote? Is that game over? Does Mr. Schilling stop posting and thereby stop going directly to the fans? (Have I already violated the unwritten rules by linking to the SoSH post and pulling out a quote as well?)

Like I said, I'm conflicted. Being able to read Curt Schilling's own words on SoSH is one of the best experiences in my baseball fan life, but on the other hand, this new paradigm raises many questions. I'm on guard that I don't become blinded by the light of my own fascination with what is happening at SoSH.

On the Grassy Knowl

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous for national security reasons (just kidding, well, not about the reader wanting to remain anonymous … though I will tell you this reader works only a few blocks from La Casa Blanca) proposes the following conspiracy theory that I'll submit for your consideration below.

After reading the excellent Edes article that seems to cover most aspects of the involved negotiations, I would summarize things kind of like this:

Boston tries to get A-Rod
Boston doesn't want to go over the luxury tax
Boston proposes aggressive A-Rod contract restructuring to stay under luxury tax
Union says no
Deal ends … (maybe, lets see where everyone is on April 1)

Seems that if the Red Sox were willing to pay the luxury tax, they would not need to restructure A-Rod contract, hence the deal would get done.

It seems clear, at least to me, a desire to avoid the luxury tax at least indirectly killed the proposed A-Rod deal.

If this is so, I don't understand why no one is asking, "Why won't the Red Sox go over the luxury tax threshold?"

At the risk of sounding like a crazed conspiracy theorist (is that redundant?), I wonder if the Sox ownership has some kind of unwritten deal with Selig to stay below the luxury tax, for whatever reason?

It seems pretty clear Selig will bend/ignore rules and allow things to work to the Red Sox ownership's advantage. Seems reasonable that in return they tow the party line regarding union/ player salaries (witness Lucchino tour against high player salaries soon after team was purchased) and one aspect of this party line is that no one but the Yankees goes over the luxury tax. Because if more than [the] Yankees goes over, they all [will] go over and it means nothing.

I have no idea what John Henry's net worth is, but I would speculate that the Red Sox are easily able to exceed the luxury tax team salary threshold from a financial standpoint. If that is true, and they are competing with the Yankees who do, why do they stay below the threshold? Perhaps to keep the validity of the luxury tax thus reinforcing the Commissioner's office.

Please keep in mind that I am an avid Red Sox fan (in the DC area), would love to see A-Rod in Boston even if part of the cost is Nomar, and despise the Yankees. Though as I think about this, I do respect Steinbrenner's willingness to spend whatever it takes to get the team he wants. I think John Henry certainly has the means to do the same thing, I wonder why he doesn't do so. That is why I think there must be some kind of unwritten rule or agreement that no one but the Yankees will incur the luxury tax.

Does that make any sense to you?

And I'll add this bit: How does the above theory change or not based on what John Henry wrote on the SoSH board?

What Are the Odds?

I know there are many people in this great nation of ours and in the world at large (perhaps even you?) who have a visceral reaction to George W. Bush. That is, some people just take one look at the President and instantly hate him and consequently hate everything he says or does.

I don't share this particular affliction myself (which is not to say I'm a rabid neocon Bush supporter or the like), but I've been bemused by those who do. I just didn't get it until I realized over the weekend that there is someone for whom I feel this same sort of profound, gut level, irrational hatred.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm talking about Pete Rose. I hate the sonavabitch through and through. Hate everything about the man. I see his picture and I just get angry. I read about his forthcoming book and I get even angrier.

I know none other than the illustrious Bill James argues that Rose should be seen in a less damning light and that Rose has many, many supporters among baseball fans.

But just as those who hate Bush are going to hate him no matter what facts or alternative views are presented for consideration, so it goes for me regarding Pete Rose.

If I had the energy, I'd make a 30 second ad comparing Pete Rose to Hitler. And then another one showing how he also killed Vince Foster.

Charlie Hustle? What friggin' ever. I hate the man.

And now that I've got that off my chest, I won't mention his name again on this blog. (But if you see someone burning a Pete Rose effigy outside the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, well, that will be me.)

Tim Wakefield for President

If you didn't already love Tim Wakefield, you will after reading Edes' piece in the Globe today. This bit had me reaching for my 3rd Kleenex:

Wakefield remembers slowly taking off his shoes.

"I remember [Jason] Varitek coming up to me and wrapping his arms around me," he said. "We were both upset and cried a little bit.

"It's almost like a death in the family. You don't know what to say, because you spent so long with each other, you fought so hard for each other, and it comes down to one pitch and you're going home."

The Sox owners -- Henry, Werner, Lucchino, along with vice president Charles Steinberg -- entered the clubhouse.

"I went to John Henry and said, `I'm sorry,' " Wakefield said.

"It's not your fault," Wakefield recalled the owner saying in reply.

In addition to the story being a tearjerker, it also reveals an interesting disconnect between player and fans in that Wakefield assumed he'd be the scapegoat, the next Buckner:

"I was terrified that I wouldn't be able to show my face in Boston again" (Edes).

Wakefield quickly found, of course, that wasn't the case. Not even close. How could we ever blame Wakefield? He was asked to go on a suicide mission and never blinked.

[When Posada's hit fell in] "I was getting ready mentally. All I was thinking about was what I have to do to get ready and get outs" (Edes).

Thank you, Tim Wakefield. As John Henry said, it's not your fault. You did everything and more.