Perishables! Come Congregate in the Cold!
Little Hot Waves, Or, Let’s Get Brain Cancer While We Wait For The Popcorn
Mix Your Drinks! (Stir! Whip! Purée!)
A Configuration of Whisks Which, When Activated, Allow Sufjan Stevens to Cook a Fluffier Omelette
Toaster (For the Toastless)
I saw this thing here getting passed around Twitter and Facebook at least a dozen times in the last day or so. The author describes why Lucy, a fictional avatar for what he calls “Generation Y yuppies” (people born between the late 1970s and the early 1990s; let’s not get too wrapped up in the endless arguments about generational nomenclature) is unhappy with her life. Well, not entirely unhappy. Admittedly, he appears to be talking about a particular kind of privileged ennui and not just general occupational dissatisfaction. And, to his credit, it’s not really a typical “kids these days!” hand-wringing piece that you might find in some garbage outlet like, say, this one. Still, it irks me.
The first thing that’s probably worth knowing is that the post was written by Andrew Finn, who, according to this, which I swear was not a private profile when I checked last night, was a consultant with PriceWaterhouseCooper before co-founding a company that offers tutoring for various standardized testing. It’s a lucrative-looking career path that probably took a lot of hard work. I’m just noting it here for context.
Finn pegs a lot of social problems on the fact that Lucy’s parents told her she was special and that she internalized that. This sounds familiar because it’s the subject of endless crotchety email forwards and stand-up comedy acts from members of previous generations. And, in fairness, there is some evidence that young people think a bit more of themselves these days — the percentage of college students who rate themselves as “above average” in various skillsets has risen 15-20% since 1965 (the person who conducted that study wrote a book called “The Narcissism Epidemic” so apply ample skepticism). I’m not convinced this is such an awful thing.
Viewing oneself as a protagonist in a story, as Finn bemoans, is a basic fact of human perception. Human cognition absolutely requires that we have a framework for organizing the overwhelming amount of information that we take in over the course of our lives, to enable self-perception and self-knowledge. This is the basis of our episodic memory; putting ourselves at the center of perception helps us encode all the vital information we mean to take with us over the course of our lives. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1977 found:
Results indicate that self-reference is a rich and powerful encoding process. As an aspect of the human information-processing system, the self appears to function as a superordinate schema that is deeply involved in the processing, interpretation, and memory of personal information.
This is how we come to know and understand ourselves, by being the protagonist in our own story.
I don’t actually know, and I speculate that Finn doesn’t actually know, whether there has been an identifiable trend in parenting towards assuring a child they are “special,” or other similar tactics. I don’t know whether it is the case now, or whether it was the case for previous generations anyway, and we just forgot. A lot of people seem to think it is a new phenomenon, but there is a tendency in every generation to think that the one that follows it is soft and entitled. I haven’t seen anything but anecdotes.
It doesn’t matter anyway. Imagine the opposite approach. I don’t have children, and I wouldn’t presume to tell other people how to raise theirs, but I don’t see the percentages in telling a 10 year old that in 15 years they’ll be one of an unfathomable amount of 20-somethings scrambling for a limited number of jobs in virtually any field they might choose, only to find out that they lack the requisite experience and need to take on an internship first, and, oh, sorry, that’s not a paid position. Oh and if you’re not a straight, white male, you’ll have to navigate a labyrinth of additional institutional and social hurdles. Try enjoying recess after finding out that shit.
We’re all a little more self-aware than Finn gives us credit for, anyway. Self-importance is out there, but it’s not endemic to what he calls “Generation Y.” We have agency. We don’t stop maturing, learning, or perceiving at age 10. We gather additional information by which to evaluate ourselves from friends, teachers, and media. The truth of the world, for most of us, slowly avails itself, and by college graduation it is evident that shit is not going to be easy.
Finn has plenty to say about Lucy’s parents, whose generation was “brought up to envision a prosperous and stable career for themselves.” Lucy’s parents put in hard work and were rewarded with financial security. But Finn left out an important part of the story. Lucy’s friends’ parents, entering the work force in the 1970s and 1980s, pursued careers in economics, politics, and consulting. They built impressive resumes and prosperous lives for themselves, going into service for think tanks, legislative and regulatory bodies, and large banking institutions. They also thought themselves to be pretty special, as it turns out. They, too, were a bit self-concerned. They decided this was a pretty great life, and resolved to secure it for themselves at absolutely any cost.
They went about gutting tax policy, dismantling social welfare programs, and neutering regulatory and enforcement frameworks for securities and banking. They did a great job at this! (Click for big)
Lucy’s friends’ parents had authored America’s greatest economic inequity since the Great Depression. Oops! They also had ensured that when the economy grew, they were seeing the lion’s share of the benefits: (Click for big)
A lot of smart people told Lucy’s friends’ parents that all the steps they had undertaken towards financing their own gilded pleasure islands had made everything very under-regulated and quite unstable. Andrew Finn had a sweet consulting gig at PWC in the years leading up to it, so he might not have the clearest memory of it, but it turns out that Lucy’s friends’ parents were staring down nightmarish balance sheets at some of the largest financial institutions in the world and — uh oh! — a massive financial catastrophe ensued. Lucy’s friends’ parents had put the future of Lucy and Lucy’s children in danger. And Lucy’s non-white friends suffered this disaster disproportionately; the disturbing gap between their social mobility and Lucy’s only grew further.
Eventually, what could be termed “recovery” began. Lucy’s friends’ parents saw their companies return to pre-recession profit levels, but — aww, shucks — preoccupied with their special-ness, they forgot to peddle this returning prosperity into livable wages and jobs to replace all those that had been lost.
Finn hypothesizes that Lucy is unhappy because her generation was taught to value a “fulfilling career” over a “secure career.” I think maybe the reason Lucy is unhappy is not because she doesn’t value a secure career. Maybe, being a socially conscious and well-educated person, she is unhappy because her friends’ parents have, through their actions, comprehensively erased even the potential for a financially secure career for all but a very tiny fraction of Americans. Grim, but pragmatic. Maybe she’s not the delusional, starry-eyed egotist — maybe Finn is. And I wouldn’t blame her for being unhappy, in that case. Hell, I’d be downright furious.
What if Tywin Lannister was just writing the deranged sorority girl letter this whole time?— Andy Greenwald (@andygreenwald) April 22, 2013
If you just unsealed this like I ordered you to, tie yourself down to whatever chair you’re sitting in, because this letter is going to be a rough fucking ride.
For those of you that have your heads stuck under rocks, which is apparently the majority of this house, we have been FUCKING UP in terms of formal dinners and general social interactions with the Tyrells. I’ve been getting messengers on messengers about people LITERALLY being so fucking AWKWARD and so fucking BORING. If you’re reading this right now and saying to yourself “But seven hells Tywin, I’ve been having so much fun with my fellow Lannisters this week!” then dagger yourself in the face right now so that I don’t have to fucking find you in the Red Keep and do it myself.
and Paisley singing that white Americans are “still paying for mistakes that a bunch of folks made before we came.”
“I’m not advising anyone to truly forget slavery, but what I’m saying is forget the slavery mentality,” LL Cool J said. “Forget the bitterness. Don’t get bitter, get better.”
“Let’s not be victims of things that happened so long ago,” Paisley said.
ADDENDUM (OH SHIT I FORGOT) : You need one non-standard module for this, and it’s BeautifulSoup. Try ‘easy_install bs4’ or get it from here: http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/
I’m not posting this on GitHub or anything because this was just an exercise in the process of teaching myself Python, and it could very well be buggy as shit and I don’t want to support it at all. BUT:
I wrote a Python module that has a few functions that are useful in grabbing and parsing the gameday data that MLB makes available via XML files. You can get it here:
There are 10 functions in total, but of particular interest to Dude McRandom will probably be the WriteGames function, which will take every pitch from a list of games and write the data (game info, inning info, at bat info, and pitch f/x info) to a CSV file, one row per pitch. I’m going to list the functions and what they do, but after all that will be a concrete example, so you might want to just scroll down a bunch.
mlbgid module functions:
This returns a list of the field names that correspond to the data that will be written to the CSV file when you use WriteGames(). Needed for the sake of the csv.DictWriter (more on that later)
This takes an open CSV file and returns a DictWriter object that will translate the Python dictionary of values extracted from the XML to a row of CSV data
This takes a string, formatted as an MLB game ID, and returns an XML element object that contains all of the game data. MLB game IDs are formatted like so: YYYY_MM_DD_AWAYTEAMmlb_HOMETEAMmlb_gamenumber, where gamenumber is usually 1, but would be 2 if it’s the second game of a doubleheader
This returns a list of MLB game IDs consisting of all games that occurred on the present day.
This takes a date string and returns a list of MLB game IDs consisting of all games that occurred on the date represented by the string. The string MUST be formatted as YYYY-MM-DD
ParsePitch(pitch, GameProperties, InnProperties, ABProperties, istop, writer)
This takes an XML element for a pitch, a dictionary of game attributes, a dictionary of inning attributes, a dictionary of at bat attributes, a boolean variable indicating whether it is the top of an inning or not, and a CSV DictWriter. It combines the dictionaries into one set of attributes and writes it to the open CSV file handled by the DictWriter. This is the business end of building the CSV file. It returns nothing of value.
This takes an XML element for an atbat, and returns a dictionary of attributes for the atbat.
This takes an XML element for an inning, and returns a dictionary of attributes for the inning.
ParseGame(game, gameid, writer)
This takes an XML element for a game, a string of the MLB game ID, and a CSV DictWriter, and writes the game’s pitches to the CSV file handled by the DictWriter
This takes a list of MLB game IDs, and a string representing a CSV filename that you want to write to, and writes the pitch data for every game in the list to the csv file. It returns the file object, so add a .close() on the end if you want to close the file.
The most useful implementation I can think of, for the moment, is to write a script that will grab the day’s games and write their pitch data to a csv file. With this module, you would do it like this:
That’s it. The first line imports the module. The second line calls the WriteGames() function. The first argument for WriteGames is mlbgid.TodaysGames(), which is a list of MLB game IDs for games that happened today. The second argument is a file name that refers to ‘games.csv’ in your root. The file does not need to be preexisting. ‘.close()’ is appended to close the games.csv file.
- The MLB XML files use home_team_runs and away_team_runs to represent the score after the play in question. I thought that was fucking stupid. One might want to figure out things like “list all pitches thrown while the score was 2-1” or some such, so I jiggered the code a bit such that away_team_runs and home_team_runs represent the score at the beginning of the at bat in question. The only time this gets tricky is if a run scores in the middle of an at bat (i.e. on a wild pitch). If that occurs, then those fields will continue to represent the score at the beginning of the at bat, until the next batter comes up. I could probably fix this, but, reasons.
- WriteGames() writes a header row to the CSV file. This is just for ease of interpretation. If you use it to write Spring Training or exhibition games, though, not all pitch f/x data is recorded for those. So you’ll have the full header row but not all of the data will be filled in for those games. Just FYI. I’m not sure exactly what happens if you use WriteGames() on a day when there are both spring games with no pitch f/x data and regular season games with pitch f/x data. Try it and find out for yourself! Fucker.
- WriteGames() will write little notifications for each game it completes. If it comes across a game where the consolidated XML file is not available, the notification will say “[Game] not found.” This should only happen in 3 instances: 1) World Baseball Classic games , 2) 2012 regular season games where the Marlins were an away or home team and MLB stupidly included a blank entry for ‘flomlb,’ but don’t worry, it included a full entry for ‘miamlb’ and that data WILL be written, 3) games that did not occur on that day because of rain/snow/whatever postponement; the future makeup game will be collected when you run WriteGames() on that date.
- Certain pitches thrown in 2010 and earlier will probably have some blank data because pitch f/x collection was sort of spotty
- That’s all I can think of for now. Like I said this was literally a babby’s first Python exercise so I can’t guarantee the code is all that rigorous, but I’ve tested it a bunch and it seems to work fine.
Questions —-> @phylan but like I said I’m not exactly supporting this shit.
Ryan Howard | 1B | .219/.295/.423, 14 HR in 292 PA
Chase Utley | 2B | .256/.365/.429, 11 HR in 362 PA
Jimmy Rollins | SS | .250/.316/.427, 23 HR in 699 PA
Michael Young | 3B | .277/.312/.370, 8 HR in 651 PA
Carlos Ruiz | C | .325/.394/.540, 16 HR in 421 PA
Delmon Young | LF | .267/.296/.411, 18 HR in 608 PA
Ben Revere | CF | .294/.333/.342, 0 HR in 553 PA
John Mayberry, Jr. | RF | .245/.301/.395, 14 HR in 479 PA
Domonic Brown | RF | .235/.316/.396, 5 HR in 212 PA
Roy Halladay | SP | 4.49 ERA, 20.4% K, 5.6% BB in 156.1 IP
Cliff Lee | SP | 3.16 ERA, 24.4% K, 3.3% BB in 211 IP
Cole Hamels | SP | 3.05 ERA, 24.9% K, 6.0% BB in 215.1 IP
Kyle Kendrick | SP | 3.90 ERA, 17.2% K, 7.3% BB in 159.1 IP
Jonathan Papelbon | CL | 2.44 ERA, 32.4% K, 6.3% BB in 70 IP
This week, British journalist and feminist essayist Suzanne Moore wrote a column for The New Statesman titled Seeing Red: The Power of Female Anger. While otherwise pretty on point, it contained a really unfortunate line about men preferring the body type of “a Brazilian transsexual.” For obvious reasons, it was a pretty offensive way in which to invoke transgender identities, and a lot of people were upset. At this point, Moore probably could have apologized for her insensitivity, and the whole thing would have been forgotten about. Instead she went into full meltdown, making a series of awful tweets that only dug her deeper. The full summary is here, but, here is one of them just to give you an idea:
Awful. She also griped about being the victim of language policing and Twitter mobs. Worse, still, was how many other journalists who ostensibly should know better began their reflexive wagon circling — among others, Caitlin Moran and Charles Arthur. Maybe this isn’t unique to journalism, but the way in which other writers refused to even consider that Moore might be in the wrong, even as she dug herself deeper, was astonishing. The general sentiment is pretty well summarized by that Moran tweet linked above: “We are commentators! The gall of holding us responsible for our commentary! This never happened before Twitter!”
In the end, Moore took her ball and went home, deleting her Twitter account merely because she was called to account for her language. Owen Jones of The Independent lamented “Twitter storms:”
Poor helpless writers, forced to bear the agony of being told they’re wrong.
This reminded me of something drastically less important: baseball journalism. Because on Wednesday, after not a single player on a Hall of Fame ballot overflowing with worthy talent was elected, Jon Heyman took up (well, really, continued to promote) The Wrongest Cause:
Putting aside that Jack Morris as a worthy Hall of Fame candidate is completely ridiculous for a laundry list of reasons, note that Jon Heyman thinks “[inter]net negativity” is a contributing factor in sinking Morris’ candidacy. Matt Gelb, bracing himself for certain backlash against the BBWAA, spoke of ”arrogant Internet bullies chastising anyone who resists their groupthink.”
Similarly, when Dayton Moore traded a ridiculous bounty of prospects for James Shields and Wade Davis in early December, writers exhibited bizarre defensiveness about the Royals GM. Danny Knobler penned a hilariously whiny column that began, “No surprise, the Twitter world hates what the Royals just did.” Ken Rosenthal wrote “woe to any GM who parts with [prospects] in this hyper-critical, Twitter-crazed era.”
Here’s a fucking memo to sports writers, British journalists, baseball general managers and whoever the hell else: Sometimes you are wrong. You didn’t start being wrong when Twitter was created. There are instances of you being wrong years and years before that. Sometimes you engage in lazy analysis, or write offensive things. This, too, believe it or not, predates Twitter and any other social media outlet you could name.
Twitter is not “hyper-critical,” it just abolishes the illusion that every precious opinion you put on the record is owed some super special deference because of your occupation. It does this by putting you on a more-or-less equal platform with the people who consume your work, who think critically about it, and form their own opinions. Sometimes they’re wrong. Many times, maybe. But sometimes you are wrong, and Twitter isn’t obligated to stop and act aghast at that prospect.
Presumably you’ve exposed yourself to this because it’s a powerful way to promote your work. That is the trade-off. It’s not altogether different from when you accepted a job at a bigger newspaper, or had your blog bought out by a large media outlet, or whatever. So stop mournfully eulogizing the death of discourse at the hands of new media every time someone on Twitter thinks you’re incorrect. Stop whining about it.
Have I seen people write like this before? Yes.
Is it completely insufferable and unnecessary? Sure.
Does it sometimes include more than just a one word answer? Of course, and that makes the format even stupider because it ruins the cadence.
Should it switch between affirmative and negative answers, which makes no sense at all? No, but people do that too.
Is this just a way of masking a total lack of creativity in sentence construction? Definitely.
Would it be much easier to just make a goddamned statement in a straightforward way? Absolutely.
Am I going to just stop reading anything that includes this dumb shit in the future? Probably.
This is Leo Egan. He is a baseball player in a nerdy fictional baseball league I participate in. He is the best baseball player to ever have existed in the league, and would be the best player in baseball history if he actually existed. In 9 major league seasons he’s hit .375/.478/.765. He’s never posted an OPS under 1.100 in any season at any level. He has 478 home runs at the age of 28. He is not on my team. Goddamnit.
Mike Trout has had an incredible season, particularly considering his age, but in terms of overall value, Cabrera edges him out. Entering today, Cabrera has recorded 67 more plate appearances than Trout, a not-insignificant gap. Their on-base percentages are effectively equal, and Cabrera has a 58 point edge in slugging percentage.
Trout advocates give him a positional and defensive edge to make up for this, or do so indirectly in the form of Wins Above Replacement, but consider this: in the 2011 and 2012 seasons, third base has become a more difficult position at which to find offense than center field. In both seasons, OPS from the center field position has outstripped that of third base by at least 28 points. And Trout, it should be noted, has logged almost a third of his defensive innings at corner outfield positions of decidedly less value than third.
While defensive metrics indicate a wide gap between their respective abilities, the unreliability of single-season defensive measures is well documented. For human-charted metrics, the natural tendency to chart the ball closer to the only visible landmark (the fielder) than it actually is significantly penalizes infielders like Cabrera, making it appear that they should’ve made more plays than were actually possible. And the distorting effect that something like an infield shift can have on other metrics has been amply demonstrated by Brett Lawrie.
This is not to even mention the question of how heavily defense should be weighed in things like WAR; to suggest that Trout’s defense alone makes him 2.5 wins better than the average fielder, as his rField value would imply, stretches credibility severely. Given all of this information, it’s hardly a given that Trout’s defensive abilities can overcome the advantage that Cabrera has by virtue of providing slightly better offense over substantially more plate appearances.
Notice I did not:
- Cite the Triple Crown as if it were anything more than a category-based novelty
- Allude to monthly splits or September performance when discussing an award predicated on overall value
- Point to Cabrera’s achievements in other seasons as support for his case in winning an award that is handed out every season, for that season’s performance.
- Try to distract the audience from the most reliable and simple measures of hitter performance by stringing together peripheral numbers to construct meaningless narratives like “most-feared” or “matters most”
- Bring up the performance of either player’s team
I don’t find the case above convincing at all. I think it falls far short of robustness actually. To me, Mike Trout is the obvious AL MVP in 2012. But I’d much rather hear the above case for Cabrera than the others being made, because it’s reasonably intellectually honest, straightforward, and doesn’t recast this whole thing as another interminable old stats vs. new stats, traditional vs. advanced showdown. Which is what is going to happen. Somebody fucking kill me.