MattZ

I dont see why the bogey has to be whether a specific 1b can play 2b effectively. The issue is whether 2b is harder to play than 1b. Not whether a 1b can play 2b. I'd rather have Kent at first than Vaughn at 2b. But I also want Kent at first over Vaughn at 1b. Which is to say that Vaughn sucks. right, I am still with you Jules

I would never suggest that we look to the Mets as an example of anything other than futility, but as I said, the Mets stuck Jeff Kent at 2b when they had nowhere to put him because they thought he could "learn" the position quickly. Then they did the same thing with Jose Reyes when Kaz Matsui was brought in. And then swapped them when it didn't work out. So, the Mets clearly think 2b can be learned on the job. I suppose this may cut against my argument, but there certainly is a precedent for teams having little regard for the difficult of 2b. And it was not done at the expense of 1b.

Sure they do. The Mets stuck Jeff Kent at 2b. And just because teams are willing to put shitty players at 1b isn't proof that it's a good idea. Teams also relied on BA instead of OBP or OPS when figuring out who should hit leadoff.

It kinda feels nice.

I'm with Jules.

It may be easy(ier) to hide a fat defensive liability at 1b, but a compelling case could be made that 1b has the ability to prevent the most errors by picking errant throws. Not to mention, in the NL at least, you could argue that having a strong '3' for the 3-6 play on sacrifice bunts has a tremendous ability to change the direction of an inning.

I like LM, LS a lot and I think that, if it suffers from anything, it's the inevitable comparisons to the virtually perfect triumverate of American Water, Natural Bridge and Bright Flight. Listening to LM LS is like stepping into a different universe. And it's a universe that I am happy to inhabit. The jukebox as metaphor for man ("money lights your world up," "you're all filled up with other people's dreams"), the knockout one-liners (fist cuisine, killer cut, a monday in ft lauderdale), even the liner notes and the chord chart. I said what about the stuff that we quote believe? It's

The bridge in No Reply. The fucking bridge in No Reply.

As others have pointed out, it's silly to get indignant over the content of that ridiclous spam-like post. So instead, let me ask you this. If you admit it's fear-mongering at it's worst, what do you think is "interesting nonetheless" about it? What is so interesting about completely distorting facts to present a deliberately misleading story?

Guys, I hear what you are saying, but keep in mind that the "system" you demand takes the subjectivity out of the process. While that goes a long way to crowning the "correct" MVP as you desire, it also removes the basis for all arguments around the issue. And let's face it, baseball itself survives and thrives on the comparisons among and between players and eras. And the arguments we are having now. That's the foundation on which the sport stands. I'd say that's more important than giving the MVP to the "right" person. EDIT: In other words, if everyone interpreted the numbers correctl

It may be on the album, but I play it in open D (or E). I think it sounds best that way. Open D is Blood on the Tracks after all, and it gives the song the right feel. Even if its technically in standard tuning on the album. I thank the stars above for dylanchords.info. That place is heaven wrapped in bacon. That site gives the open D/E tuning for Tangled Up in Blue (as well as standard tuning). As well as tabs for every other Dylan song.

I listened to Beatles for Sale today for the first time in awhile. It's amazing how much better they are than everyone else. When I go a long stretch without listening to them, and then I listen to them, I have a hard time remembering why I waste so much time listening to the other crap I listen to. Even the crap that I think is good.

Come on. When you said that FDR's policies extended the recession/depression 10-15 years, I know it was a bit of hyperbole, but still. This graph proves that the new deal didn't stifle private investment. The crux of "your" argument is that the New Deal caused business investment to fall off a cliff as entrepeneurs feared the socialist in office. The graph shows that this just simply isn't the case. All a president can do is institute policies to get people to invest in business and balance budgets with the hopes that the market turns around. Are you really blaming FDR for high unemploym

Dear ikol (and anyone else interested): Counterpoint: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/lessons-from-th.html

I am willing to cut Obama's administration some slack on the Leeb decision but I am not happy about it.

Also, ZenL, I don't want you to tell that "markets go up over time" -- this isn't econ class. This is the real world. Where "over time" means that when people retire they need to draw on their 401k. People don't have "over time." They have their lifetime. And if we head for the implosion that you seem to want (by ignoring bailouts), there's going to be a lot of baby boomers with 401ks that are a mere fraction of what they were once worth. And they will have to live, and die, on that amount. Telling them to wait another 30 years because "markets go up over time" ain't gonna cut it.

Hell yeah. Great lyrics and phrasing... (and music, too) That song really reminds me of Dylan's My Back Pages for some reason.

Haha, ZenL, it's like we exist in alternate universes. I think that, without fail, I respectfully disagree with everything you say on here. First of all, timing is everything when investing. Literally, everything. How can you say it's not that important? If, 4 years ago, you foresaw this bubble, and you shorted the real estate market, you would have gone bankrupt as the market continued to rip while you were a bear. Ok, you would have been proven right in the long run, but "right" in the market means you made money. There's no moral victories. Now, if you want to tell me that timin

Yes, but in the market, the only thing worse than being wrong, is being right too early. So part of what I am saying is that being "right" involves a timing element too. And that this can certainly occur by "accident." Schiff was certainly right on the money in his analysis, but he wasn't the only one who saw this coming, and he was one of the few that timed it right. Lots of people knew the dotcom craze was a bubble. But they thought they were smart enough to get out before the bubble burst. If dotcoms are flying high, even if you know it's ridiculous, you can stand on the sidelines an

I'd like to suggest that in any scenario there will always be people who, looking back, were "right." There are bulls right now who will be proven right, eventually. They may be wrong for 1 year, or 5 years, or 10 years, but eventually, someone will be right. That could be because they truly know more than everyone or because they are in the right place at the right time. And either way, even if Schiff saw this coming a mile away, it doesn't mean that he is qualified to suggest our way out of it. Two entirely different skillsets and scenarios.

I realize that terms like jazz, as much as terms like alt-country, are artificial boxes that we put bands/music into because we are lazy, but for purposes of this discussion, can someone explain to me why there appears to be some debate about whether MMW is jazz or not? Give Tonic a spin. Or Friday Afternoon in the Universe. I know that some of their releases push the envelope a bit, but at heart, this is a jazz band, no? I've seen this band several times sit down and play an improv set for the night (see Tonic, which actually is a live release of one of those improv nights). Truly exhili

Medeski Martin & Wood - Tonic

Thanks to everyone who posts these... I always forget to have this on my radar.

Good luck, Lynch. Fingers crossed for you...