Scott Dolan

Well, and I'm not kidding, my father laid the turf that still exists to this day in the Citrus Bowl. He was contracted by the powers that be/were as he was a Superintendent at a local country club at the time. Not sure if that counts, but yes, I knew of a groundskeeper at one point. It's an artform, no doubt.

Ray was really good.

I'm friends with a former player in the Pirates organization. Never made it higher than AA but knows the game, and knows it well. He winters in Surprise and attends all the Royals spring training games, regular season ticket holder, you get the idea. So, yeah. I actually do know about all the things you've mentioned, but you're right that many fans don't. Speaking of talking to a scout, former players at the professional level are also an enormous wealth of information.

Then I guess neither of us is saying anything different. Though, I note a slight hole in your scout story. Unless you meant to say "they've" been doing it all week. And if that's the case, it sounds fishy that an entire crew would be calling balls and strikes exactly the same way day after day.

So go ahead and replace all umpires with computers and machines. The technology exists to give you the absolute perfection you insist upon. Personally, I'm 100% opposed to removing the human element from any endeavor.

Again, needless hand-wringing over human fallability. Plotting balls and strikes is the most ridiculous hair splitting in sports, IMO. Let the pitcher throw it to the catcher, the batter try to hit it, and the ump determine whether it was a ball or strike if the batter decides not to. Done. Throw it back to the pitcher, rinse and repeat. There is really no need to go over it with a fine-tooth comb after the fact.

And BTW, Jose Bautista has to be one of the whiniest little bitches in sports today.

I suppose, Brad. It does come across as potentially golden age fallacy, though. I also wonder if we had the technology to go back 50 years and watch a randomly selected series or two in HD, if we'd find the same inconsistencies and bad calls. Folks weren't watching games on 40/50/60 inch high definition televisions back then, which makes me wonder: is it the game that's really changed, or just the way we see it?

People have been whining and bitching about the strike zone as long as I've been alive. It's a game played and officiated by humans. When taken as a whole, the bad calls that go against you, and the bad calls in your favor balance each other out nicely.

Cheadle may have the voice down well enough, but his stance while playing is completely wrong. Looks nothing like Miles.

I was pretty neutral on Pete Rose before, but his commercial during the All Star game was too tasteless even for me. He has really become a major embarrassment. And his behavior on FS1 yesterday made the show almost unwatchable. And we had nearly an hour rain delay last night, so I got quite an earful of his bizarre rants.

I've been having this argument with self-appointed experts on the Royals forum. Home field "advantage" simply doesn't exist in the postseason. And Jim, Pete Rose has simply become insufferable. I cringe every time he chimes in. II'd pay to see The Big Hurt just backhand the shit out of him.

Wow, that's too bad. I didn't realize she was 70.

Huh? What'd I say? I had a feeling the Pirates were in for a rough night with Arrieta on the mound.

The Astros remind me, a lot, of the Royals from last year. Only with a lot more pop at the plate. I wouldn't be shocked in the least if they went all the way to the Big Show this year. Our rotation is our weakness, and Houston can expose that without even breaking a sweat. I'm thinking we'll make an early exit this year, but it has still been a fantastic year for those of us who suffered through all of those 100 loss seasons not so long ago... And since Houston kind of took our place as MLB whipping boy for a few years, I wouldn't mind seeing their fans getting to enjoy what we were able to last year.

Not entirely. But you still have a decent idea of what to expect from players that you see many times each and every year.

Right, but that's the difference between you and I. You have to have a narrative to fully appreciate your team and the games they play. I don't. If a narrative exists, fine. But if one doesn't, equally fine. Sometimes the complete lack of a narrative makes the competition that much more exciting because nobody really has any real idea what's going to happen after that first pitch is thrown.

They may be right up there as well, I don't know. But those also had FAR earlier starts in the recording world. Just saying, St. Martin's is heard often on the radio and has over 500 recordings to their name. If that isn't absolute market dominance, it's sure as hell in the running!

Ah, so by "local" you meant familiar. Gotcha. Well, I can see your point. I certainly don't subscribe to it, mind you. But, I'm not the purist that you are. Geographically it makes complete sense. Kind of like when we play St. Louis or Colorado in I-70 series. Or the Marlins play the Rays. Or Yankees/Mets… You've got two markets which are relatively close to each other (considering the cities are far more spread out in that part of the country), so it turns into a regional affair. For me, I don't need characters, or history, or story lines in order to enjoy watching a Royals game. I just want to see a well-played game between two good teams. Beyond that, I don't care if they only meet once every 10 years, or once every 10 weeks. But, that may be a matter of perspective borne from following one of the biggest jokes in MLB for years, and now seeing them experience some success. I don't care who it comes against, just that it happens.

So partial integration makes it no longer "local", but full integration would?

So all teams should only play teams in their own division? Or league? You're still going to have plenty of tie-breakers in place should they become necessary, and each win counts as one in the standings. How the Padres are any less "local" than the Angels is beyond me. Yeah, nothing beats watching a pitcher strike out 4 or 5 times a game.

No, seriously. What do you mean by "local" to the process? MLB is still the most local/regional professional sport in America. And by leaps and bounds.

Oh? Name another ensemble who has over 500 titles to their name. Jim, thanks for the thorough explanation. It makes a lot of sense. Perfection being a pursuit, not a destination. It sounds like (based on your report) the current ensemble is adhering to paint-by-numbers sterility, and I could see how annoying that would be to a trained ear. And considering the overwhelming majority of their audience will come to the performance with highly tuned listening skills, it's kind of confusing why they would choose to go that route.

OK, so I have to ask. What the hell does this even mean? And as far as your lottery analogy goes, I suppose that would hold true if they only played a single game and the loser goes home. But, tha's only in the Wild Card. The rest are 5 and 7 game series. That all but completely removes any random nature from the proceedings. The better team could lose a coin flip against an inferior opponent, but they likely won't lose a 5 or 7 game series.

Happens to the best of us, brother. I do "get" what you're saying, but I think you're really taking it to unnecessary extremes. As I stated earlier, I've only been truly following MLB since 2002. So I certainly sympathize with those who have been following it for decades. It's like me and the NFL. I can go into super-sized "get the fuck off my motherfucking lawn you piece of shit kids, before I kill you and chop your worthless bodies up into little pieces!" when it comes to that. Been watching it since 1978 when I was 8 years old. And I don't like what it has become, although I have been adapting a bit in recent years. I'm still scarred from the first time I heard "hitting a defenseless receiver" a little over a decade ago...