Dan Gould

Hope you have a blast, David. I'm actually kind of pleased that I'm sorta kinda almost helping the music-making process in my own little way.

They're all asshats but ours is still better than yours. Pass. The simple fact is there is no room for error with this fucker throwing every fifth game away. The Rays are winning again, the margin will be 4 1/2 and if they lose again tomorrow, that will be what, a 1 game lead in the wild card? fuckin' pathetic.

Wakefield is headed to the DL, can they fucking send that asshat Buchholz away too? Jesus Christ he sucks. (so much for the new me).

CRIMINY! (It's the new Dan, how do you like him? ) I went to bed with hopes of picking up a game and awaken to read this. Well, that's all I got since the rest of my post would be a string of much stronger oaths than CRIMINY.

Jeez, one time I don't use a winkie and what happens ... Let me use many:

Yeah, but he's a relatively considerate spammer - he seems to have put some thought as to where his spam belongs, and correctly decided that Miscellaneous - Non-Political is the proper place. I say kudos, sir. And kudos again.

Pete Best. I don't know how you missed it, Aric, but here's the thread, the audio links still work but my picture of the band is not displaying. http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...ur+Sounds\ The short story is that there were several different saxophonists who filled out the "Four Sounds". The first one was Lonnie Walker who was brought into the band by, iirc, Andy Simpkins. Walker was a somewhat technically limited player and the band, wanting to play more modern jazz, decided that he needed to be replaced. Ironic, in that the name of the group, which endured for 15+ years, came from his nickname "The Sound". There's some dispute as to the reason why Lonnie was asked to leave; I've given you Bill Dowdy's recollection while Janie Harris, Gene's widow, says that Gene was not thrilled when Lonnie pulled a gun out of his saxophone case during a pay dispute with a club owner. If the story is true, he was probably happy to have that "convincer" but he was a little concerned about what might happen if his saxophonist decided to use his gun, particularly in the rougher clubs that they played. Personally, I tend to believe Dowdy's version of events. If you aren't aware, all of this happened while the band was trying to get established in the Midwest and before they headed east as a trio. Their base of operations was Cleveland, and they rehearsed regularly at Boddie's Recording studio, which is actually still in existence. There is some dispute as to whether a Demo was recorded (Gene's version) or if the studio owner tried out his new equipment by recording the band while they played (Dowdy's recollection). Dowdy does remember that touring musicians would come back to the studio with the band to jam, so there is the tiniest bit of hope that there may also be an acetate recording of the Three Sounds jamming with Lee Morgan. Seriously! So, this demo recording was made, and the acetate may never have left the city of Cleveland. It was found by a record dealer who discovered it in someone's garage. He put it on Ebay. I won it. The winning bid:

Didn't I hear that the Cubs play something crazy like 16 of their last 21 games on the road????? I don't know but with Soriano back, they are firing on all cylinders. October here we come!!!

Yes, with an assist from Allen Lowe, and copies were sent to Gene's widow, Bill Dowdy, and Michael C (Michael said he wouldn't include them in a Three Sounds Mosaic because of the sound quality and that the group sound wasn't the same as the trio alone - he said if anyone ever put one together, it belonged in a compilation "Oddities of the 50s and 60s"). Jim took an MP3 copy and posted them on his server with a link in the Four Sounds thread that I started way back when. Not sure if its still available.

Sad news. While I wasn't a devoted fan, he usually made me laugh wherever I saw him.

My prized "Four Sounds" demo recording was acetate. They are playable on TTs and I think they were usually "cut" at 78 rpm. They are also quite fragile. The fact that mine was made of glass can be seen at the edge where there is a little flaking, and from the side you can see the green of the glass underneath.

Good point. Per the closer discussion, if the scenario is that Pap is going to *save* three games in a row, I'd agree with you. But if we're asking if he's going to pitch in three games where he gets a save, that's a different question. Given that we DON'T know in advance what the circumstance will be, I think you have to play the game for today. If you consider the Putz example, I think it's likely that if he'd entered a close game in the 7th during that two week skid the M's had, pitched 2-1/3, and maybe picked up a W instead of a save, that might have been enough to inspire a listless team. Instead, he was reserved for his 9th-inning role, as the team hopped right in the toilet without a life jacket. Another situation where you might want to use your best reliever is maybe in the eighth inning you have the #3 hitter get on base. You bring in your best reliever to face the 4,5,6 hitters. If he gets them without allowing a run, you can have anybody pitch the 9th to get the 7,8,9 hitters. Another good point, and truly, this is something we do see occasionally. Perhaps not the exact scenario, but I've seen both Torre (in past seasons) and Tito go to Mo and Pap respectively a little early if somebody gets on-base. that's all true but its hardly a given that "anyone" can pitch the ninth facing the 7, 8 and 9 hitters, and that's regardless of the likelihood of a pinch hitter. And use restrictions virtually guarantee that you'll see the closer "early" under these circumstances only in three situations: struggling team and the closer hasn't been getting much work - they need the win, and he's "fresh". Late season, must-win game, and most especially against a direct play-off rival. Post-season, when you ride your horses the strongest knowing that soon enough, with or without a parade, those critical arms will have the off-season to rest up. Otherwise though, you're going to see the set-up corps mix and match its way to the closer.

Yeah, that is really lame.

Strozier is on hold for you but you were minutes late on the Sonny Red.

The list is up to date for PMs received as of 12:30 pm. And with that I am tearing myself away before I get hit with another blizzard of PMs. Thanks for your attention, and I'll send responses to future PMs later today.

The list is up to date as of 12:30 for PMs received. And now I am tearing myself away before I get another blizzard of messages. Updates will be sent later in the day, and as always, thanks for your attention.

Manny loved to hit Chad Bradford, so to the extent he won't see him, its a good pick up. But he's been pretty mediocre for many years now. And hey! I went to bed with the Rays up 1-0 in the seventh and figured they had yet another win. Glad to see the Mariners pulled it out. 'Bout time that team lost.

Please see the New Stupendous Sale Thread!

Please see the New Stupendous Sale Thread!

Huh? Not likely. Don't get me wrong, I like what I see in this kid (you had more faith than me, but he's impressed me), but I'm not prepared to say he's going to get *better* than 23 RBI in 100 ABs moving forward. Or am I misreading your statement? I don't think Lowrie has shown the best hitting skills he will possess in his first 100 ABs. I doubt that any batter who lasts any length of time shows his best performance in his first 100 ABs. Whether that means more RBIs than 23 per 100 ABs, who knows? As you and I know, RBIs are a function of who gets on base in front of you. Should he get a bunch of at bats with Crisp and Varitek in front of him, he probably won't maintain the RBI rate.

The extra pitchers are coming from other leagues (as we've already seen start happening), and those leagues mostly use the 6-man rotation. It makes sense to adapt to their style and you might be able to see increased quality with more rest (most pitchers perform better on more rest). So you're talking about 28-30 starts for a typical starter as opposed to 32-35. But if you get the same number of quality starts, it might be worth it. I think it's coming, I could be wrong, but I won't be surprised if it happens. I answered your question about what I would do in that scenario. I would use Pap 3 if I had to -- a big league pitcher should be able to pitch 3 innings. He's not going to be available for two days, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Of course, Goose would go multiple innings multiple days in a row -- it can be done, but it requires a change in mindset. So you believe there are 30 major league starters in other leagues, and that Papelbon is better used for three innings in a single game than to save, say, three in a row. And with a "different mindset" he could go three innings multiple days in a row. Yes, it would take a different mindset - a mindset that says "screw what the medical staff says - he can handle it!"

Its astonishing to see the stat in the Globe that in 100 ABs, Lowrie has any many RBIs as Lugo has in 260+. And on top of that, with 23 RBIs, that extrapolates to a 100 RBI season for your number 7 or 8 hitter! And that's based only on his first 100 ABs - you should expect to him better going forward. And on top of that, I've seen him make a couple of plays showing more range than expected. I hope Tito is smart and realizes that Lowrie makes the team better - period. and if necessary, Theo should just admit his mistake and designate Lugo for assignment. With the money coming off payroll next year, they can afford to pay Lugo 9 million to play somewhere else (and it would take that anyway for them to trade him).

You know, Dan, I've got pretty thick skin, and I love to trash talk. If you want to degenerate this into a competition of who can be a bigger asshole, I can certainly come up with creative ways to verbally establish your credentials as a fuckhead, but I'd really rather have a discussion of the topic. If you believe the modern use of the bullpen is correct and effective, that's fine. I happen to disagree, and that's as someone who's played the game quite a bit. Having clearly defined roles in the bullpen definitely makes some sense, but I think the role of 'closer' should be one of 'stopper' as it was in the 70s. LaRussa created the era of specialization out of necessity -- he had a weak pitching staff (excepting one top-notch starter -- Dave Stewart). To his credit, he managed to take an aging, fledgling starter and exploit his weaknesses into a strength by making him a one-inning pitcher. As lights out as Eck was in the ninth, it was the guys leading up to him that did the harder job in most cases. If you have great starting pitching, the 7-1-1 or 6-2-1 format makes a lot of sense. If not, you should adapt. Do you *really* like to see Tito remove John Lester and insert Delcarmen or Timlin into a clutch situation? I sure as hell don't. Number one, I didn't realize you were a card-carrying member of the Manager's union, so my apologies. :rolleyes: Number two, if you want to verbally establish my credentials as a fuckhead, have at it. I couldn't give two shits what you think. Number three, I'd far less like to see Papelbon come in during the seventh inning of any game, because then I'd be left to wonder: 1. Who the fuck is pitching the ninth, or even perhaps the tenth should this game to extra innings? The ninth inning of a tie game or a game that is a save situation is far higher leverage than the seventh inning of a close one. 2. What the fuck is Francona doing, is he going to run Papelbon into the ground by asking him to get five or eight outs? You said it yourself - the guys in front of Eckersley had the tougher job. But they are the ones to do it, or fail at it. You can't ask a closer to cover your ass in the seventh inning and leave yourself open to losing the game in the ninth. You can't use your closer in the seventh inning and risk losing the game or heading to extra innings having to use your worst reliever right out of the chute. The only time the usage pattern may change is during the post-season, when there are no more games to play for. Then you may (as in fact we did) see Papelbon come into a close situation before the ninth. If you get lucky (as in one game we did) your offense puts some runs on the board and Papelbon is safely removed from the game. If not, you do run him into the ground to get that win, and deal with the consequences afterward. Let's flip that situation around, slick. Let's say that Papelbon comes into the seventh inning of a one-run game (regular season), no outs, bases loaded, and preserves the lead. How do you feel when Delcarmen comes in to pitch the ninth, with the same one run lead, and Francona's fall back plan is Timlin? How do you feel about that? You feel good about that situation, Mr. Manager? I'm betting you don't, but then again I'm just a fuckhead. Ignoring your attempts to goad me (I mean, why? Why you gotta be like that?), in your scenario, I let Pap pitch right through to the ninth if I have to (think back to the World Series matchup of Mesa vs. Wohlers, each going 3-innings all out). Yeah, I probably don't have Papelbon available the next two nights, but I've got my key win. If you rely on one guy, you're likely not going to get very far over the long haul anyway. Specialization of relief has hurt the game in a number of ways, perhaps most of all in the length of games. Baseball has done a terrible job of renewing its fan base. Kids, the future fans, and working people cannot stay up till midnight every night following their team. Sox games have always been notoriously long, but long used to mean three hours, not four. This era of specialized relief is just that, an era. It will change, in what way, nobody knows. But nobody was doing this until the mid-late 80s, so it's not like it's set in stone. We'll probably not see the 4-man rotation again (which is a shame) but I wouldn't be surprised to see a change to a Japan-style 6-man rotation (particularly as players from that system become more common in MLB). I would guess that that is when we will see a change in the usage of relievers. If you have to pitch once a week, it's more likely that you'd be pitching 7-8 innings, then the relievers will become less specialized. That's a neat trick - change the terms to "key game" and reference a world series, for cryin out loud. And on top of that, I specifically mentioned post-season games as potentially requiring that the "rules" be thrown out the window in favor of making sure that you get the win. So let's go back to the scenario you introduced: How do you feel when Lester is relieved in the seventh inning by Delcarmen or Timlin. I answered that question, leaving you with this question: How do you feel when Papelbon is finished and Delcarmen is trying to close the game out in the ninth? Or do you intend to use Papelbon whenever the mood strikes, for three innings and then not have him for two days at a time? Is that really what you are saying? You're ready to get that one win in the bag in exchange for MDC/Timlin/Oki throwing away the next two games? That is completely nuts unless you are down to the final games of the regular season with no assurance of a post-season spot or you're in the post-season itself. And as far as your statement about a six man rotation, is there enough pitching to go around, and factoring in injuries, for strong five man rotations? Six men rotations is 30 more starters in the majors That's like a five team expansion in the league. Ignoring the fact that starting pitching prospects aren't evenly distributed in the minors, do you really look forward to seeing the thirty best minor league pitchers as starters?

Glad to hear it. Next list(s?) will be up either tonight or tomorrow, most likely tonight.

You know, Dan, I've got pretty thick skin, and I love to trash talk. If you want to degenerate this into a competition of who can be a bigger asshole, I can certainly come up with creative ways to verbally establish your credentials as a fuckhead, but I'd really rather have a discussion of the topic. If you believe the modern use of the bullpen is correct and effective, that's fine. I happen to disagree, and that's as someone who's played the game quite a bit. Having clearly defined roles in the bullpen definitely makes some sense, but I think the role of 'closer' should be one of 'stopper' as it was in the 70s. LaRussa created the era of specialization out of necessity -- he had a weak pitching staff (excepting one top-notch starter -- Dave Stewart). To his credit, he managed to take an aging, fledgling starter and exploit his weaknesses into a strength by making him a one-inning pitcher. As lights out as Eck was in the ninth, it was the guys leading up to him that did the harder job in most cases. If you have great starting pitching, the 7-1-1 or 6-2-1 format makes a lot of sense. If not, you should adapt. Do you *really* like to see Tito remove John Lester and insert Delcarmen or Timlin into a clutch situation? I sure as hell don't. Number one, I didn't realize you were a card-carrying member of the Manager's union, so my apologies. :rolleyes: Number two, if you want to verbally establish my credentials as a fuckhead, have at it. I couldn't give two shits what you think. Number three, I'd far less like to see Papelbon come in during the seventh inning of any game, because then I'd be left to wonder: 1. Who the fuck is pitching the ninth, or even perhaps the tenth should this game to extra innings? The ninth inning of a tie game or a game that is a save situation is far higher leverage than the seventh inning of a close one. 2. What the fuck is Francona doing, is he going to run Papelbon into the ground by asking him to get five or eight outs? You said it yourself - the guys in front of Eckersley had the tougher job. But they are the ones to do it, or fail at it. You can't ask a closer to cover your ass in the seventh inning and leave yourself open to losing the game in the ninth. You can't use your closer in the seventh inning and risk losing the game or heading to extra innings having to use your worst reliever right out of the chute. The only time the usage pattern may change is during the post-season, when there are no more games to play for. Then you may (as in fact we did) see Papelbon come into a close situation before the ninth. If you get lucky (as in one game we did) your offense puts some runs on the board and Papelbon is safely removed from the game. If not, you do run him into the ground to get that win, and deal with the consequences afterward. Let's flip that situation around, slick. Let's say that Papelbon comes into the seventh inning of a one-run game (regular season), no outs, bases loaded, and preserves the lead. How do you feel when Delcarmen comes in to pitch the ninth, with the same one run lead, and Francona's fall back plan is Timlin? How do you feel about that? You feel good about that situation, Mr. Manager? I'm betting you don't, but then again I'm just a fuckhead.