Cup of Coffee: August 29, 2008
Posted by SBG on Friday, August 29th, 2008 at 5:48 am
I swear to God, the Twins are going to kick away a great opportunity by losing to the A's and M's.
This entry was posted by SBG on Friday, August 29th, 2008 at 5:48 am and is filed under Cup of Coffee. It is one of 2379 entries by the author. Feel free to write a letter to the editor if you are a registered SBG Nation Citizen. If you are not a Citizen, you can register here.
Loading ...
You can only say "it's only one game" so many times. Then it becomes a week, and then a month, and then, before you know it, the season is gone.
Over the last three weeks, the Twins are 7-6 against arguably the two worst teams in the AL in Seattle and Oakland. That's not good enough.
Last night while many of you were watching in angst as Jesse Crain warmed up, I dropped a cool grand on a new computer system on NewEgg. I may be poor, but I have the next five days off and will have a new toy soon
I got my new laptop about a month ago. New toys are soooo much fun.
If we are to take any solace in this I guess that we can be thankful that the ChiSox haven't pulled away any further.
I take great comfort in this...we aren't playing very good but the Sox aren't pulling away.
Anybody watch Obama's speech? Not particularly Barack like...pretty aggressive.
The pictures alone are astonishing. Invesco went 8000 over capacity, and they filled every single seat. 84000 people at a political event?
It is amazing how easy it is to get Dems worked up into a lather, that's for sure.
from my pop:
Heh. There's that.
Leni Riefenstahl preferred the 'descending through the clouds from on high' entrance motif. But a donkey and palm fronds would have been a nice touch.
The whole 'Roman Columns' thing the media and Republicans were on the other day looked kind of silly because the set looked like the White House.
Do Republicans hate the White House?
It's pretty cool to see that many people at a politcal speech. The Republicans have a challenge in putting on a show next week
Clearly the set looked like the White House so people could visualize Obama as president. The Temple of Obama horsecrap was just the GOP's attempt divert attention from that visualization. The Republicans do seem to understand the power of symbolism and in this case went to great lengths to try to change the symbol. Instead of people seeing Obama as presidential, they wanted people to see him as imperial (and imperious). I'll hand it to the Republicans, they really do know how to muddy the water.
but, when its gets pointed out about their stagecraft, they close their ears and go 'lalalalalal cant hear ya'
apparently, GWB used a coulmn theme during one of his acceptance speeches
My favorite was the navy ship background when he declared Mission Accomplished. It looked almost real!
For those not in last nights game chat, there is a little WGOM fantasy football going on.
If you are interested in joining we still have a few spots open, the league is on ESPN
league name: WGOM
password: joemauer
I look forward to folks joining. Watts/So Cal, your spots are still there but you had better sign up soon.
I'd join if I wasn't already in a family league. Nothing more irritating that rooting for your guy to score, but not too much because your opponet in your other league has him going, too.
It is bad enough having to root against your own team sometimes.
I don't have that problem, since I don't like the Vikings or really any football team. Just my players.
I dont take Fantasy sport too serious.
Its free, you get bragging rights, thast about it
If I were doing a pay league, I would act differently
Are the Twins not hitting well or are they just unlucky right now? Their peripherals suggest unlucky. In their last four games, the Twins' hitters are averaging 3.5 walks and 5 K's per game. Their season averages are 3.1 walks and 5.9 K's per game, so it doesn't appear that they are swinging at more bad pitches than usual. They're not hitting home runs either, but they haven't done that all season, really.
Four double plays last night was as much bad luck and bad timing as it was bad hitting. Especially Morneau's in the first inning. If that line drive was a hit instead of a DP, the Twins would have at least had the bases loaded and one out in the first.
And then there was the two bloop hits by the A's that led directly to their final two runs. Just going through some bad luck right now. If the Twins can avoid letting this bad run get to them, they should be fine.
I tend to agree that the Twins have not had much luck lately. On the other hand, that's probably what all losers tend to say.
In the last 8 games, the Twins have scored 3 or less runs 5 times. They are 1-4. When they score more than that they are 2-1. That loss was the 7-5 Angels loss. The Twins aren't scoring runs. Pitching hasn't been that bad (on the front end). Bullpen on the other hand hasn't been very good, neither has the defense. In the 5 losses on this road trip, none have been by more than 2 runs. We're getting close, but still not doing enough.
With Span coming along it has lessened the loss of Cuddyer, but this stretch against lefty starters has really exposed his absense. Hopefully the ass bats can snap out of it tonight. Who knew the Mariners and A's pitchers would shut us down more than the Halos pitchers?
The pitching doesn't seem to follow, but the bats overall definitely follow the level of competition - we seem to do well against good to great pitchers, and less well against subpar pitchers.
by "subpar pitchers", you're implying "Jeremys", and it looks like another thinly veiled attempt to draw ubelmann out of his self-imposed exile. good try
I'm disappointed that the Oakland AAAA's hasn't caught on.
It's caught on with me, right now, FWIW.
I've been using in emails to my buddy who is an AAAA's fan. He comes back with "why don't you win some games against us". That shuts me up real quick.
Just what SBG's been hoping for: a longer NFL season.
Why do they need to do this? Is it all about the money? 16 games is just fine. If you want to cut preseason, cut preseason. Unless they really want to drag it out until March. Seems silly to me.
With the NFL, it's pretty safe to always assume that it's all about the money.
I like football. I watch it every Sunday. But 17/18 weeks....man the season will get long.
When will they play the games? Late August (which will mean less baseball coverage grrr) or early January which will mean the Super Bowl will be played on or around Valentines Day
There was that one year...was it 1993? They had two bye weeks for each team. That season seemed to drag
Can one of my other game log authors trade me for next Tuesday? I'll be on a bus to Chicago most of the day. Thursday or Friday works best for me as I'll be at Wrigley all day Wednesday.
I'll take it, Andrew.
I was thinking about this when I passed CNBC this morning (trying to get away from the stupid speculation game the media plays every 4 years when it comes to Veep choices)
OK, so there are people and lawmakers and companies that want to drill offseason for oil, and this, they say, will help lower the cost for oil because there is more oil in the market.
But where do these off shore drilling rigs go? More in the Gulf of Mexico? if that happens, then everytime a hurricane come down the pike, the prices will spike because speculators on Wall Street worry that oil facilities will not produce, or even be damaged. Well, there goes your savings on drilling right there
The rigs go off the coast of Florida and up the Eastern Seasboard aways? Again, the hurricane issue.
What places are left? California I suppose, but from what I understand, the Gov is not up and up on drilling off the coast (bs can correct me on that) and Alaska. but I dont know too much about up there.
Am I off course on my line of thinking?
Well, the thing that I see is that if we drill more, OPEC can just reduce production and the prices will go up. The true answer is to get serious about alternative sources NOW.
The problem with drilling is that we still need to refine the stuff. We're short on demand because environmentalists decided to not let gov't build any more refineries, something about pollution 'n' all. So that's one thing.
On the alternative sources... wind power is growing leaps and bounds. We have several wind farms in central Illinois (with good reason). The problem is some people have protested because they think the presence of a windmill will decrease the value of their land. Also, I read the other day that the next problem in the wind farm saga is getting the power from the wind farm to the metro areas. They need better more efficient methods of transporting the stuff.
Drilling now might make it so that gas in 10 years is only $6 instead of $12, which I still think is a good reason to do it. But I agree, we need to do both.
Refining capacity is a huge problem, one that everyone has ignored for 20 years. The supply of oil right now is not the real problem.
The oil companies don't have all that much incentive to push for new refineries, because the shortage of capacity lets them keep the price of gas up. If one company decides to invest $1B (or whatever the cost) in a new refinery, it will take awhile to recoup that cost since they can't simply increase prices. Gas is a commodity with essentially no differentiation between the different producers.
One proposal Moss has heard is to separate the refineries from the oil production companies in order to break the stalemate. It could work, but it would take years for any relief to be realized.
Refining capacity is a huge problem
yup. We talked about that at some point, didn't we? (checks. Yup. Hard, but interesting problems.
There is little incentive (especially with current crude prices) for any private industry to seriously consider building a new refinery. As a business unit they are not generally a profitable link in the fuel energy chain.
Some very interesting refinery projects are being developed world-wide, including a "mega-refinery" in India. The future I see for the refining business is one where companies will increase their refining capacity by investing in second-tier, stable nations where our laws and our environmentalists have little leverage yet they don't have to worry about total social unrest a la Nigeria.
An ignored issue with modern refineries is that they have become much more efficient than those of yesteryears. The addition of "cokers" has greatly increased their output of fuels (while greatly decreasing the output of asphault and road oils).
Actually, a company called Hyperion is trying to put a refinery just a dozen or so miles from where I live. It's a long way from actually happening, but they've met all the legal requirements so far.
What places are left? California I suppose, but from what I understand, the Gov is not up and up on drilling off the coast
Opposition to offshore drilling is pretty much a bi-partisan position in California. I'm sure there are some Daniel Plainview's around, but they don't make much noise, politically.
I have never understood why more drilling and alternative fuel research has to be an either/or. Why can't we do both?
The problem is that the oil companies are asking to drill in environmentally vulnerable areas. If there is no real benefit, why put those areas at risk?
Well, of course, the reason the oil companies are asking to drill in those areas is because that's where the oil is. And exactly how "environmentally vulnerable" some of those areas are is hardly beyond dispute, especially when it comes to ANWR.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for developing alternative fuels. I just think we're being presented with a false choice. There's no reason we can't do both.
ANWR has been a political football for at least 25 years. I was in Washington covering the hill for some energy industry pubs soon after the 1986 Fish & Wildlife report came out and got to enjoy seeing the sparring between Henry Waxman and his Republican critics.
ANWR first got federal protection under the Eisenhower admin.
the key part is the 5 million acre "1002" area on the coast. (the whole of ANWR is 19 million acres, most of which is "Minimal Management" federal wilderness.) This Repository article provides more useful background to the political battles.
In particular, note that President Clinton chose not to declare any part of ANWR to be a "national monument" at the end of his second term, despite pressure from environmental groups to do so. Whatever you may think of Clinton, I believe that (non-) decision was a pretty good example of presidential restraint. There are genuine, conflicting national interests at stake here.
as for whether the "environmental vulnerability" is suspect, well, I dunno JeffA. The pro-conservation arguments are pretty compelling to my eyes. Further, we have had a treaty in effect with Canada since 1987 --written and ratified under a Repub administration-- that requires enviro impact assessment and consultation before anything (such as drilling) is permitted that could affect the Porcupine Caribou herd or its habitat. That tells me that there is serious, credible concern about how energy resource development might adversely affect environmental values. It's not just a political issue -- the policy concern is legit.
that is not to poo-poo the need to develop energy resources. Clearly, we have a compelling national interest in that area. But as our discussion of the transmission constraints on wind energy development should have made clear, we have a LOT of fish to fry in that area. Personally, I see that latter issue as much more compelling for federal action than opening up contested areas for drilling.
This coffee's going to get pretty stale if it's got to last the whole weekend. Kind of makes me glad I don't drink coffee.