Shots In The Dark: Dice-K: Uh-Oh

Friday, April 06, 2007

Dice-K: Uh-Oh

Daisuke Matsuzaka made his debut at Fenway* last night, and yes, he appears to be the real deal. Yes, it was bitterly cold at Fenway last night—Fenway in April, brrrr—and yes, the Royals are inept. Still...half a dozen different pitches, ten strikeouts, and perhaps most important, poise under the pressure of playing at Fenway.

The Sox may very well have invested that $100 million wisely.

Meanwhile, the Yankees stunk last night, losing to the Devil Rays (aargh) 7-6. It was 38 degrees at the Stadium, which is absurd, but then, the Devil Rays had to play under the same conditions....

Here's one bad sign: Alex Rodriguez popped with the bases loaded to end what could have been a game-winning rally. That's not so bad; it happens. What's bad is that he slammed his bat to the ground and kicked first base as he ran past it.

Part of Rodriguez's problems last year was due to the fact that he was too critical of himself. You could see A-Rod grow tense at the bat, feel the negative thoughts in his head. His play suffered predictably. To see A-Rod throw his bat down in just the second game of the season is not encouraging....

_________________________________________________________________

*Due to a late night last night with staff and advertisers from 02138—have you ever seen Sambuca poured into a 12-ounce glass before? I haven't—my brain is not entirely functional this morning.

Last night's game, as some of you have pointed out with probably more restraint than I would have shown, was in Kansas City. Which makes sense, seeing as how it was, well, the third of three games the Sox played in KC....

¶ 8:46 AM

Comments:

Richard! It wasn't Fenway. It was KC. Local debut is next Wednesday.

# posted by eadw : April 6, 2007 9:25 AM

Not at Fenway, Richard. In KC, where it was also cold.
I loved what he said in the postgame interview when asked about his performance. Something to the effect that he wasn't at his best but the job of the starting pitcher is to put his teammates in a position to win. He did that, so he was satisfied with his performance. Classy.

# posted by Anonymous : April 6, 2007 9:26 AM

Seems to me this relates to an earlier thread, about academics' slowness to blog. RB: "I happen to think that such experiments—blogging, webcasting, podcasting, and so on—will help spread your important work and increase your professional status. But even if it doesn't, hell, what have you got to lose?" Well, blogging encourages writers to get stuff out quickly, impressionistically, without a lot of fact-checking. We love you for doing it, Richard, and for letting the rest of us in on the fun! But is it really so surprising that serious academics do think they have something to lose by putting stuff out and having random people correct it five minutes later?

# posted by Anonymous : April 6, 2007 9:40 AM

It does indeed relate to that thread! I thought the same thing.

I also agree that it's not surprising that academics would think they have something to lose from this process. (Their chains, I am tempted to say.)

But I would suggest that if they lost anything, it would probably be the air of infallibility with which they distance themselves from students and non-academics. And I'm not so sure this wouldn't be a good thing to shed.

One of the organizing concepts of a blog is that we all benefit from collective intelligence. Individually, we learn; collectively, we create something larger than the individual. (Wikipedia, e.g.)

The only thing required, really, is the willingness to contribute positively and admit your mistakes.

Are academics so insecure that they couldn't do this?

In any event, let's assume—let's hope— that most scholars are smart enough not to attempt to blog when they've had about 12 hours of sleep in three nights and one of those nights was, well, excessive.

On the other hand, I would definitely read a blog titled "The Drunk Professor."

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 6, 2007 9:51 AM

As I think about this, two more thoughts occur to me:

First is the idea that professors often promote or enjoy a cult of personality, and may fear that participation in a collective intelligence, such as a blog, might dilute that cult. (One could just as easy argue the opposite, c.f., Andrew Sullivan.)

And two, I can't emphasize enough how much blogging requires an ability to admit mistakes, even/especially dumb ones like I made this morning. Readers of this blog will note that I never re-write entries to correct mistakes, but add the corrections beneath the original post. I do that partly because the other way would feel like cheating, partly because it's a recognition of others' contribution to the blob, and partly to pay homage to the process of better intelligence through constructive discussion. (As opposed to, say, the CIA under the Bush administration.)

Imagine if there had been, say, a White House blog debating the need for war. Could have been quite fascinating; could have made the war less likely. Whatever happened, it would have engaged the citizens of America in policy-making in an unprecedented way.

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 6, 2007 10:11 AM

Did I just write "to the blob"? I did. Which is actually kind of funny.

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 6, 2007 1:37 PM

Cheers to the blob! Have a great weekend, Rich.

# posted by Anonymous : April 6, 2007 5:53 PM

About Me