Head in a Word Cloud.
Perhaps you have run into "word clouds," a visual device that represents how frequently different words appear in a text. As a historian I love it, as I can do fun things like compare Obama's 2008 Democratic National Convention nomination acceptance speech with McCain's from the Republican National Convention.
That's useful stuff. I can show word clouds like those to my students, and ask them what the clouds do (and do not) reveal.
But who cares about utility. Let's use some word clouds to navel-gaze, and check out our favorite baseball-related websites.
What does this tell us about ourselves? Eh, on the one hand, perhaps not much more than a bit of fun navel gazing. It does look like it's spring training, though. The most prominent names I see are Micah Hoffpauir, Darwin Barney, Joey Gathright and Marshall. And it looks like we're a permissive group, we like the word "allowing." I have no idea why.
However, comparing our cloud with that from Carrie Muskat's feed shows some interesting differences
"Cubs" is even more prominent for Muskat than it is for us. Perhaps not surprising, as selling the team is part of her job description. But look at that Giant Blue Sutcliffe! Muskat's readership likely is A. more interested in name-brand Cubs (and ex-Cubs) and B. more interested in human interest stories. Those differences show up elsewhere in the word cloud: check out how much more prominent Milton Bradley and his quadriceps are. LouPa features prominently, as do other marque names like Aramis and Harden. Forgive me for noticing, and remarking on, the prominence of "Carrie."
If you're really in to self-mutilation, there's Phil Rogers' RSS feed.
It doesn't look like Rogers actually talks much about baseball. Appropriate.
I should credit Rogers, though, as there isn't a larger Tribune Cubs News feed. Paul Sullivan also doesn't seem to have any sort of news feed. So instead, I cut and pasted the text of four of his "mailbag" columns into wordle, and got this. (Wordle will randomly pair different fonts and color schemes and word layout, if you don't specify any. This layout struck me as quite pretty, so I left it as is.)
I dare you to guess, from this word cloud, what the title is of Paul Sullivan's column.
Both the Sun-Times and the Daily Herald offer Cubs RSS feeds. Here's the Sun-Times' feed.
Compare that to the Daily Herald's feed.
The Sun Times appears to care far more about Milton Bradley. The Herald, the Cubs.
How does TCR compare to Bleed Cubbie Blue? Here's their word cloud.
I'm not interested in any BCB/TCR rivalry: It's a big enough fan-base to support both of us. But there are interesting differences. BCB's word cloud includes a lot more, well, internet-y words like "post" and "comment" and "link". TCR's wordle word cloud more closely resembles "traditional" news media with a higher preponderance of player names and baseball-event sort of words.
Like many of you, I read Fan Graphs religiously. Here's the word cloud on their feed.
Look much like a sabrmetric site?
bless your heart. *pinches cheeks*
real shame I missed this week's episode of The Crunch Reporter.
It's highly unusual.
It does matter a little.
It matters much less than you think.
four winds field is awesome. it's crazy how minor league parks have "grown up" since the 80s/90s and that park was one of the late-80s models that showed a low-capacity ballpark could look like you're at something other than a highschool baseball game.
On another topic....I returned to South Bend last night for the 2nd time this season (still haven't tried either the deep-fried mac & cheese sandwich nor "The Porknado", as the drive home is over an hour and that could get ugly), and was pleasantly surprised to find D. Underwood pitching in a rehab start. He looked good -- although, to be fair, these are low-A hitters -- fastball consistently at 94-95 (if the SB scoreboard is to be believed -- several pitches were clocked in the 30s...) and with good location.
he gains nothing, no advantage, no saving of resources, nothing...there is not a cost/benefit tradeoff...him letting the running game go on around him for others to control isn't gaining him an advantage elsewhere. it's putting him at a disadvantage even if it's not cashed in with a run.
And out of respect for the rest of TCR, I'm done on this. I'm sure I'm not the only one in the other camp, but time to let it go. (Until the next Lester start. I kid.)
He is putting himself at a disadvanage. But how much of one relative to the rest of his game? He's not Justin Germano -- he's inarguably one of the best SPs in baseball, issue or not. It would be more of thing to discuss ad nauseum if it constantly caused him to give up runs and lose games. But it doesn't.
shouting down my points about lester with "well, it didn't hurt" is like saying it doesn't matter if a guy starts out walking 3 guys every inning as long it's followed by a K and a double play.
it's like elevating ERA and wins to a high level while ignoring what it took to get there.
I'm asking how much it has hurt Lester and the Cubs this year. Do you have that answer?
I legitimately don't recall you answering that quesion, apart from the condescending silliness you just posted. So if you did answer specifically about the impact of Lester's issue, I'd like to re-read it. Thanks.
if runner = on base and pitcher = j.lester then lead = large
if lead = large then probability of extra base on following hit > average of mean
okay, enough of that silliness...
...you can read more on the thread i copy/pasted this from the last time you decided you needed to talk to me about me.
Thank you for your answer.
bless your heart.
I don't recall you answering my question about quantifying how it has hurt Lester and the Cubs this season, apart from one guy scoring on a sac fly. Can you direct me to your answer? Thanks.
Lester's personal catcher has an .809 OPS.
we already has this asinine discussion. you didn't like the answer. there's already an answer above you can apply about how a guy goes from 1st base to home on a sac fly that included him stealing 3rd while lester watched from the mound. the fact that the cubs bats, 100% independent of that situation, scored some runs invalidates it as an issue to you. i find that stupid. we will not get anywhere with this. you know we will not get anywhere with this...because we already had this asinine discussion.
it's not about SB...it never was.
jake arrieta being slow to the plate isn't comparable to jon lester not throwing to any base. how the runners read off arrieta isn't anything similar to what a runner is reading off lester.
maybe arrieta could use a personal catcher solely to control his running game...but i doubt it's that important.