What follows represents an instance of the genre known as Armchair Sociology. “Neither science, nor literature: it’s Armchair Sociology!”

For a number of reasons — perhaps because of my stylish Latin Teacher glasses or my laissez-faire attitude towards “showering” “regularly” or my constant preference for style to the exclusion, almost entirely, of substance — friend and boss Dave Cameron has made a habit of referring to yours truly as a “hipster.” Nor does it appear as though this practice is isolated to Mr. Cameron. Some cursory googling of the search terms “Cistulli” and “hipster” reveals multiple returns (generally good-natured) within the baseball nerd community.

It’s a problematic word, hipster, insofar as there’s no one who voluntarily identifies as one*. This makes any earnest use of the word suspicious. If some adjectives are flatly descriptive (tall, clear), while others represent judgments of value (generous, jerk-faced), hipster belongs firmly in the latter category, and the connotations are almost all negative.

*Indeed, if such a person exists, he or she should know that a hipster would never call himself a hipster. Catch-22 and all that, innit?

It’s problematic, secondly, when applied to yours truly. For, while the hipster regards himself — in Mark Greif’s words from a pleasantly rigorous piece in the New York Times — as “a natural aristocrat of taste,” it’s the case that I, Carson Cistulli, am just an actual, real-live aristocrat.

I recognize that many Americans have never seen an aristocrat up close, let alone talked with and/or made a study of one. As such, it’s forgivable that people would make such a mistake. It’s only when playing tennis against (and witnessing the fluid topspin groundstrokes of) the aristocrat or gazing through his library — full of Loeb Classics and P.G. Wodehouse novels — that his true nature is revealed.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Greif provides another definition of hipsters that is relevant to most of the readers who’ve found their way to this site, describing them (i.e. hipsters) as those who “play at being the inventors or first adopters of novelties: pride comes from knowing, and deciding, what’s cool in advance of the rest of the world.”

Read the rest of this entry »

There are seminars on race, gender, and sexuality at universities all over this American nation, and yet none of them, to my knowledge, has ever produced a compelling taxonomy of the Phillie Phanatic.

As regards the human portrayer of the Phanatic, both video evidence and the internet suggest that it’s likely a heterosexual man.

The chief surprise for this author — among the so fresh and mostly clean-clean Player NERD leaderboard at the main site, that is — the chief surprise was the presence of Gerardo Parra’s name amongst said leaders. I’ve generally not cared for the light-hitting, kinda anonymous-seeming Parra; however, looking over his fielding numbers, it’s not surprising that his WAR per 650 PAs is so excellent.

Though the sample of 1511.1 innings isn’t entirely reliable, Parra’s posted an excellent 22.5 UZR (18.3 UZR/150) in left field from the beginning of 2009 up till the present — a stupid-high 24.4 of which has come in just the last 934.1 innings, dating back to the beginning of 2010.

The numbers suggest that it’s Parra’s range which translates most directly into runs, although these two plays from just the last week or so (along with his Fan Scouting Report from last season) reveal that Parra also has a powerful and accurate arm.

The real question, of course, is whether one ought to refer to same as a Gun, Cannon, Laser, or Rocket.

From May 25th, against the Rockies:

From May 30th, against the Marlins:

The third-ever NotGraphs Chat will take place tomorrow (Thursday) at 3pm ET. Here are some assorted thoughts ahead of same.

Allow us to re-introduce ourselves.

The attentive reader will probably know that we at NotGraphs have, in the course of the last month, hosted two chats (this first one and this second one).

Insofar as said chats have been mostly pleasant and have begotten other posts (like this one and this one), I’m prepared to describe the chat experiment as a success thus far.

Yet, it’s also clear that there’ve been some questions — both among the readership and inside my own brain — about what a NotGraphs Chat actually is and how it differs from other chats at FanGraphs.

For while, in the typical FanGraphs Chat, it’s generally the case that readers submit questions about specific players or teams — with the author answering them in turn — that’s obviously not a useful model for the authors of NotGraphs, for whom performance analysis is res non grata (which, I understand that maybe that’s not a real phrase).

To that end, I submit this post, wherein readers might suggest how these sorts of chats ought to go.

For my part, I assume some discussion of books and movies and other cultural artifacts is a possibility. Or the aesthetics of the sport, generally — including the quality of broadcasts, the best camera angles, or the very best in the mustache-related arts. Mostly, I suppose, I view it as an opportunity for people who like baseball and one other thing — whatever that thing is — to meet each other and have fun.

But, like I say, I’m curious if the bespectacled readership has any input on this matter, as well.

It’s come to the editors’ attention that Dayn Perry has, in fact, posted this video despite the fact that it actually appears in Eno Sarris’s work of only one hour earlier. Perry’s implication is clear: “I have no idea what I’m doing.”

It’s Rain Delay Day here at NotGraphs! And what follows is a fine example of whimsy! Rain descends upon a college game of base and ball. How to entertain the flinty souls still in the stands? As with all things, the penetrating wisdom of the renaissance fair is always near at hand …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkuhqsnZF7Y&feature=player_embedded

I promised whimsy, and whimsy you have received.

(Sweeping bow to m’ lady: With Leather)

Pair your media experience with Trader Joe’s Mediterranean Hummus.

A teacher of mine in high school — one who was very enthusiastic about what I’m almost certain is called “experiential education” — had a number of guiding principles by which he conducted his pedagogical self. Of these, one he’d repeat pretty often concerned the idea of “authoring” one’s education. “A student,” this teacher would say, “needs to become the author of his education — of his experiences, in general.”

Though I’ve likely fallen short of this ideal — too many “experiences,” it seems, involve swimming nude in a public water source, an activity which I regard as indecent on multiple levels — it’s an idea with merit, this. The passive consumption of experiences/ideas/media is wrong not on a moral level, as many hippies/communists/Portlanders would argue, but on an aesthetic level. Which is to say, it’s imperative that we tailor our experiences to our own specific preferences and talents; otherwise, said experiences will surely underwhelm.

Read the rest of this entry »

Executive Summary: The KC Star’s Royals blogger, Lee Judge, recently criticized Wilson Betemit for not taking an 81-mph slider in the ribs with the bases loaded. In order to lend the heft of authority to his criticism, Mr. Judge then decided to see what an 81-mph slider to the ribs felt like. This is Mr. Judge’s superlative video tale of journalistic integrity and a large, red welt.

(Frog-punch in the arm: BBTF)

Sometimes, great accomplishments are the product of ceaseless toil. Othertimes, they spring forth effortlessly and fully formed from their creator.

The image you see above is the latter kind of great accomplishment.

Here we see two men: one, Atlanta Brave starter Tommy Hanson; the other, actor Timothy Busfield of Thirtysomething and West Wing and Revenge of the Nerds and Field of Dreams fame.

Here’s the thing, though: it’s impossible to tell which is which. Is that Timothy Busfield catching a fish? Is that a headshot of Tommy Hanson? We just don’t know.

I know what you’re saying. You’re saying, “Carson, it actually isn’t that hard to tell. Sure, both of these men have red hair, but they have different enough facial structure, hairlines, etc. that I can tell pretty easily who’s who.”

Humility, reader: practice it. That’s the purpose of what I’m saying now.

H/T Me and my thoughts.

Take it slow with Ted Danson.

Last week, FanGraphs’ House Librarian Steve Slowinski submitted for the readership’s consideration a post entitled How to Speak Sabermetrics to a Mainstream Audience, in which he (i.e. Slowinski) provided some guidelines for discussing sabermetric concepts with the uninitiated.

While Slowinski’s effort is commendable, it occurs to this author that there’s more work to be done, that “mainstream audience” is rather a broad thing.

To that end, I’ve started a storm in my brain — one that has yielded some brief characterizations of the sabermetric project intended for very specific audiences.

What follows is certainly not an exhaustive list. To that end, if you, the reader, request advice on reaching out to a specific audience, do not hesitate to make note of it in the comments section. Alternatively, if you’ve had some success in communicating with one or more kinds of people the nature of the sabermetric project, certainly do provide this sort of infomation.

With that said, here’s how to speak sabermetrics…

To Your Grandmother
You use the computer for baseball, Grandma. Don’t worry about it.

To an Actuary
It’s like what you do, divided by boring.

To an Italian Person
You apply-a the scientific method-a to baseball-a.

To Ted Danson
Ted Frigging Danson, how you doin’, guy?*

*It’s obvious: you can’t just launch into a sabermetric discussion with Ted Danson.

To Someone Much Larger Than You and Maybe Also Drunk
If you want to believe that “Jeter Rules!” I have no intention of separating you from that opinion.

Weary of those ancient ballpark urinals found in haunts like Wrigley, Fenway and Dodger, the ones taken from Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello estate? Know that the future brings hope …

“Thermochromic coating on steel panel” or urination sorcery? The latter, obviously.

If nothing else, team owners now have the tidy rationale they need for the next round of taxpayer-funded stadium refurbishments. Bodily Functions 2.0!