Media Studies

I'm not the only person who has felt a little disturbed watching this Travelers Insurance commercial. A girl at Sign of the Whale said something to me when it came on during the NCAA Tournament. The part that gets me is the strange man walking up to children who are out all alone, offers them a ride, and they just hop on with him. Didn't their parents ever tell them not to speak to strangers? I don't mean to sound like I'm sounding disaster alarms, because it is just a commercial, but the thing that always comes to mind when I see it is, "That's really not a good idea, children. Tell him to get lost."

----------

The Washington Post has the first in a series of articles about the disappearance of Chandra Levy and the ensuing investigation. I quote:

"The serial will show how the sensational nature of the media coverage quickly overwhelmed the investigation."

I wonder how the Post will evaluate its own coverage of the case. I seem to remember an article or two showing up in its pages along the way. Who gets labeled "sensational"? I do remember walking the halls of the Rayburn Building that summer and seeing a line of TV cameras outside Gary Condit's office, so the label probably applies to someone out there.

I can confirm that the scandal led to some interesting Letters to Leaders on Congress.org. One asked Condit if he pooped in his pants when he heard a verdict ("Was it large?") and another told him how popular a cute guy like him would be in the big house.

The last serial I paid attention to in the Post was its extremely long and detailed rundown of the DC lobbying industry and the role my former company, Cassidy & Associates, played in the business. I thought they did a pretty good job.

----------

I'm not sure if the current state of the Chicago Cubs qualifies as a media event, but it probably will later this year if the Cubs remain in playoff contention the rest of the season. As you may have heard, the Cubs have not won the World Series since 1908, leading us to the magical 100-year mark. (I once saw a t-shirt that read 1907-08 Back to Back World Champions. I love that stuff). There will be talk of drama and futility and curses and all that on every sports-related (and some non-) that you can think of. So that gives me an excuse to talk about this:

There are those who point to history--ancient and recent--as a reason why the Cubs are of no concern when it comes to the playoffs. They'll choke in big games, lose games they should win, fold when the pressure's on, etc. Whereas some other team--oh, I don't know, let's pick one at random--the St. Louis Cardinals, know how to win and are therefore much better in close games and big games than the Cubs. There's actually an argument to be made for that, seeing as how the Cards are 3 games over .500 in 1-run games, while the Cubs are just one game over.

However, there is zero argument at the moment that can support the Cards actually being a better team than the Cubs. The Cubs have more run, hits, walks, stolen bases and home runs, and a higher batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. Their ERA/runs allowed, hits, and home runs allowed are all lower. The Cubs' run differential is almost five times greater, and a few days ago was exactly six times greater. Don't forget the 5.5 game lead.

There's my small contribution to the best rivalry in the Midwest.

Bill James

60 Minutes had a very pleasant story on Bill James tonight. It's not often I'll intentionally watch something other than the Simpsons or Sunday Night Baseball at 8pm. But this was an exception. They talked about his early yearly abstracts, which sold a few copies. They also showed his Historical Baseball Abstract, which I think is one of the most informative books I've ever read. I recommend it if you've got some time and don't mind things that run a thousand pages. His decade-by-decade breakdown of trends, players, innovations, and lists is outstanding. Supplemented with sections on the minor leagues, independent leagues, and the Negro Leagues, there's just a wealth of information that fans of baseball history will soak up.

The story said he invented Sabermetrics, but there's a good number of people who work in the field, so I don't know if I'd go that far. There's a lot of things about it that I do like, mostly because the explanations of them seem to make sense. It's also fun listening to baseball mystics go into fits over how number crunchers are ruining the game. And of course, without Sabermetrics there would be no FJM blog. And there might not be a Rob Neyer as we know him, and he's the whole reason I signed up for ESPN Insider in the first place. Favorite sabermetric stat: Secondary Average. There's something I like about the formula. I tend to think of it as an expectation for each time a player comes to bat. Rob Neyer answered one of my emails about it, saying he doesn't pay too much attention to the stat. At least that's how I remember it. Oh well.

Thirty!

And no, I'm not talking about my age.

The Texas Rangers beat the Baltimore Orioles today by a score of 30-3. The "game notes" section says that this is the most runs scored by one team at least since 1900. Let's consider a few of the more interesting things I see in the box scores. I'm sure Jayson Stark will have loads more in his next Useless Info column.

Two Rangers had eight plate appearances. Four is about average, with some guys at the top of the order getting to five.

All 30 runs were earned runs.

Baltimore got out to a 3-0 lead, which means the Rangers scored 30 unanswered runs.

The Orioles only used four pitchers. You'll see 2-1 games where both teams will use more than that. They gave up 6, 8, 7 and 9 runs each.

Orioles pitchers threw 252 pitches, 120 more than Rangers pitchers. The Orioles actually threw more strikes than the Rangers threw pitches (157-132).

If the Orioles had driven in all the men they left on base, they would have lost 30-20.

The weak link in the Rangers lineup was Michael Young, who was "only" 2 for 5 with a run scored, no RBI, and five left on base.

The Rangers scored all their runs in four innings: five in the fourth, nine in the sixth, ten in the eighth, and six in the ninth.

The Rangers set a record for the most runs scored by one team in a doubleheader, and that was before the second game even started.

Wes Littleton earned a save in a game decided by a 27-run margin.

The Rangers scored on sixteen different plays.

If Texas received an additional win for each run scored, they would go from fifteen games under .500 to fifteen games over.

The Rangers hit two grand slams and three three-run homers. That's 17 runs on five swings of the bat.

I Do Not Wear Prada

But apparently the devil does. So I'm watching The Devil Wears Prada now. I'll cut it off in a little bit to watch the PBS special for Paul Simon that Mr. Tony went to. Stanley Tucci's character is one I like.

The mighty Cubs have won six games in a row and are a game under .500 right now. They've really heated up coming into the stretch before the All Star Game. A couple of LSU players have been playing rather well, Ryan Theriot and Mike Fontenot. Fontenot went 5-for-5 the other day.

A couple of weekends ago I saw a two movies in the theater: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Day Watch. The first wasn't very good, but it had its moments. I liked the Surfer. This may be the picky geek side of me coming out, but am I really supposed to believe that an elastic man, invisible force-field woman, flying fire-man, and strong rock-guy can beat THE Silver Surfer? Come on. He's the Herald of Galactus. He wields the power cosmic. He's way too powerful for them to take down. Ach.

Day Watch was much better. I thought the events that took place were more interesting than what happened in the Night Watch, though that was pretty good too. I'd never heard of Zhanna Friske before, but then I don't pay much attention to Russian pop music.

On the Netflix end of things, I watched Run, Lola, Run (Lola Rennt, auf Deutsch). I thought the boyfriend was annoying. The flash parts where they showed the different futures for various characters was a neat idea. A friend from C&A really liked it. I'm a bit on the fence.

Flags of Our Fathers, I was a little disappointed in . Didn't see all that much to get excited about. I think the story is a good one, but I just wasn't feeling it (I sound like Randy Jackson). I prefer Letters From Iwo Jima.

And Ghost Rider, which was awful. Bad story, terrible acting, horrible ending, bleh. I thought it looked good the first time I saw a preview for it in the theater, but it was all downhill after that.

I was in a meeting today where we were given the option of telling our favorite movie quote. I said "the entire opening speech from Patton, which isn't really a quote, and "Among women I pass for one, Your Grace", from A Man For All Seasons. It's really the context and how it's delivered that make it so great.

Thomas More made sure that his daughter Margaret received an education the equal of any man, better than most. When Henry VIII pays a visit to More's estate, he is introduced to Margaret. They have the following exchange:

"Why Margaret, they told me you were a scholar."
"Among women I pass for one, Your Grace."

That's great. Social context, wit, humility, pride, all wrapped up in just a few words. Love it.

One more note before I go: Transformers comes out on July fourth. I don't expect it to be a very good movie. But I have to go see it. This was it when I came home from school. Bought the toys. Saw the animated movie in the theater. Pretended to be Optimus Prime. So I'll pack myself into a seat and watch with glee. However, a world where Megatron doesn't have a giant fusion cannon attached to his arm isn't a world in which I want to live.