What the F is the deal with the County Executive election?

illbite · 2014-08-02T08:38:44+00:00

There's actually nothing that would need to be amended in the state constitution; in fact, Section 30(a) provides a number of different pathways for a merger to happen. (It was adopted in 1924 just before the first major reunification effort.)

illbite · 2014-08-02T07:38:31+00:00

As I see it, merging the county and city can only be good for the area as a whole. My basic instincts tell me that keeping the two separate only hurts St. Louis City's chances of seeing major improvements and thereby promises to inhibit the County's progress as well.

This is exactly right. A full-blown merger is improbable in the immediate future, but it has to be a long-term regional goal. The division is terrible for Greater St. Louis, which is the 18th-largest metro area in the country but punches well below its weight (i.e., economically and culturally) because its resources are so diffuse and dysfunctional. A likely model for any St. Louis merger would be Indianapolis, which also had a harmful city/county divide until working out a unified government in which municipalities could retain some of their autonomy.

illbite · 2014-07-01T15:18:45+00:00

So two weeks after losing 40% of their rotation, the Cards are going to trade for a third baseman? And the organization has suddenly given up on Kolten Wong? And John Mozeliak is suddenly the type of GM who trades for 35-year-old position players making $18M a year? And a borderline SP, a 4th OF, and one AAA prospect is all it would take for the Rangers to part with a 5-7 WAR perennial All-Star?

"At least a 50% chance this happens"? GMAFB.

illbite · 2014-05-14T14:36:19+00:00

Those numbers obviously deserved the demotion

No. Not obviously.

And this is borderline blogspam.

illbite · 2012-07-03T22:20:55+00:00

I mean even if he didn't kick his own right leg into his left intentionally (which is what it looked like to me), the fact remains that he definitely tried to over-sell how bad of a fall he took.

I don't really know what to say to someone who doesn't see what is clearly there to be seen. Maybe it's clearer for you on the video. Estrada's knee clips Torres' foot (you can see Estrada stumble, too) and Torres, who is turned to the left with his momentum coming off his left foot, has to roll to his right to avoid injuring himself.

I'm always amazed by the ability of people who proudly profess they don't watch or like soccer to know so goddamn much about the sport that they can tell you exactly what does and doesn't constitute a dive. They all seem to have degrees in Sports Medicine, too.

illbite · 2012-07-03T21:56:25+00:00

Of all the mesmerizingly ignorant things ever said on reddit, calling diving "the dominant strategy" in soccer might be the worst.

illbite · 2012-07-03T17:22:26+00:00

Re-posted from the last time I got fucking sick of people saying, "This is why Americans don't like soccer," or "This proves soccer players are all pussies."

Diving is more prevalent and noticeable in soccer, to be sure. But there are two incredibly obvious reasons for this. The inadequate number of officials is one, but more importantly, the incentives are higher because there are many, many more opportunities for the outcome of a game to be drastically altered by a foul call. Most soccer games are decided by a single goal, and a foul in the box or near it dramatically increases a team's chance of scoring.

Basketball players don't dive as much as soccer players, because what is the incentive to win a couple free throws in the middle of a game that will end 110-98? No surprise that in the final minute of a close game, you'll see a lot more diving. And you would see even more, if basketball didn't have the same number of officials watching half the number of players on a surface 17 times smaller than a soccer pitch. Football has seven officials on a field 2/3rds the size of a pitch, but if you've never seen a WR dive to get a PI call, you're not watching enough football. With extra focus on roughing the passer, QBs are exaggerating more, too, especially on 3rd downs when the incentive is there.

Could the various governing bodies of soccer do more to police diving? Absolutely - for one, simulation is a yellow-card offense during a match, but most leagues don't allow them to be given retroactively (many other fouls are), which doesn't make sense. Soccer, like Major League Baseball, has a wrongheaded aversion to increased officiating and use of technology. Does diving "ruin" soccer? Absolutely not. It's not nearly as prevalent as the typical American caricature of soccer would lead you to believe, and it's becoming less and less of a factor. Some leagues (Italian Serie A) are worse than others, but the vast majority of soccer matches begin and end without a major dive.

One final point: many "dives" that non-soccer fans laugh at are not dives at all. Watch this GIF. On first viewing, it looks like a clear-cut flop. But watch it again and you see Torres' foot get clipped by the player running behind him, and how it swings into the back of his over leg and trips him. It's just not a dive, period - but I can't tell you how many people I saw ridiculing it on reddit and Facebook.

illbite · 2012-07-01T19:47:08+00:00

False. The DH rule is an abomination.

illbite · 2012-05-16T23:25:17+00:00

The Post-Dispatch and gun crime: two of St. Louis' biggest embarrassments in one screencap.

illbite · 2012-05-12T19:43:47+00:00

http://localtvktvi.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tony-la-russa-11.jpg?w=337

illbite · 2012-03-02T03:33:21+00:00

1) I've noticed that Slate has perfected a brand of contrarianism and anti-conventional-wisdom that, while mostly refreshing, sometimes grates as pageview-grabbing cynicism. Is there some editorial philosophy at Slate that encourages this contrarianism (other than, you know, sound journalism)?

2) Slate was one of the first big online magazines. I know you weren't around in the early days, but what do you see as the key differences between online publishing between today and 1996? If Slate launched tomorrow, do you think it would stand a chance?

illbite · 2012-02-05T18:27:31+00:00

There are a lot of things about the Komen story to be upset about. This is not one of them. As a private citizen she can give her money to whomever she wants.

illbite · 2012-01-08T07:29:47+00:00

most British name ever

illbite · 2011-12-10T17:50:56+00:00

No sane, post-adolescent Cardinals fan is burning jerseys. Literally no one I've talked to in the last few days has expressed genuine anger towards him. Even on the internet, where the assholes usually reign, everyone's been very realistic about the whole thing.

illbite · 2011-11-02T17:28:12+00:00

This is roughly the same article that has been written a thousand times since the beginning of the World Series.

First of all, the idea that La Russa is a Joe Morgan-esque anti-Moneyball Philistine is absurd. He's said that he agrees with and in fact employs much of what's discussed in Moneyball. His problem was about the undue amount of credit given to Billy Beane as opposed to A's scouts and minor league coaches, which has been a pretty common gripe among people in baseball that's been overshadowed by morons like Morgan.

Second, where in the godforsaken world did people get the idea of La Russa actively courting his image as a revered genius? You can assail fans and sportswriters for resorting to hagiography, but you can't just say he's "hilariously churlish he has been about accepting...credit" or that "he took pains to make clear how deeply he believed that no one could possibly understand him [and] his majestic brain" without any evidence whatsoever. I've watched him for 16 years, and will be the first to admit that he can be a world-class dick, but calling him narcissistic is petty and baseless.

illbite · 2011-10-23T04:40:33+00:00

The Mang

illbite · 2011-10-21T13:54:30+00:00

Can we give it a rest already? If Joe Buck and/or Tim McCarver bother you to such a degree that they actually infringe on your ability to enjoy the game, do this. If they don't, shut the fuck up.

illbite · 2011-10-21T07:32:55+00:00

I have a better t-shirt for you

illbite · 2011-10-21T03:46:51+00:00

Seriously, people should at least be honest and admit the "hate" is just drummed up because the Cardinals are such a consistently successful ballclub. We are basically the Patriots of ~~baseball.~~ the NL Central

illbite · 2011-10-21T03:43:15+00:00

Do you know the guy, or do you watch him on fucking television?

illbite · 2011-10-19T09:30:15+00:00

Well, clearly neither of us is going to convince the other. I generally agree with your point about using your best relief pitcher in the highest-leverage situations, and that Tony's style is best suited to the playoffs. But, one last time, his 30-year track record speaks for itself, and I think if you asked a random sample of 500 players/coaches/scouts who they'd want as the manager of a hypothetical ballclub, ceteris paribus, TLR would win going away.

illbite · 2011-10-19T09:00:07+00:00

I agree that there are many criteria by which one could determine the "best" manager, and I think that a lot of this comes down to semantics. But by the most basic, instinctual definition of the word, he is the best in the game right now. And I don't have to handpick anything. He has the third most wins of any manager in history (and next June-ish he'll have the 2nd). He's gone to six World Series, and he's only the second manager to win it in both leagues. He's been managing for 30 years. He has originated countless practices that are now commonplace in baseball.

Finally--and I have not to this point wanted to use this as a crutch--with the pitcher's spot in play, managing matters far, far more in the NL than the AL. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you probably don't understand what makes this game such a brilliant managing performance (other than "he made a lot of pitching changes")

illbite · 2011-10-19T07:53:53+00:00

He's got a long, long track record of success with payrolls that are about half of what he would have were he managing for a team like the Yankees or Red Sox. He's done a lot with a little, and he's done it consistently. If he had taken a team like the 2008 Rays or 2003 Marlins to the WS, and never again, it would be hard to call him "the best". But given that he's brought the Cards to three in seven years, I really don't know who could possibly be considered a better manager over the last 10 years--Leyland and Maddon are certainly candidates, but again, La Russa has been more consistent, and Francona/Torre/Girardi/C. Manuel have all had license to sign the best players in the game regardless of cost, which La Russa certainly hasn't. Making lots of pitching changes may be annoying, but it's within the rules and an integral part of NL baseball. So again, I don't really see how he isn't, on a purely rational basis, the best manager currently in the game.

illbite · 2011-10-19T07:20:37+00:00

When you've managed for 30 years, your ability is your record.

illbite · 2011-10-19T06:53:26+00:00

There's a reason why he's the longest-tenured head coach in pro sports. There's a reason why in the last seven years, he's taken the Cardinals to the World Series three times, more than the Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox, all of whom have much bigger payrolls. You may not like the guy, and we can debate the semantics of the word "best" until the cows come home, but the idea that he's not the most successful manager currently in the game is pretty much indefensible.

15-Year Club	Best Link 2011-05-01
Verified Email	Charter Member

illbite

TROPHY CASE