Fixing Baseball's Injured Pitcher Problem

 #394: Calling Balls and Strikes

................................

Baseball's getting ugly.  The 2024 season has seen an alarming number of pitchers succumb to arm injuries, most requiring major surgery.  And this is a trend that's accelerating along with the desire to throw ever harder.  It's now all but assumed that a young pitcher entering professional ball will at some point require remedial surgery—the likely average number of healthy years, according to some experts, is a mere eight, before going under the knife.

A review of this sorry situation appeared in Pitcher List recently, with the title: Baseball’s Pitcher Injury Epidemic Has No Implementable Fix.  Another article in The Atlantic magazine, Are Pitchers Pitching Too Hard? presents similar material.  The consensus seems to be that either Major League Baseball forces lesser pitch velocities, or that fewer pitchers be allowed per team, which would, it's assumed, result in teams implementing their own preventive measures.

Problems with these approaches are obvious.  Forcing pitchers to slow down is inelegant (sport is based on excelling, not holding back) while limiting the number of pitchers per team could cause players to hide injury and ‘take one for the team’.  Plus, baseball is the epitome of a backwards-facing, traditional sport.  When more games were added to the standard season, a main hesitation involved  prior statistics and how one could no longer compare player performances with past, shorter seasons.  Mandating slower pitches would be a major sea change.

Rather than forcing the issue, an ideal fix would merely tweak things in an effort to lessen the number of injuries.  But would this be possible?  Lucas Seehafer, the author of the above Pitcher List article, doesn’t believe so.  But what if we start by looking for a change that's at least elegant?

Executing a ban on pitches thrown 100 mph or higher, for example, would likely pull the plug on elegant.  If pitchers were afraid of getting too close to 100 (assuming some penalty), would the game be fun anymore?  A more nuanced approach could involve an incentive to throw at lesser velocities.  Kiri Oler, writing in Fangraphics, makes the case for a ’tax’ that would seek to control the problem (“A High Velocity Usage Tax: A Proposal To Protect Pitchers”.) 

Yet we know baseball is likely to soon change anyway.  It's now possible to know which pitches are balls, and which strikes, using a camera and strike zone overlay.  Anyone who watches baseball on TV is familiar with the umpire who calls a ball a strike and a strike a ball.  And though it could be a long time coming, it may be hard to avoid a changeover to automated umpiring.

And when that change occurs (currently being tried out in minor league games), another side-by-side tweak would be to encourage, though not require, lesser pitch velocities: For example, ever-so-slightly expand the strike zone once a pitcher has thrown slower pitches.

As the intention would be to keep baseball the way it is, except for pitch velocity, testing could determine what level of strike zone expansion, relative to velocity, kept the current balance between pitcher and hitter intact.

How exactly would this rule change work?  A pitcher’s first pitch would be judged by the automated umpire using existing strike zone dimensions.  If the pitch was slower than an agreed upon rate of speed (the aforementioned extensive testing would determine this rate), that pitcher’s next pitch would be judged using a slightly larger strike zone.  As the pitcher in question continues pitching, the zone could expand further or contract back to normal, depending on the average speed of the pitches thrown.  Strike zone dimensions would be posted in real time for all to see (on the scoreboard, in the pitcher’s line of sight, etc.) perhaps using a scale of 1-to-4.

A sceptic might ask whether a flexible strike zone—no matter how small—could disrupt a batter’s ‘feel’ for the zone.  But as it is, the variation from umpire to umpire, and from umpire to actual strike zone (as seen on TV) is probably within the realm of variation that a flexible strike zone would entail.  Plus, the batter would know whether the zone was a ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’ or ‘4’.

This rule change would keep the pitcher/hitter balance intact while allowing pitching arms to be used conservatively, especially on days when a pitcher would otherwise force himself to over-perform.  Arms would still be injured, but there would almost certainly be fewer, perhaps many fewer trips to the Injured List.

Bottom Line:

 * Older pitchers. Often fan favorites, older pitchers who currently find they can’t keep pace could gradually develop strategies that involve fooling hitters, rather than blowing the ball by them.  A good life lesson: the use of less force and more finesse as we age.

 * Rewarding location. At lower velocities, the fringes of the strike zone, where a ball is hard to hit, are where pitchers will aim, if we encourage them.  Message sent to beginners: go easy on your arms, relatively speaking.  Instead, work on your control.

 * Defensive wizardry.  Pitchers will likely throw slower to less talented batters in order to enlarge the strike zone on subsequent batters.  This gives defensive athletes with below average offense an advantage, relative to players with offense-only orientations, and so, overall, allows more graceful, exciting play on the field.

 * Removing much of the acrimony on the diamond.  As Daniel Port notes in the 6/23/24 Pitcher’s List newsletter, Who wants to see arguments over umpires’ calls and the angry ejections that result?  Automated Umpire calls make for a happier, friendlier game.

Currently, there are pitchers who emphasize control, spin and ‘movement’ over velocity.  For example, in a recent article by Travis Sawchik on The Score, “Velo vs. injury: Is there a better way for pitchers?" the San Francisco Giants’ Logan Webb and his slower approach are highlighted.  

All told, this would be a simple, easy to understand adjustment that keeps each individual pitcher in the driver’s seat while returning baseball to a sunnier disposition.

Solar Rising

#389: Solar + Desalination = !!!

.........................

In a recent blog post Casey Handmer describes an ambitious plan whereby the Salton Sea (now a toxic wasteland) is transformed into a Lake Tahoe-like attraction using solar energy.  Most importantly, he claims this can be done at little cost, as the water from desalination, minerals from brine, and land appreciation involved would cover most of the expense.  

Furthermore, he identifies solar power as the answer to Earth's water shortage, and by extension, it's shortage of arable land.

Can this be possible?  It all does sound appealing, and something will have to give, eventually, since water will only get scarcer in places like the US Southwest.

Handmer seems to be what one could call a techno-optimist, and judging from his blog, is deeply into space exploration, terraforming Mars, and so on.  He also recently posted a defense of the owner of X (formerly Twitter).  

So, are there unlikelihoods to his plan?  Would the industrial development of the area (where California, Arizona and Mexico come together) be a deal breaker?  What about all those solar panels in the desert?  Would the necessary international cooperation be possible (the plan envisions all brine effluent being piped to the Gulf of Mexico and mixed with seawater for disposal).

I'm guessing these are the questions that would have to be sorted out before people could start getting on board.  But, that's what experts and government panels are all about.

Perhaps a shortcut to rehabilitation would be (as one commenter opines) desalinating water on the California coast, using that fresh water to substitute for the Colorado River water currently being piped to LA, and instead piping that river water to the Salton Sea in order to refill and desalinize.  This would avoid the matter of effluent being piped into Mexican waters (as well as the other two unlikelihoods referenced above).  That's because resettling the area could begin immediately, while desalinization could occur over several decades (once the Salton Sea is filled, its air-borne toxicity would be no more, and the area could be used for recreation, industry, housing and so on).  A gradual desalinization would allow for the occasional truckload of effluent to be shipped to the coast, as well as a much reduced need for solar panels.  

... or so it would seem to my mind, without the necessary expertise involved.

What Would Revitalize Popular Music?

#392: Old Music Has Taken Over

.........................

This article was written in 2022 and held back from being published.

.........................

Way back in 2019 I posted "What Corrupted Popular Music", in which I count down the top ten factors.

Today, I read Ted Gioia's article "Is Old Music Killing New Music", in the Atlantic.  Gioia makes the case that 'old music' now makes up 70% of the US market, and that percentage is growing.  Of course that data point counts anything beyond 18 months as 'old'.  Still, 70% and growing is a very large figure.  

And, as Gioia points out: "The current list of most-downloaded tracks on iTunes is filled with the names of bands from the previous century, such as Creedence Clearwater Revival and The Police."

I enjoyed reading the entire case, but what can be done about it?

What's probably happened is something like what happened to classical music: the centuries have separated the wheat from the chaff, and anything new that aims to be "a classic" has to be very good to compete.

But what if this distillation process, by which classics are canonized, could be replicated using millions of ears and a social media app?  What if artists and their new music could cut out the middlemen and be recognized as great a few days after being released?  Of course this happens to a certain extent.  There are websites that allow listeners to taste and buy new music. 

What I'm suggesting, though, constitutes a step beyond.  What happens in the normal course of events is that great art emerges when those whose opinion is most respected agree that the art in question is outstanding--the larger the number endorsing, the more emphatic the decision.  So, to compress this process from centuries to days would require that those listening to new music, themselves, be ranked by the respect they generate in expressing their opinions.

There are many ways this could be done; I can think of a few:

* Celebrities could be hired to feed their favorite new music to listeners, who further refine.

* Established music critics could be hired to pick new material.

* Established musicians could provide that same service.

* Listeners receive points when participating. They listen to new songs, then assign those points to the songs they think are winners.  If they've picked winners, their points multiply.  Or, if not, points are lost. The earlier the pick, the more the points.

Perhaps different feeds within a single website would indicate at which level a song is intended (say "pop" or"classic", with curators describing their categorical niche).  As with something like Substack, one subscription fee would be split between artists, curators, and the site (unlike Substack, the most respected participants could also be rewarded).  Plus, there could be a few 'free' options involving artists more interested in the recognition ("We'll make money once we're famous.")  Curators could add atmosphere and commentary in the hopes of bringing in paying listeners, perhaps revealing a weekly top-20 countdown, and 'best new song' award.  Just as important, each feed could have a weekly top-100 'most respected' listeners list.

Would the site eventually become an objective generator of musical excellence?  Or would the tendency be to reward the lowest common denominator?  It may be that the way to avoid "they'll love this", instead of "I love this" is to channel all new participants through the free feeds, where there's no danger of coming up empty-handed after paying for a subscription.  These free feeds then channel the most highly rated new music to the subscriber feeds where the most respected listeners are rewarded.  Eventually, this filter would likely promote excellence, especially if it's explained so that beginners focus on what they like.

Unless, of course, the real problem is the decline in musical taste due to lack of exposure and other depressors.  Which would lead us back to my article: "What Corrupted Popular Music".

I Discuss One Pundit's President Biden Article

#393: Is He Right?

............... 

Ian Leslie (most known for his writing on The Beatles) publishes a newsletter that I subscribe to.  Today's issue was titled "The Biden Conundrum", a short essay that presents a sober assessment of our current president.  Essentially, he argues, Biden's approval rating should be much higher, given his many successes.

First, I'm on the same page with much of what he writes.  There are, however, a few disagreements that I explore below.

*** To start, Leslie cites recent NY Times polls that show Trump beating Biden in key battleground states (like Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan).  He then admits:

"Polls taken a year or more out from a presidential election are notoriously unreliable, but there’s reason to think these are not just noise. First, they are part of a broader pattern. Not only are Biden’s ratings really, really bad - comparable to Carter’s at the same stage - they are ominously stable."

He's right about the unreliability, but not about Biden's ratings being all that bad.  Compared to his most recent predecessors at the three year mark in their presidencies, Biden's numbers aren't all that different.  See Kevin Drum's comparative chart.

And considering what happened to the 'sure' Democratic win in 2016, when Hillary Clinton had been the clear front runner in the polls, Biden being a slight underdog could actually be advantageous.

 *** On foreign policy Leslie writes:

"The manner of the Afghanistan withdrawal was a black mark...."

This is conventional wisdom with little to back it up.  President Trump had committed the US to exiting Afghanistan.  The hope was that Afghan government forces could take over the fight.  Evacuating US citizens and our Afghan friends would, however, have sent a signal that all was lost; thus, the messy exit when all hope was indeed lost.  It's only in hindsight that we know the end was nearer than we thought at the time.

*** Appearance:

"I’m sorry to say it, but Trump just presents as more dynamic than Biden. The man has demonic energy."

But the closer one looks, the more one realizes how limiting his grasp on reality is; he's hobbled by his own single-minded self-regard.  Most marginal voters are drawn to the vigor, initially; then many gradually recoil.

*** A Biden alternative:

"...there isn’t somebody obviously as good or better than him waiting in the wings. His choice of Kamala Harris for VP is starting to look like a tactical masterstroke. There is certainly no clamour for her to run in his place (although the NYT polling suggests that even she might now be a stronger candidate than him)"

and

"...he has already taken the decision to run and it’s almost certainly too late to reverse now. It would actually be destabilising and risky in all sorts of ways to instigate a succession battle one year out..."

Could be.  Or, the new year may bring a surprise.  What the Biden people can do is make it seem as though it's a team that's running for re-election.  Along the lines of a periodic fireside chat, have Biden, Harris and cabinet members engaging with the public.  Make these appearances entertaining and informative.  Invite celebrities.  It doesn't have to be all politics, just keep it interesting.  For example, I went down an internet rabbit hole upon hearing the old Simon and Garfunkel song "Scarborough Fair/Canticle" on Radio Paradise.  I discovered that the "cambric shirt" mentioned in the lyrics referred to a desirable fabric of the 16th century that came from India.  There, it was called "kambala".  Seems it was used for things like pajamas.  Imagine Kamala Harris presenting Paul Simon with a embroidered shirt, in a short segment with the song playing quietly in the background.  

Now imagine younger celebrities with strong feelings about issues, with Biden, cabinet members and experts discussing the issue in question.  In a group setting Biden can question, rather than declare, suggesting that authority is invested in the evidence and the group, rather than the leader. 

*** Overall:

"One reason America has ended up with a very old president is that so few Democrats under 70 are practised at the art of appealing to the median voter, rather than just to their own activists and donors."

Except this critique could be even more effectively used against the Republicans, whose fundamentalist voter base is almost never contradicted by their party's candidates.  Meanwhile, Democrats are known for their 'big tent' party. 

The Telltale Lines In Powderfinger

 #391: "I Saw Black"

........................

Today I finally read Paste magazine's online article The 50 Greatest Neil Young Songs.  It's in countdown format, and generally follows my tastes, especially their #1 pick, Powderfinger, written in 1975 for Lynyrd Skynyrd, but released on Young's 1979 Rust Never Sleeps LP after the death of several Skynyrd band members a month after the song's creation.

I looked up the lyrics and confirmed my initial impression that there's more here than meets the eye.

First, let's set the scene: During the early '70s, Young criticized racism in the US south with songs like "Southern Man" and "Alabama".  Skynyrd responded with their hit "Sweet Home Alabama", in which they struck back with a brush off that southerns don't need Young's advice.

For all we know the two parties were perfectly respectful behind the scenes (Ronnie Van Zandt, Lynyrd Skynyrd's vocalist, is seen in a Neil Young T-shirt on the cover of their final LP), and became friends.  In any case, one side or the other then proposed that Skynyrd record one of Young's songs.

On that note Young writes a song about a young man reacting to authority.  We hear about a gunboat approaching the man, who is standing on a dock.  The boat has a big red beacon, a mounted gun, and numbers on its hull (meaning it's likely 'the law').  The man, for whatever reason, has his father's rifle handy.  The man is shot dead, and his thoughts continue on after death:

"Shelter me from the powder and the finger.  

Cover me with the thought that pulled the trigger.  

Just think of me as one you never figured 

To fade away so young, 

With so much left undone,

Remember me to my love

I know I'll miss her."

And the lines immediately prior to being shot:

"Raised my rifle to my eye

Never stopped to wonder why

Then I saw black...."

Here we have rebellion against authority, and the consequences.

What is fascinating are the specific references to former Young songs and the Skynyrd affair, that provide us with context.   The two prayer-like phrases at the end of the song begin with "Shelter me" and "Cover me".  To unlock these, we use the key "...I saw black", the moment of death.  Those are the same words sung by Young in "Southern Man":

"I saw cotton

And I saw black.

Tall white mansions

and little shacks."

So, "Shelter me..." is like saying: please treat me like I'm in Sweet Home, Alabama, not like we're shooting at each other.

And "Cover me..." cleverly suggests a body covered by a white sheet, but also could refer to one band recording another's song.  If the latter, it would be asking Skynyrd to voice the point of view of authority (we know of only one gun being fired): the law will shoot if you bear a threatening gun.  In other words, order vanquishing chaos.

Finally, there's one more interesting link.  After reflecting on the advice received from his absent father, which serves to pause the narrative after establishing that the young man has a gun, the soon dead man says "I saw it coming", followed in the next line with "I saw black."  So, a foreshadowing.

Even in tragedy there's usually the possibility of redemption.  Here, it's the father's advice: "...red means run, son, numbers add up to nothing."  In a word, flee, if you see a "big red beacon".  And, literally, the only way numbers add up to nothing is when negative numbers are used.  Withdraw.  Don't Rebel.  Lessen your pain.  Lay down your arms.  Surrender, to live another day.  

Realistically though, the father's advice "...red means run..." more likely refers to reading and writing, with arithmetic being a big fat nothing.  So, leave school and trust your instincts instead.  Which is it?  Well, all great writing is at its heart ambiguous.   

On Ice Cream

#390: Three Cheers For Homegrown Cherries

.....................

 

Self-Moderated Social Media

 #388: No Squaring Of The Moderation Circle Required

................................

What if we as a nation are on the brink of a major change in how we organize ourselves, socially and politically?  Something akin to the drafting of our nation’s constitution in 1787.

Of course I’m thinking about social media and the way we organize ourselves online.  At present, it looks likely that Twitter will become more divisive and contain greater misinformation.  Facebook, meanwhile, is hard to moderate.  Could there be an emerging way around these problems that takes social media to the next level?

Nowadays, we expect our social media feeds to be whatever generates the most clicks, replies, etc.  This transactional focus on what’s exciting underpins most platforms.  And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that arrangement; except, we don’t yet know how to eliminate the accompanying problems of divisiveness, exploitation, and even poor taste that tend to hitch a free ride.

A recent article in the Washington Post pointed to one possible solution: a revamped algorithm that seeks out “bridges” between different points of view, and thus feeds us a more balanced, and let’s say healthy, take on any given subject.  Here's a fascinating, professionally written paper on how such a system might work.

A possible alternative, that might reach the same goal and yet take a much simpler, more direct path, is to enable and reward self-moderation on any given platform.  Ideally, multiple platforms would emerge, each offering a different style of moderation, which taken together would accommodate every taste that lay within the bounds of an agreed upon minimal decency.

This self-moderation would involve:

  * Well-defined standards set out by a given platform 

  * Specific rewards for identifying material that either does not meet those standards, or is one or more degrees away and deserves some official warning or commentary

  * These rewards would involve greater prominence on the platform, and if necessary, cash prizes

  * Unlike hiring thousands of moderators, self-moderation would draw in volunteers to flag content, with posts representing the greatest potential harm assessed prioritized by a few hundred expert moderators

  * Variations in flag color could be used to guess at a post’s eventual fate, with rewards being assigned in relation to each guess's accuracy

  * The algorithm used would then significantly depress the circulation of future posts generated by those creating offending material, and thus gradually rid the platform of indecency

Importantly, the vast majority of a platform’s content would be unaffected, except for the increased prominence of the rewarded users who actively understand what constitutes indecency and its fainter shades of untoward content.