Why Pro-Ball Pitchers Shouldn't Bat

Highly paid professional athletes occasionally get hurt doing things they should not be doing -- riding motorcycles, zipping down mountains on snowboards, falling asleep in tanning beds. San Francisco Giants pitcher Ryan Vogelsong is one of these. What was he doing? Batting.

dannymac15_1999 / photo on flickrdannymac15_1999 / photo on flickrHe broke a pinkie and dislocated a knuckle on his throwing hand while trying to hit a pitch but somehow managing to get hit by it. The Giants will have to keep paying his $5 million salary while he recovers from performing a chore at which he is not, and is not expected to be, minimally competent. At the time of the mishap, Vogelsong was batting .071.

I once regarded the designated hitter as a hideous and cancerous blight that would inevitably lead to the collapse of civilization. I still do, but I can live with that. What I can no longer endure is the sight of gifted athletes victimized by a conspiracy to make them look like clowns.

Requiring pitchers to bat is like telling Bob Dylan to smile. It misuses their talent, lowers the quality of play, subjects them to pointless risk and probably causes irreparable loss of self-esteem.

Vogelsong is not the first to sustain wounds at the plate. Fireballer Randy Johnson, who resembled a stork chopping wood, once strained his shoulder flailing at a pitch. Boston right-hander Josh Beckett didn't even get to the plate: He hurt his back taking a practice swing. Chien-Ming Wang of the New York Yankees escaped the batter's box unharmed, only to tear a ligament in his foot rounding third base.

In 1997, when regular interleague play forced American League pitchers to bat periodically, Minnesota Twins manager Tom Kelly expressed alarm at the idea of sending any of his mound staff up to bat: "It might kill him." Only the need to avert fatalities persuaded him to make his pitchers practice hitting.

"That's why we've started swinging, because they might get hurt," confided Kelly. "Not that they're going to hit the ball. Get the muscles out of the way, and get your fingers out of the way so you don't break your fingers on the bat." A certain Giants pitcher missed the lesson.

Physical casualties are not the norm, but it's rare for anything good to happen when denizens of the hill have to heft lumber. Across the major leagues, pitchers bat a collective .091 -- or less than half what the worst-hitting position players achieve.

More than 40 percent of the time, pitchers simply strike out. That figure would be higher if they didn't take so many opportunities to bunt, on the theory that it's the only productive possibility open to them. Not productive in the sense of actually trying to reach base -- only in the sense of advancing a runner while making the inevitable out. But watching someone lay down a sacrifice bunt is a poor use of our cruelly brief time on Earth.

Besides the pitiful spectacle they present, batting pitchers distort the game, at least when the game is between an American League squad and a National League opponent. This year, under the expanded interleague schedule, that is just about every day.

The designated hitter rule does not apply in NL parks, which creates a serious disadvantage for AL teams: Their pitchers are especially terrible in an offensive role because they so rarely fill it. So far this year, NL pitchers are hitting .130, while their AL counterparts are batting just .052.

This may or may not be offset in games played in AL parks, where NL teams suffer for not having a regular DH to call on. But deliberately handicapping one team or the other in every game is not fair play or good sense.

As a National League fan, I dread the sight of a pitcher trudging to the plate. It's no fun for him, and it's no fun for me. We both know it's an empty ritual, perpetuating the fiction that he is a complete player.

If that were true, NL managers wouldn't stay up late plotting double switches to keep relievers from ever sniffing wood. Pitchers wouldn't stay in the majors despite hitting less than Reese Witherspoon's body weight.

Maybe there are pitchers out there who really love to pick up a bat. If so, let them go pound sand. It's no more pointless than trying to hit, and they probably won't hurt themselves.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    I thought you were serious until you mentioned the irreparable loss of self esteem. THat was a good one.

    The American League is EEEEEVILLLLLLL.

  • newshutz||

    Same, that was a dead give away. The self-esteem crack should have been left till the end, and something more subtle put in its place.

  • darrellsigna63||

    like Luis replied I'm surprised that people can earn $7907 in a few weeks on the computer. did you look at this page... http://www.up444.com

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Game. Yawn. If it were left to me they'd be making about the same as the guy who reminds the teenagers to drop more fries for the dinner rush at McNasty's.

  • deified||

    This is true but it doesn't go far enough.

    This isn't even like the Olympics, where you could at least tell which country produces the greatest cyclists or runners or whatever.

    These players are just man-boys in pretty costumes talking about "championships" and "records" like I did when I was 8 years-old.

    I'm especially fond of the pro-wrestling-style, soap-opera-for-males melodrama. Listen to these chumps clutching their pearls and pretending what they do is important.

    Meanwhile, taxpayers shell out to supplement another revenue stream for billionaires. Disgusting.

  • CE||

    Luckily it's not up to you, and people are free to pay 50 bucks to see a game and 25 bucks for a couple of beers and 10 bucks to park if they want to.

  • Bill||

    I could almost agree with you Chapman. Except that as a Cardinals fan, they often have at least one pitcher who can hit and some years have several who can hit and bunt well and it gives them an advantage and adds to the strategy of the game. Nothing Cards fans like better than a squeeze play. Except maybe a HR. But only if there are men on base. A solo HR would come in a close second to a squeeze play.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    How about making them pitch nine innings? Or would that also be an assault on their delicate genius?

  • RBS||

    This, I'm tired of people freaking out when a pitcher hits the 85 pitch mark, unless it's only the 3rd inning. Then pull the guy because he sucks not because he's a pussy.

  • robc||

    If you look thru the entire history of baseball, there were very few pitchers who could rack up innings and still have a career later.

    There is a very legitimate reason for pitch counts.

  • ||

    Fucking selection bias... how does it work? ;-)

  • robc||

    The way to prevent selection bias, is to do a paired selection. Pick sets of two pitchers with similar careers up until the point where one pitches ~300 innings in a season and the other ~200. Then compare careers after that.

    While I havent done that, Ive seen enough evidence from others who have to say that its true.

  • robc||

    Speaking of selection bias, did you know Mark Prior was playing in AAA Louisville this year?

    I just checked, he hasnt pitched since April 21, maybe he is hurt again.

  • RBS||

    Ha, I'm surprised his arm hasn't just fallen off.

  • bowajocuxoxi||

    Love my job, since I've been bringing in $82h… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online… ❋❋ Gig60.cℴm

  • Live Free or Diet||

    How about making them pitch nine innings?

    Or a pitcher only pitches one inning per game? Pitchers' battles bore the fans, right?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Only if they're football fans.

  • Bill||

    Apparently, just getting rid of the DH will triple the pitcher's batting averages.

    Then actually having them take batting practice and practice bunting can raise it a bit more.

    Nothing more fun than when the pitcher is able to contribute and helps his own cause. Good baseball is when everyone on the team contributes. Any time any player, whether they are a pitcher or not, gets on base or moves a runner over it is important.

  • Matrix||

    Yeah. There have been plenty of pitchers who won on the mound because of their work in the batter's box.

  • ||

    This is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball. If you can only do one of the three, you're not really a ballplayer.

  • Agammamon||

    Well football is a simple game - you throw the ball, you catch the ball, and you block but no one expects those guys to be able to do all three well.

  • ||

    Well, in baseball they do. There is also no crying.

  • Adam||

    Mike Singletary would agree with your list, as according to him, tackling is a lost art.

  • BigT||

    Chapman again plumbs the depths of inanity.

    The DH is an abomination, robbing baseball of the drama of the manager's dilemma both as to removing or hitting for a pitcher. Not to mention giving careers to non-players.

  • An0nB0t||

    Chapman and Krugman have spent their lives disproving the stopped clock theory.

    And it's really saying something, but this might be the stupidest thing that Chapman's ever written.

  • robc||

    Chapman is wrong, as usual.

    Baseball players should bat.

    Why not just have the best 9 players bat, regardless of defensive position?

  • Adam||

    So, what do they do when they take the field, stick a non-pitcher on the mound?

  • db||

    Holy shit. Just when I thought Chapman couldn't be any more wrong, he jumps the shark with a defense of the DH rule. What's next?

  • RBS||

    What's next? What else is there?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The designated hitter rule does not apply in NL parks, which creates a serious disadvantage for AL teams:..."

    The NL cannot be faulted if the AL normally plays by beer league rules. If they want fairness, they should play like competitive adults.

    Who knew Chapman was a soccer mom?

  • Ted S.||

    Ahem. Soccer players are tougher than this. Did you see Weidenfeller take one off the face in the Champions League final?

  • Mickey Rat||

    I meant the mother of a little league soccer player.

  • KPres||

    Plus, aren't NL teams at the same disadvantage when playing the AL? AL teams, knowing they're going to have a DH for the vast majority of games, purposefully keep a guy on the roster who can actually hit. The NL team is usually just sticking it's backup third-baseman or something in the line-up.

  • An0nB0t||

    Yes, but we can't expect people who don't know a good argument from a hole in the ground to think through their arguments rationally.

  • zafina502||

    Charlotte. I just agree... Chris`s report is neat, I just got a brand new Mini Cooper after having earned $7723 this - 4 weeks past and would you believe, ten grand last munth. it's by-far the most financially rewarding Ive ever done. I began this 3 months ago and pretty much immediately started bringing in minimum $70, per/hr. I use the details on this website.....grand4.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • Xenocles||

    It's not the same disadvantage. NL teams still keep good players on the bench for normal contingencies and rotation. It's easy for them to pick their best hitter from the bench for interleague away games. The AL team loses more comparatively when they give up their normal first baseman (typically) in favor of offense.

  • Ted S.||

    Cosmotarians like the DH. Yokeltarians don't.

  • RBS||

    You're worse than SIV.

  • CE||

    I think it's the other way around. The DH teams are in small towns like Minneapolis and Kansas City and Arlington. The NL teams are in the sophisticated cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles and Washington.

  • RBS||

    Explain Atlanta then.

  • DJK||

    Yankees? Don't they have a DH in the largest city in the US? How about the White Sox? Or is Chicago a small town?

  • zafina502||

    Charlotte. I just agree... Chris`s report is neat, I just got a brand new Mini Cooper after having earned $7723 this - 4 weeks past and would you believe, ten grand last munth. it's by-far the most financially rewarding Ive ever done. I began this 3 months ago and pretty much immediately started bringing in minimum $70, per/hr. I use the details on this website.....grand4.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • KPres||

    Don't know about that, but the DH is leftist idea.

    Oh, just because a pitcher can't hit as well as everybody else he gets special treatment? He's a protected class? We don't want him to huwt his poow wittle finguw!

  • prolefeed||

    Is it also a leftist idea to have separate offensive and defensive rosters in football?

    Not everything is about politics.

  • fabius||

    The unlimited substitution that is necessary in modern football make this comparison moot. It would be almost impossible to enforce single platoon football without getting rid of unlimited substitution, short of setting some kind of weird rules that require ratio of offensive/defensive snaps played by a player fall between, say, 0.85 and 1.15. It would get really silly really quick trying to keep up with that.

  • RBS||

    So, it's Memorial Day. Am I the only one annoyed by all the constant badgering by people that it's not just a day off/cookout/party day? I'm 30, I am well aware of what the day is supposed to mean.

  • SugarFree||

    This is why Halloween is the best holiday. No "remember what the day is really about" crap. Candy, costumes, sluts, and booze.

    I guess little Druid kids might catch shit from their parents, but they can just go shit in the ocean if they feel that bad about it.

  • deified||

    I feel like the candy is giving all of America the Beetus. Little kids and everything.

    Children should eat nothing but fried liver, broccoli, pickled herring, and psilocybin mushrooms until they are 12 years old.

  • CE||

    Halloween is more like "forget what this day is really about", since it's the eve of All Hallows, when evil spirits get to run amok.

  • KPres||

    No, on Halloween you're constantly badgered about all the dangerous people out there that you need to be afraid of. People that put knives in the candy or something.

    I have little doubt we'll soon be hearing chastising do-gooders babbling about candy and obesity.

  • country bumpkin||

    you are not alone

  • robc||

    Im going to a cookout in which a Japanese exchange student will be. What is the proper protocol, do I blame her for Memorial Day (yeah, I know, it was started after the Civil War, but thats no fun)?

  • deified||

    Give her the D. Trust me on this one.

  • Ted S.||

    And heaven forbid you don't suck up to the military enough.

  • Redmanfms||

    And heaven forbid you don't suck up to the military enough.

    Yup, they get what, 3 whole days out of the year? God forbid the guys who fucking died in battle have one whole day for remembrance.

    I'm sure you whiners aren't working today though, are you?

  • ||

    I always have Mondays off, thankyouverymuch.

  • Ted S.||

    Back on Veterans' Day, on another forum I mentioned my father's service, spending 18 months at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico preventing the missiles from falling into the hands of the Ernst Stavro Blofelds of the world. You wouldn't believe how people got their knickers in a twist thinking I was disrepecting our heroic soldiers.

    (For the record, Dad really did have 18 months taken out of his life courtesy of the peacetime draft, and was stationed at White Sands. I don't think Blofeld ever tried to hijack anything from there, though. He was too busy trying to irradiate the gold at Fort Knox.)

  • ||

    I posted "Happy Memorial Day" and a link of War Pigs by Black Sabbath on Facebook earlier. I've done my part remembering. Now time to grill some cheeseburgers.

  • fabius||

    My little brother used to use that song as a call and response marching cadence when he was an NCO.

  • CE||

    Duh, it means you get another Monday off!

  • Bramblyspam||

    By the same logic, every team should field 18 players: 9 on offense and 9 on defense. Come to think of it, this arrangement could provide huge advantages by letting both teams play offense and defense simultaneously, on different fields. Games would only last half as long, and for the first time ever, I might actually be able to watch a full baseball game on TV without falling asleep!

    Not that I would, mind you. I still think it's an incredibly boring game if you aren't one of the players.

  • RBS||

    Baseball should be seen in person, preferably in the afternoon. Baseball on tv is incredibly boring unless there is a really good PBP guy and a color guy who is interesting and not half retarded.

  • Ted S.||

    No Gus Johnson, thank you very much.

  • ||

    Boooo. I love Gus, he made the Champion's League final watchable.

  • Ted S.||

    I wanted to reach through the screen and strangle him during the CL final.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Vin Scully!

    Here in Montreal we had Dave van Horne and Duke Snider (and later Ken Singleton) doing the PBP for the Expos. They were awesome. Even the French language PBP Jacques Doucet was solid.

  • ||

    You know who else liked to have other people do the hitting for him?

  • ||

    Don King?

  • ||

    Don Corleone?

  • Nazdrakke||

    Sen. Robert Byrd?

  • sloopyinca||

    Casey Kasem?

  • Sevo||

    But why only 40?

  • ||

    Dude, where ya been?

  • sloopyinca||

    I took a new job with a lot more responsibility and it's just taking a lot more of my days up. Once I get into the swing of things, I'll hopefully be back a bit more.

  • ||

    Congrats...I guess... Hope it works out well for you.

    We were commenting the other night that you disappeared. You and the Doc. You heard from him? If you do, tell him we miss him and we want an update on his love life.

  • ||

    Nicholas "Big Daddy" Cage?

  • ||

    NOT this guy.

  • Dweebston||

    Tonya Harding?

    Not a "him," though to look at her nowadays she might as well be.

  • John Galt||

    Ha ha! A winner!

  • CE||

    Al Capone?

  • robc||

    On a similar thought, I think the best way to handle the safety issue in football is to go back to single platoon football.

    If everyone is playing both ways, you will have more fit athletes and, especially in the line, not just behemoths.

    I would have a limited (maybe 3 or 5 or whatever) resubstitutions per quarter. You can sub someone out at any time (injury or just because) but they are out for the quarter, unless you use one of your limited resubs to bring them back. If the number is too large, QBs wont play both ways, but if its too small, you cant handle players getting injured for a play or two.

    With it just right, you have to make decisions like whether to use one up by bringing in an actual kicker of letting your Tight End try the extra point.

  • Ted S.||

    Or you could just watch rugby.

  • robc||

    I like the forward pass.

    But sure, if we had pro rugby league (not union) I would be fine with it.

  • Robert||

    What you got against Union? League doesn't have enough contrast vs. American football for spectators, and doesn't have a good role for players like I was.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I like my rugby with a Aussie rules twist. I can't make sense of it anyway so why not watch it that way?

    All I remember growing up was the color guy screaming, "Hawthorne!" Heh.

  • Robert||

    A lot of children's American football is effectively single platoon, because the rosters are frequently less than 22. In the Warrior Football Club we typically make teams of 13-21, but they make us platoon them to the extent we can for the entire 1st half, to assure playing time for all. So every player has to have a starting position on at least offense or defense, but obviously some will get to play both ways even in the 1st half. 2nd half you can theoretically just play 11 if the head coach wants.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    FIRST! Oh wait this isn't AM Links.

  • ||

    On this Memorial Day, I'm visiting the grave of your relevance.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I will just have to work harder to win back everyone's respect and admiration that I once held in spades.

  • DJF||

    You use to be a god to us, now look at you!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Just a demigod, I know.

  • ||

    I will just have to work harder to win back everyone's respect and admiration that I once held in spades.

    You've been trumped.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Kansas lawmaker opposes ‘encouraging the behavior of purchasing food’ with lower food taxes.

    The Kansas state Senate on Thursday voted to cut the state sales tax on food from 6.3 percent to 4.95 percent, but Sen. Jeff Melcher (R) led opposition against the measure, arguing that it would lead to people eating more.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....ood-taxes/

  • DJF||

    So a Kansas Senator is against people eating more? How soon before the Farm Lobby lynches him?

  • KPres||

    At least he got the economics right. Unlike the "extending unemployment benefits will lower unemployment!" crowd.

  • DJF||

    On this Memorial day, lets look at where the US Army is planning the next wars.

    """""I'm focusing the 25th Infantry Division now on Southeast Asia, and back to being the jungle fighters that they've always been"""

    """"The Army's Alaska brigades are focused on Mongolia, Nepal, northern India, northern Japan and southern New Zealand, ""

    Yes, lets return to jungle warfare in Southeast Asia. Or lets widen our possibilities for disaster by fighting in Mongolia, Nepal and northern India, all three involves fighting with US having long fragile supply lines and may involve Russia, China, India, Pakistan and a major land war in Asia.

    As to Northern Japan, if they can’t defend their own home island then they should spend more money

    Then there is the southern New Zealand plan, I guess the threat from Antarctica Penguins is high.

    I use to think that we should cut the US military budget by half, with this kind of thinking we need to cut it by 2/3 and fire all the generals and admirals. They obviously have too much money to play with and too many idiots in charge.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/us.....s-1.222435

  • Brian D||

    I think the southern New Zealand plan is a contingency in case Sauron gets uppity again.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I think the southern New Zealand plan is a contingency in case Sauron gets uppity again.

    Or Cthulhu.

  • Agammamon||

    Actually its a contingency for some cushy postings.

  • ||

    There are two things going on here. One if preparing for wars we could fight, which does include having people who know the jungle. Not to refight the Vietnam War, but for smaller things like combined training missions to Thailand or anti-terrorism aid to the Philippines.

    The other is "regional alignment." Basically each brigade will move away from generic training during its force generation cycle and focus it's efforts on theoretical deployment to a specific area. So as the linked article states 10th Mountain, which is all light troops in the swamps of upstate NY or Louisiana is aligned with Africa Command. The units in Hawaii with southeast Asia part of Pacific Command, the Alaskan brigades with the cold/mountainous parts of Pacific Command, some units in the desert at Fort Bliss with Central Command, etc.

    The idea is they sprinkle in some cultural and language training in, so that if they're called to do advisor/assistance type missions with allied countries, sort of a less violent and frustrating version of Iraq/Afghanistan training, they don't learn all this stuff after getting the deployment order.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Zakalwe,

    Skimming the cited article, it kinda' reads to me like a manpower and maintenance issue. How do Strykers compare to, say, Bradleys or Humvees as far as maintenance goes?

    I mean, the 25th is going to need some mechanized way of getting around---even in SE Asia---and Strykers seem as good as anything for that. Unless they're going to convert the 25th to a LID?

  • ||

    I haven't been in a Stryker unit, but it's a newish vehicle of a type that didn't previously exist, so I imagine it had some growing pains. I have read that they put a lot of extra armor and did a redesign of the hull on at least some units to limit IED effects and that killed engine performance and caused additional maintenance problems.

    A big problem that I do know they have is not enough mechanics. An armored brigade has a full support company assigned to every combat battalion. Strykers, which have more combat battalions, only get a support platoon type organization for hauling food and fuel, any maintenance has to happen at the brigade support battalion (BSB) or rear depots.

    The Stryker is supposed to be as highly effective a combat vehicle (mobility/armor/weapons) as you can fit into transport planes. It's overkill as road transportation if all your fighting is going to be dismounted in the jungle.

    We don't really do light divisions per se anymore, although every brigade in 82nd/101st/10th is light. The rest of the divisions generally own one light brigade. Every brigade is plug and play with every division HQ for command and control purposes.

  • ||

    I have encountered Stryker units in Afghanistan, and they are particularly wedded to these vehicles, not wanting to give them up or acknowledge that they are inappropriate for their particular areas of responsibility (i.e., narrow roads between mud huts with lots of bombs and no chance of shooting your vehicle weapons) where MRAPs are clearly the better choice.

    It's possible that the Army Pacific commander is aware of this and not having drunk the Kool-Aid himself when they were created, just wishes they'd dump the ball and chain and focus on field/jungle skills.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Thanks for the informative replies.

    I had read enough accounts of the utility of APCs in Vietnam, even in the jungle, that I was surprised to read an Army general dismissing using Strykers. I wonder if a difference is the drastically increased prevalence of RPGs and man-portable ATGMs nowadays vs in the late 60s-early 70s?

    Reading your statement on LIDs, I was wondering, 'what about the 7th?' Had no idea 'til now that they'd inactivated it in 2006. Time flies.

  • ||

    The 7th just got reactivated to run admin duties at Ft. Lewis. 2nd ID HQ is in Korea, but only has one of its brigade combat teams there (plus a lot of air defense, artillery, and support), so they needed someone to look after the orphan units flagged 2nd ID at Lewis.

  • ||

    I wonder if a difference is the drastically increased prevalence of RPGs and man-portable ATGMs nowadays vs in the late 60s-early 70s?

    Have you seen videos of the Javelin? The Russians have lots of nasty stuff that doesn't depend on the top down attack.

  • Agammamon||

    I imagine that it's partly RPG's - though the Stryker has decent defense against them (slat armor) the increase in bulk means that they're not as air-transportable as they're intended to be.

    Also they're heavy as feth for a wheeled vehicle (18+ tns) which means that their off-road utility is limited when compared to the M2/M3 - their advantage here is that they can reach and maintain a higher road speed.

  • DJF||

    But the problems is not the tactics, its the targets. Its expanding the US role even farther then it is now,

    Mongolia, Nepal, Northern India???????/

    Is there no place that the Pentagon does not want to waste US lives and money? Even 20 years ago the military itself would have been appalled by the idea of fighting in these places, now they are training and planning for it..

  • Redmanfms||

    Is there no place that the Pentagon does not want to waste US lives and money? Even 20 years ago the military itself would have been appalled by the idea of fighting in these places, now they are training and planning for it..

    They were training and planning for it then too stooge.

    Training is not conducted because of imminent plans to attack a certain place, but to gain experience for the possibility of it happening.

    And the Pentagon doesn't take us to war. Did you fail civics or something?

  • DJF||

    But the Pentagon does recommend and if it has forces they say are ready for Mongolia then the politicians are more likely to send them.

    How about of instead of wasting time and money on getting ready for wars in the jungles of Southeast Asia and Mongolia the US military sticks to its one legitimate job, defending the USA. And the last time I looked the USA is not Mongolia, Nepal, Southeast Asia or even Southern New Zealand.

  • Redmanfms||

    But the Pentagon does recommend and if it has forces they say are ready for Mongolia then the politicians are more likely to send them.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Not only is it a logical fallacy is just a stupid argument. The military shouldn't have the ability to fight in multiple environs and communicate with other peoples because some politician might use that capability to go to war? Really?

    How about of instead of wasting time and money on getting ready for wars in the jungles of Southeast Asia and Mongolia the US military sticks to its one legitimate job, defending the USA. And the last time I looked the USA is not Mongolia, Nepal, Southeast Asia or even Southern New Zealand.

    So I guess you are arguing that the fighting in Europe and South Pacific during WWII was not defending the US?

    Having been in actual war zones I would much rather the military have the ability to fight an emergent threat on its turf rather than on US soil.

  • DJF||

    Oh No, we are back to the WW2 argument, that if we are not ready to fight everywhere we are not ready to defend the USA.

    I have been in war zones too, and I think we should stay out of them.

  • ||

    So DJF, what you're sayin is... the military should only train to defend the US because if they are ready to go somewhere else, the civilian leadership will send them there?

    What happens when they are only trained for ops within our borders and the civilian leadership sends them somewhere else anyway?

    For fucks sake, you make it sound like the Pentagon decides who we go to war with.

  • DJF||

    So you think that the US should be preparing for fighting a war in Mongolia?

    Can you name a place in the world that the US military should not be training and planning to fight?

    If you can’t then you better get ready for a lot more wars and a lot bigger Pentagon budget.

  • Redmanfms||

    So you think that the US should be preparing for fighting a war in Mongolia?

    Umm, yes.

    Preparing for war, war does not make.

    Can you name a place in the world that the US military should not be training and planning to fight?

    No.

    The military should be ready to fight anywhere it is called to fight, rather than learning by body count.

    If you can’t then you better get ready for a lot more wars and a lot bigger Pentagon budget.

    And back to the logical fallacies.

  • DJF||

    “”””So you think that the US should be preparing for fighting a war in Mongolia?””’

    “””Umm, yes.”””

    So do you think that every country in the world should be ready to fight a war in Mongolia or is the US special for some reason? And if the US is special, why is Mongolia worth US blood and money but not other countries blood and money?

  • Redmanfms||

    So do you think that every country in the world should be ready to fight a war in Mongolia or is the US special for some reason? And if the US is special, why is Mongolia worth US blood and money but not other countries blood and money?

    Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just stupid?

    In the odd event that Mongolia ends being a battleground in some future conflict that we are in (WWIII, or whatever) the military should have some trained capability rather than simply going there and learning by body bag.

    I'm not vacillating for war, and neither are the men training for this.

    Training is like buying home owner's insurance, you hope you never need it but it's best to have anyway.

  • ||

    Can you name a place in the world that the US military should not be training and planning to fight?

    No.

    Be ready for anything, and then stay home. You have a strong military to dissuade other nations from attacking you or your vital interests, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR.

    Deplorable, immoral politicos who have somehow come to believe that military action is an option of first resort rather than absolute last are the issue. Not a properly trained military.

  • Redmanfms||

    No.

    Be ready for anything, and then stay home. You have a strong military to dissuade other nations from attacking you or your vital interests, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR.

    Deplorable, immoral politicos who have somehow come to believe that military action is an option of first resort rather than absolute last are the issue. Not a properly trained military.

    Jesus, this.

  • Redmanfms||

    For fucks sake, you make it sound like the Pentagon decides who we go to war with.

    That's exactly what he is saying.

  • DJF||

    Then lets take away the politicians ability to war on Mongolia by firing the generals and cutting the Pentagon budget by 2/3.

  • Redmanfms||

    Then lets take away the politicians ability to war on Mongolia by firing the generals and cutting the Pentagon budget by 2/3.

    I'm failing to see WTF "firing the generals" has to do with anything.

    I'm not averse to cutting the budget, but as was clearly evidenced by the '90s, this had little impact on politicians' desires for military adventurism.

  • Redmanfms||

    had will have

  • DJF||

    Firing the generals would send a message that thinking about sending a couple of US brigades to Mongolia is the wrong thinking.

  • Irish||

    Firing the generals would send a message that thinking about sending a couple of US brigades to Mongolia is the wrong thinking.

    They aren't thinking about sending US brigades to Mongolia. They're preparing for a situation in which they might decide to.

    I really don't understand why you're conflating being prepared for a scenario with being in favor of that scenario. Being prepared for something doesn't mean you want it to happen, and our army should definitely be prepared for as many unforeseen situations as possible.

  • DJF||

    For one thing, it costs a huge more amount of money to be ready to fight a war in Mongolia then to fight a war to defend the USA.

  • Redmanfms||

    WTF is your obsession with Mongolia?

    Guys, I'm calling it. This is a troll.

  • ||

    WTF is your obsession with Mongolia?

    He's Mr. F, trying to sabotage the Bluth efforts to use Chinese laborers to build a great wall on the California/Mexico border.

    Uh, spoiler alert.

  • DJF||

    It was a US general who said he is training his troops for Mongolia.

    If you have a problem with Mongolia then talk to him.

    Is talking about Nepal or Northern India, or Southeast Asia or Southern New Zealand better for you?

  • ||

    You know nothing John Snow.

  • ||

    Firing the generals would send a message that thinking about sending a couple of US brigades to Mongolia is the wrong thinking.

    I think the idea is that they're sending less than battalion sized elements to do training and partnership missions, keeping each brigade at least nominally occupied during it's "ready" phase of force generation. Train and be prepared for a big brigade deployment in support of a sudden war, but also train for and actually do small scale missions that don't involve shooting.

    Of course, America doesn't really need an Army that can do this, any more than I need more than Americans 10 rounds in a magazine.

  • DJF||

    So you think that sending a battalion to Mongolia is a good use of US taxpayer money or worth the risk in getting involved in whatever happens in Mongolia, a country surrounded by China and Russia??

    And if you want to take your 50 round magazine off to Mongolia, then do so, just don't have others pay for any fantasy wars in Mongolia involving the US Army

  • ||

    So you think that sending a battalion to Mongolia is a good use of US taxpayer money or worth the risk in getting involved in whatever happens in Mongolia, a country surrounded by China and Russia??

    I don't know enough to judge, assuming I'm not coming from a position of blanket opposition to such missions, but even if I were theoretically against it I as a practical matter have to go do it if they tell me to, so you won't see me talking about it here.

  • DblEagle||

    Speaking from experience I do know what we are doing in Mongolia. We are primarily training their military to develop a professional NCO and junior officer corps- so we don't need to get dragged into a fight there. We are also training them on counter-IED techniques so the Mongolian army can be more effective in peace-keeping operations. Like many poor countries they in effect "rent out" their units to assist in UN and regional PKO. It gives them hard cash and a positive press image.

    Will we fight there? Highly unlikely, but the military gets paid to be ready to fight (or stand around keeping people who hate each other from fighting- a different topic for a different time) where and when the political class says to. During my time I was never asked for a vote- just given an order and a couple of basic loads and told to get on the plane.

  • ||

    Incidentally, there's no magic training program that makes us particularly adept at invading or pacifying a particular country. I'm pretty sure all this special training will amount to is some very basic power point classes on cultural background of certain countries, a small group put into a few (to many) weeks of language training to develop conversational "fluency" that is mainly of use to make you more likeable as you still completely rely on host nation interpreters, one or two officer professional development meetings (of one or two hours each) to discuss the political history of Country X and maybe an assigned book, and fake war scenarios based on geopolitics of the relevant countries.

    The last would be a nice change of pace from helping defending faux-Middle East country du jour from faux-Iran in desktop exercises.

  • Irish||

    Also, if we fired the generals and then actually had to go to war with someone, we would have no experienced commanders to wage the war.

    DJF is sounding like every negative stereotype of libertarian foreign policy.

  • DJF||

    What are you talking about, there are plenty of colonel waiting in line to become generals. In fact the US military is bloated with officers. And if we get rid of the idiots who think that sending a couple of brigades to Mongolia is a good idea that its worth it.

    In WW2 most of the US generals had been colonels or lower when the war started. In fact the deliberately weeded out the more senior officers

    And how is thinking that fighting a war in Mongolia is a good foreign policy, let alone a good libertarian foreign policy? Or do you support our next war in Mongolia?

  • Redmanfms||

    And how is thinking that fighting a war in Mongolia is a good foreign policy, let alone a good libertarian foreign policy? Or do you support our next war in Mongolia?

    This isn't about "supporting a war in Mongolia," it's about being prepared to fight one should it happen.

    Jesus titty-fucking Christ you are stupid.

  • DJF||

    So do you think that all countries of the world should be ready to fight a war in Mongolia, or just the US?

  • Redmanfms||

    So do you think that all countries of the world should be ready to fight a war in Mongolia, or just the US?

    Non sequitur.

  • ||

    This isn't about "supporting a war in Mongolia," it's about being prepared to fight one should it happen.

    Again, I think it's about actually supporting training and military to military relationships with allied countries rather than theoretically preparing for highly unlikely high intensity wars in those countries.

    As an example, I had a gunnery instructor in 2008 who told how he had deployed with a battery of howitzers to the Philippines to teach the Philippine army how to shoot. Do you think they'd have been more effective if they'd been told to learn some Tagalog words and the political situation there and the ongoing fight with Abu Sayyaf and the MNLF before they went? Do you think the fact they (presumably) weren't told to do that prevented them from being sent anyway?

  • DJF||

    I don’t see why we are paying to train Philippine soldiers in the first place.

    The US had control of the Philippines for 50 years, we trained Philippine soldiers then, and for 50 more years we are still training Philippine soldiers, when are they going to figure out how to train themselves. They are an independent country, they should train themselves, and if they can’t do it themselves then they should hire someone to do it.

    No more warfare welfare from the US taxpayers, we can’t afford it, just like we can’t afford other forms of welfare.

  • ||

    I don’t see why we are paying to train Philippine soldiers in the first place.

    The US had control of the Philippines for 50 years, we trained Philippine soldiers then, and for 50 more years we are still training Philippine soldiers, when are they going to figure out how to train themselves. They are an independent country, they should train themselves, and if they can’t do it themselves then they should hire someone to do it.

    Well, we've already got the guys doing the training missions. The marginal cost of the actual training mission is the relevant cost.

    And the benefit is increasing the capability of the Philippines to fight an Islamic insurgency that could otherwise develop into something bigger and with safe havens from which they can launch big terrorist attacks against things of US interest. I'm sure no bad consequences could come from that.

    Note I'm not saying these interventions are the right thing or cost effective, but they're not (only) career building enterprises of colonels and generals trying to boost their self importance.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I need a hand here. Seriously. Being from Canada and have only been engaged to the libbbeetarian perspective for a short while and so ask for some clarification.

    If I understand correctly, the position is the U.S. should be in a state of readiness (which I agree with) including administrating bases abroad?

    Is occupying bases in other countries not seen as "aggression" by some countries and does the cost of running those figure into the libertarian position?

    I thought, probably wrongly, the non-aggression/non-interventionist/last resort argument included not operating bases abroad?

    Thoughts please.

  • Redmanfms||

    If I understand correctly, the position is the U.S. should be in a state of readiness (which I agree with) including administrating bases abroad?

    Yes to the former and no to the latter.

    Is occupying bases in other countries not seen as "aggression" by some countries and does the cost of running those figure into the libertarian position?

    The host nation usually does it by invitation and is paid for the use of the base in the form of a lease.

    But the US presence in Saudi Arabia was one of bin Laden's beefs with the U.S.

    In general I'm opposed to maintaining manned installations abroad.

    Like anything in the world of libertopia, there are countless perspectives, few of which overlap. I will say that I've never met a person I would identify as a reasonably strict libertarian who thought we should maintain a military presence in nations we aren't at war with.

  • ||

    These days the only major bases are WWII/Korea/Gulf War relics or supporting the ongoing Afghanistan war. There are minor ones involved in things like CJTF Horn of Africa and elsewhere that you've never heard of, but those aren't the sort of things that can handle squadrons of bombers or push out thousands of troops and hundreds of armored vehicles.

    And yes, China and Russia initially got pretty pissed off about things like Manas AFB, but I think the post-Iraq failure to keep anything there probably made them more relaxed about the future of that facility.

  • CE||

    Here's the full list: (hardly "relics")

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....eployments

    68,000 troops in Afghanistan
    52,692 in Japan
    45,596 in Germany
    28,500 in Korea
    15,000 in Kuwait
    10,916 in Italy
    9,310 in the United Kingdom
    2,902 in Bahrain
    1,600 in Spain
    1,491 in Turkey
    1,165 in Belgium

    Plus smaller forces in a few dozen other countries.

  • ||

    I'm not up on Mongolia, but Nepal and Northern India have had to deal with Maoist insurgencies destabilizing their governments (regional in the case of India) over the last 10-20 years. My guess is they're contemplating advisors, probably something like a company plus of regular troops to run a base camp and provide augmentation to special forces who do the actual training.

  • DJF||

    We have managed to stay out of these wars for the last 20 years, lets keep staying out.

    That is the problem now, we have created this world wide US military and now they think that no place should be out of bounds for them. How is it the US problem that Maoists are in northern India.

  • Agammamon||

    The problem with regional alignment is that we don't have a
    regiment" system like, say, the Brits (though I don't know if they still do this) where people stay within a unit for the majority of their career.

    Since our guys transfer between units all over the place every 3-4 years what you'll get are brigades that, on paper, are specialized for specific geo and political areas but are filled (from bottom to top) with people who have little practical experience in that specialty.

    A brigades whole TO turns over, like, every 5 years or so.

    And given that a wide variety of assignments are a pre-req for high command you'll see your senior enlisted and mid-level officers will have one tour in each specialty - in effect giving them juuuust enough experience to be dangerous to themselves.

  • ||

    I think it's just a marginal adjustment to the usual ARFORGEN stuff and it establishes lines of communication ahead of potential command relationships and deployments.

    So just as my brigade commander (4th ID) went to a mission readiness exercise for over two weeks at Fort Drum because he knew a year from then he'd be in Afghanistan working for the 10th Mountain HQ, brigade commanders will have "permanent" relationship with the Army component of combatant commands so they're reading the right briefs on SIPR and attending the right exercises and have a marginal leg up when they get piece-mealed out in support of those combatant command small scale missions.

  • CE||

    Shouldn't the 10th Mountain Division be practicing in actual mountains?

  • ||

    At this point it's just historical. The 101st Airborne hasn't been airborne in a decades, but they retain the name and the designation on their shoulder patch.

  • CE||

    Just go back to the original rules and don't have a standing Army. Keep a big enough Navy to defend our own coasts, and give them some planes to defend our airspace. Let each state have it's own militia in case we are suddenly invaded by Canada or Mexico. Have an Army Reserve with a command structure in place in case someone declares war on us. Cut spending by about 90 percent for starters.

  • ||

    So who funds the State Militias? Who supplies them? How are they trained and to what standards? How do they interact? How do you equip the Reservists?

    I ask these questions because warfare is no longer the call up the troops, hand them a musket and line em up to get shot that it was when the constitution was written.

    It takes 20 years to design and field a new fighter. It takes 5 years to train an experienced fighter pilot. I assume similar time frames for boats and tank drivers.

    The Guard and Reserves could be a way to reduce costs, but they are not a be all end all. The equipment must be available and the operators need to train on it several times a week.

  • ||

    It takes 20 years to design and field a new fighter. It takes 5 years to train an experienced fighter pilot. I assume similar time frames for boats and tank drivers.

    It doesn't take that long to train people to drive and load tanks, a few months including basic training. It takes a bit longer to train to maneuver as part of a larger force. The big time factor is that you have to repeat this stuff periodically to maintain proficiency and train at higher level functions like integrating artillery fire and close air support. Most active duty artillery units essentially lost 80% of organizational memory of how to do large scale fire support during the Iraq/Afghanistan war when they were doing dismounted infantry and counter insurgency missions.

    National Guard/Reserve drill only maintains the minimal basics at individual and small unit level; when a National Guard battalion/brigade gets deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan they have to be activated several months in advance to do a unit train up to achieve minimal unit proficiency at higher echelons.

  • ||

    Well prior to WWI the regular Army did not have a mission beyond defense of the US. Politicians still liked to meddle overseas thought. Which is why the Marine Corps was used in several little dirty wars. Thousands of Marines were involved in conflicts in Central America. Since they were just “shipboard” Marines called to support American interests these “Banana Wars” was mostly ignored.

  • ||

    The Spanish American War and the Philippines occupation beg to differ.

  • ||

    I think you are also being cynical. Some of those Generals you want to fire do actually care for their Soldiers and Marines. They want their people trained as thoroughly as possible so fewer DIE if the Government decides to deploy them.

  • GasandBeer||

    First off, the designated hitter rule and interleague playe were both bad ideas...they were about money and ticket sales.

    Now the byproduct of that is the sad AL pitcher who can't pick up a bat.
    All of the millionaire atheletes should be able to play every position and be able to at least bat. It's the purest and simplest aspect to the sport.

    They batted in Little League, they batted in High School, the y batted in the Minors. Practice.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Actually, haven't most minor leagues, college, and high school, now gone to the DH? At least until they get to AA? The wiki says so. I genuinely don't know.

    I don't care for the DH, but I think it's going to take over even the NL. Over/under on # of years before that happens? I'm guessing 10, and the unbalanced schedule I think is going to hasten the homogenization of the two leagues.

  • robc||

    NL seems to be taking a hard line position on it.

    If heard this "NL will change in 10 years" bullshit for my entire life.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I haven't heard it like you have, but in the past, kids pitched and batted in LL and High School. At least, I remember our HS pitchers having to bat, 20 years ago. If they don't have to now, and they don't have to in college, isn't that going to shrink the pool of pitchers who can hit?

    I don't care for the DH, personally, but it's not going to cause me to care more or less for baseball than I already do. Attendance is down in Houston since switching to the AL, but I think that's due to the team being historically abysmal.

  • ||

    14 wins is pretty awful...

  • Gray Ghost||

    I didn't think they could do worse than their previous two years, with 55 and 56 wins, but they're going to exceed my expectations... Jesus, they're on pace for only 45 wins. Even Detroit didn't have three straight years with less than 60 wins. You've got to go back to the Amazing Mets of the early 1960s to find a longer streak of futility. Though the Marlins are certainly giving the Astros a run for their money in suckitude this year.

    I'm curious whether the Astros will have a lower winning percentage this year than one of their players' batting average. It's not going to get any better anytime soon, given the ownership group's relative poverty and the cratering debut of their private cable network. I'm also curious to see what legal contortions Jim Crane will do to try and bust the Minute Maid lease.

  • RBS||

    Minute Maid

    I used to date a girl from Houston and we went to a bunch of Astro's games. Minute Maid always felt like an overgrown minor league stadium.

  • DblEagle||

    Futility? I was raised a Cubs fan from an early age and became a Mariners fan when they were formed. As a kid I attended a K-8 school a few blocks from a Cactus League ball park. (After inning 5 they let us in for free.) They only thing more futile is hoping for the Suns to win the NBA or the Lions the Super Bowl.

  • CE||

    High school pitchers are often the best hitters on their teams. Even the guys who end up being major league pitchers and hitting .150 there.

  • Sevo||

    GasandBeer| 5.27.13 @ 9:18AM |#
    "First off, the designated hitter rule and interleague playe were both bad ideas...they were about money and ticket sales."

    So is baseball.

  • CE||

    If the AL went back to real baseball rules, interleague play would be fine. You want to see all the star players, and the NBA doesn't have the Western Conference not play the Eastern Conference.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Who knew Chapman was a soccer mom?

    Anybody with half a brain?

  • Silly ol' Bear||

    *lol* Love the argument! Good one, The only way to solve it is obvious, both leagues obey the same rules no matter where they play. I will play Devil's Advocate here; however, if they're on the team, they gotta swing. Doesn't QUITE rhyme, but close 'enuff for a bunt.

  • ||

    Thank you Mr. Chapman for helping to dismantle the preposterous notion that Cardinals fans are the smartest in baseball.

  • robc||

    We know its not Cubs fans either. The primary evidence being that they are Cubs fans.

  • robc||

    Also, long time since Ive seen you around here.

  • ||

    Yeah, our work network got "upgraded" and for some reason H&R kept crashing my browser (probably because part of our "upgrade" was being forced to use IE8).

  • robc||

    ugh.

    The other part being all the crap that the squirrels load into these pages.

  • sticks||

    Tell it to Fernando, Chapman.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Guess who.

    No doubt there will be problems, as there are with any large new government initiative, and in this case, we have the added complication that many Republican governors and legislators are doing all they can to sabotage reform. Yet important new evidence — especially from California, the law’s most important test case — suggests that the real Obamacare shock will be one of unexpected success.

    --------

    Still, here’s what it seems is about to happen: millions of Americans will suddenly gain health coverage, and millions more will feel much more secure knowing that such coverage is available if they lose their jobs or suffer other misfortunes. Only a relative handful of people will be hurt at all. And as contrasts emerge between the experience of states like California that are making the most of the new policy and that of states like Texas whose politicians are doing their best to undermine it, the sheer meanspiritedness of the Obamacare opponents will become ever more obvious.

    If only Obamacare could expand hearts of those grinchy Rethuglitards.

    ps, genius- "Popular" not same as "profitable" or "effective".

  • Redmanfms||

    No doubt there will be problems, as there are with any large new government initiative,

    Isn't that a case for not having "large new government initiative(s)?"

    and in this case, we have the added complication that many Republican governors and legislators are doing all they can to sabotage reform.

    Kulaks!!! Wreckers!!!

    Yet important new evidence — especially from California, the law’s most important test case — suggests that the real Obamacare shock will be one of unexpected success.

    Fucking seriously? That's where we're setting the bar now; at "unexpected success?"

    Still, here’s what it seems is about to happen: millions of Americans will suddenly gain health coverage,

    It "seems" that way, but the jury is still out on that. I'm failing to see this as an accomplishment anyway.

    millions more will feel much more secure knowing that such coverage is available if they lose their jobs or suffer other misfortunes.

    So, I guess they can't buy individual insurance without an employer program or something? That's weird. Because I did.

    Only a relative handful of people will be hurt at all.

    My premiums went up nearly 30% just this year (after about 20% last year) and I'm a young, relatively healthy single man. That hurt.

  • Redmanfms||

    And as contrasts emerge between the experience of states like California that are making the most of the new policy and that of states like Texas whose politicians are doing their best to undermine it,

    Texas unemployment rate, 6.4%

    California unemployment rate, 9%

    Sniff.

  • KPres||

    Also, if you adjust for cost of living, California is in the bottom third of states in household income, they have massive debt and rank 7th-worst in income inequality.

    So, yeah, Texas wins.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Forbes on Obamacare rate shock:

    Upon reviewing the data, I was indeed shocked by the proposed premium rates—but not in the way you might expect. The jolt that I was experiencing was not the result of the predicted out-of-control premium costs but the shock of rates far lower than what I expected—even at the lowest end of the age scale.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri.....ium-rates/

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What's left unsaid in the article is that people will have to apply for tax credits to lower the costs of the premiums.

    Otherwise, a family of three with a household income of $40K/year, for example, will be on the hook for $500 a month. How the fuck is that affordable?

    Basic math fucks you in the earhole again, Obama's Gloryhole.

  • Jerryskids||

    For all the negative chatter about how including older and sicker Americans in the health insurance pools would drive up the price for younger participants in the pool less likely to be ill,

    Ummmm.....younger people used to have the (quite rational) option of not being in pool to start with. Not buying something at X number of dollars is still cheaper than buying that something at 1/2 X.

    Elephants 2-for-a-quarter is a bargain, but only if you have a quarter and only if you need elephants.

  • KPres||

    I didn't get past the author's tagline..

    Rick Ungar, Contributor
    I write from the left on politics and policy.
  • SusanM||

    And the millions who've seen their hours and opportunities flushed down the drain will not be hurt in anyway, yes?

    Audacity, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace.

  • mr simple||

    California, the law’s most important test case

    Why California? We can already look to Massachusetts and see what happens.

  • Irish||

    Why California? We can already look to Massachusetts and see what happens.

    Because of Krugmans Kalifornia Krush. He spends enormous amounts of time trying to convince us that California is coming back, goddammit! I think he realizes that the continued abysmal failure of California, which has really been going on for 20 years, pretty well conflicts with Krugman's political arguments. Therefore, he has to make up ridiculous arguments for why California is actually not that bad.

  • KPres||

    Because rates already rose there two years ago in response to/anticipation of Obamacare. Since they've already peaked, Krugman can say "look, rates aren't going up here!"

  • sloopyinca||

    _________________________
    Every baseball-related comment above this line was made by somebody that got trolled by Steve Chapman.

    Now you people let that sink in. You got trolled by Steve fucking Chapman. For shame!

  • robc||

    My comment about Mark Prior was due to Steve Champman trolling me?

  • robc||

    Chapman even.

  • sloopyinca||

    You get a pass.

    BTW, Prior signed a minor league contract with the Reds this spring, so it's likely they were giving Prior a shot at AAA since it didn't matter what level they brought him in at, but rather mattered which city had the best orthopedic surgeons in it. And I can't speak for Pensacola, but Bakersfield isn't exactly known for great shoulder specialists.

  • RBS||

    So, if he makes it back to the bigs he"ll be reunited with Dusty Baker? What could possibly go wrong?

  • Sevo||

    Nope. See my note on tickets and baseball.

  • sloopyinca||

    Of course, I was just being a dick.

  • Sevo||

    So was I.

  • Ted S.||

    So, no different than normal. :-p

  • Ted S.||

    It's Memorial Day. We don't have a Mourning Lynx thread to comment on.

    Oh, and artisanal mayonnaise.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Six people have been killed and at least 22 wounded in violence across Chicago since Friday evening.

    None of that would have happened if the Senate had passed Manchin-Toomey!

  • mr lizard||

    Fuck your deep dish pizza

  • Dogboy49||

    Not buying it.

    Pitchers (and any other athletes) are hurt because sports injuries are a known hazard of professional sports. In addition, Pitchers are at increased risk of injuries when their training regimen is inadequate.

    A manager does no favors to his pitchers if he does not prepare them for ALL contingencies; which includes the seldom-used option of playing offense. Being injured taking warmup swings (assuming that this was an actual injury and not the usual 'pitcher drama') is inexcusable for both the player and also for the coaching staff.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oops.

    A white 2013 Lexus, driven by Patrick J. Willis, was exiting Interstate 485 outer loop to U.S. 29. The car failed to reduce speed to negotiate the turn at the top of the ramp and hit the raised concrete curb at the top of the ramp.

    The Lexus then crossed northbound U.S. 29 and hit the four patrol cars that were parked and performing traffic duty for the upcoming Coca Cola 600 NASCAR race. Sgt. E.T. Suttles and Trooper J.M. Cockerham were injured after being hit by the Lexus.

    A 9-year-old child was restrained in the front passenger seat.

    ----

    Willis was found to have a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, according to troopers. He was arrested by Trooper J.M. Jolly for DWI, reckless driving and child abuse. Troopers said the lower of two breath test readings for Willis was .14.

    This would have been prevented by a .05 statutory BAC limit!

    Bonus comment: Isn't it illegal for a passenger under age 12 to ride in the front seat of an automobile in NC also?

    WTF?

  • Ted S.||

    Bonus comment: Isn't it illegal for a passenger under age 12 to ride in the front seat of an automobile in NC also?

    When FedGov forced carmakers to install passenger-side airbags, the airbags decapitated little people. The solution, of course, was not to allow people to buy cars without airbags, but to demonize anybody who would put a child in the passenger seat, and make it illegal. Because government fuckups can only be solved by more government.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    BOERNE, Texas – A South Texas police officer has been put on administrative leave after being charged with shooting an arrow into a neighbor's cat.

    Police in Boerne say Officer Lance Deleon was not on duty when the cat named Bobby was wounded. Police Chief Jim Kohler says the cat was shot using a crossbow.

    Officials with South Texas Veterinary Specialists say the 2-year-old male cat has been treated for a punctured lung and broken front right leg. Vets say Bobby is expected to recover after being shot Tuesday.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013.....z2UVQcxHQV

    Armed cat threatens cop.

  • mr lizard||

    Screw those mammals. Do you know how many tails I've lost because of those sadistic fur balls?

  • KPres||

    Cats now?

    It's like crack, I guess. After a while shooting dogs just doesn't do it for you anymore, so you move on to smaller, more helpless pets.

    The good news is now maybe the feminists will get involved!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Pitchers wouldn't stay in the majors despite hitting less than Reese Witherspoon's body weight.

    Reese Witherspoon sees what you did there, Chapman.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well the Sharks won last night to force Game 7. Now if the Red Wings can put down the Blackhawks and the Sharks complete their comeback against the Kings, my oh-so-bold prediction of a Red Wings-Sharks WCF wil come to pass.

    And IIRC, that means Col John will be making a donation to the Reason Foundation on my behalf.*

    *Why I didn't get odds on that little wager is beyond me. I mean, picking the 6 and 7 seeds to be in the conference finals before the playoffs even start should be worth something.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    The Wings have impressed me. Man, what a unit. Chicago is playing too individualistic to win. I thought the Hawks were gonna finally get over their Wings demons.

  • Anders||

    Pitchers should be treated as a protected class like blacks, gays, and pedophiles.

    #JusticeForPitchers

  • Jerryskids||

    And quarterbacks in football. Is it true that the NFL is discussing a proposed rule that, during the runback following a pick, if the quarterback is the last player between the runner and the goal line then a two-handed tap below the waist downs the runner? I've heard that some are opposed to this rule because they think a one-handed tap anywhere should suffice.

  • Anders||

    Sounds like something stupid enough for the NFL to consider.

    If they're so worried about injuries in football you can simply speed up the game and severely limit substitutions - most of the really big boys absolutely could not keep up with a rugby pace level...

    But this would not allow enough time for the never ending flow of beer commercials. So screw that. Nothing must interrupt the beer commercials.

  • Sevo||

    A while back, the Yankees got a pitcher from the Sox who turned out to be a pretty fair hitter.
    Just sayin'

  • CE||

    You mean this George H Ruth guy?

    Boston stats (6 years):
    Pitching: 89-46, 2.19 ERA
    Hitting: .308 average, 49 home runs

    New York stats (15 years):
    Pitching: 5-0, 5.52 ERA
    Hitting: .349 average, 659 home runs

  • RBS||

    Babe Ruth was nothing more than a fat old man, with little-girl legs. And here's
    something I just found out recently. He wasn't really a sultan.

  • Sevo||

    But ya know, he had a better year than the president did. Any president.

  • ||

    Dave Fucking McNally . DAVE FUCKING MCNALLY!!!!

    Grand slam. World Series. Fuck you, Cincinnati, fuck you Chapman.

    DAVE FUCKING MCNALLY.

  • Sevo||

    Now, now, take it EASY!

  • ||

    That's what they told McNally.

    Can I say STEVE FUCKING CARLTON while I'm at it?

    And mention that JIM FUCKING PALMER outhit the Orioles' shortstop during their glory years?

  • AuH20||

    I'm glad this is an anti-DH forum. The DH sucks.

  • AuH20||

    Also, as a Mets fan, how about that Matt Harvey? Kid is fucking amazing.

  • Agammamon||

    "Requiring pitchers to bat is like telling Bob Dylan to smile. It misuses their talent, lowers the quality of play, subjects them to pointless risk and probably causes irreparable loss of self-esteem."

    If you're going to go this far, then why require *any* of the players to bat? Why not have two teams - an offensive line-up (all specializing in batting) and a defensive line-up (all the on-field positions)?

  • CE||

    I knew their was something I didn't like about Steve Chapman, despite his usually clear writing and general approval of smaller government, and now I've figured it out -- he's unAmerican. The Designated Hitter rule is a blight and a cancer on the game and the soul of the nation.

    A baseball team has 9 players, and all are expected to hit and field. The pitcher shouldn't get a special exemption. Why not have 2 DH's, so the shortstops only have to play defense? How about 3? A lot of catchers clearly aren't in the big leagues because of their hitting. Come to think of it, you only need 4 batters, what with their only being 3 bases and one batter at a time. Why not 4 DH's, a pitcher, and 8 fielding specialists?

  • CE||

    "there" I mean.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    So smiling would be a misuse of Dylan's talent, lower the quality of his music, subject him to pointless risk and probably cause irreparable loss of his self-esteem?

    That simile is so pitifully incomprehensible it should probably be used in a Neil Young song.

  • Robert||

    A year ago on the phone I told my friend Gene, who harps on the evil of the DH every time baseball comes up as a subject, that because of all the injuries of pitchers by batted balls, starting next season there'd be a designated fielder. He paused to reflect, then said, "You just made that up!"

  • glendaperry7||

    my best friend's sister-in-law makes $67 an hour on the internet. She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $21287 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more... http://www.Taz1.com

  • An0nB0t||

    On Memorial Day, of all days.

    Shame on you, Chapman.

  • Dan||

    This article is idiotic. The only reason pitchers aren't expected to be and usually aren't competent at hitting is because of the nonsensical level of specialization in today's game.

    Pitchers used to be just another position. Both expected to and competent enough to hit just like anybody else. The only thing that's changed is the idiotic level of specialization that has infected baseball. It's the same reason we now have roster spots wasted on crappy left handed pitchers that are used to come in and face one batter, closers that are glorified for getting three outs every 4-5 games, and the moronic amount of "platooning".

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Might as well let them skip batting. Baseball is boring enough without having to watch a pitcher strike out.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement