Reading List

I've been a fairly big fan of Keith Law's for awhile. He's a baseball writer over at ESPN.com. I think I enjoy him because of his style - he's very modern in his baseball analysis, although he does tip his cap to some traditional stuff every once in awhile, and he is extremely sarcastic, which of course agrees with me. Aside from baseball, he enjoys cooking (which is something I think I would enjoy if I had time - in 20 years when my wife and I kick the kids out of the house, I fully intend to explore the realms of the culinary arts) and he enjoys literature.

As evidenced by the title of the blog, I'm a huge sci-fi/fantasy reader. Tolkein is obviously my favorite, but I've enjoyed Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Orson Scott Card, Stephen King's Dark Tower series(which was good until the 6th book at which point it just became weird), and some various others. Most of the true literature I read was in high school and college, where it was more of a chore than anything else. Looking back on it, I realized I read some very good books and didn't get a chance to appreciate them. As it stands, I've exhausted my current supply of sci-fi novels (and baseball books) and I'm dying for something new to read, preferably good books in some areas I may have shied away from in the past because of my experience with "school books."

So knowing Law is a fan of literature and enjoying his baseball writing, I looked up his list of 100 books which can be found on his blog (the link is to number 81 - 100 on his list, you can get to the rest from that point), and decided I would read all of them, starting at #100. There are a few reasons (other than those already mentioned) why I picked his list over some other lists, such as the Time 100 or Novel 100:

• He hated Moby Dick, which is probably second on my list of least favorite books of all time (right behind The Scarlet Letter). He describes it as a 500-page encyclopedia entry on whaling, which is about right. Except the encyclopedia entry might actually be informative.


• Somewhat related to the first point, his list is based on personal enjoyment and doesn't over-rate scholarly consensus. Books like Moby Dick make it onto top 100 lists because people who have degrees from Ivy League schools and talk with British accents think that they should. Those lists often contain enjoyable books, but they also often contain "respected" books that have been historically labeled as "literature" and so any list excluding them is invalid. I disagree wholeheartedly, and it seems Law does as well.


• He also dislikes most Dickens, which appeals to me, since I really couldn't stand Great Expectations (probably in the top 5 of my least favorite books).


• I have read exactly 14 of the books on his list, and liked all but one of them (I'll list them below). This is an important point since all but three of these books were read as homework of some kind, so I was pre-disposed to not liking them.


• The list contains a wide variety of genres (which isn't necessarily exclusive to his list), and one of the main reasons I'm undertaking this project is because I want to expand my reading horizons.


• He lists a number of books from other cultures, which is especially appealing, since that is an area I have largely ignored, other than the African American literature class I took in college, which I really enjoyed.

Some things I have reservations about:

• He lists a number of Jane Austen and Bronte sisters books, which worries me. Then again, I've never read through a whole book of theirs (I believe I started Wuthering Heights but never got very far), so maybe I'm mislabeling those books as "chick books" and I just need to get over myself. Still, I'm worried.


• Law has a degree from Harvard himself, so when he said in a different blog posting that he generally dislikes books where the prose is too thick to enjoy the story (I'm paraphrasing), his version of "thick prose" may be different from mine. We'll see.


• He lists The Lord of the Rings at number 41. Any list of great books that doesn't have this on there is automatically out for me, so at least it's there. But 41? Seems a little low.

Regardless of those concerns, I'm really excited about this. It's been awhile since I read true literature, and I'm starving for new books to read, so this should be fun. I'm not doing this to say I did it (well, not really, but I probably won't hesitate to tell people that I did), and I'm certainly not going to take a scholarly, how-can-I-dissect-the-literary-techniques approach to reading these novels. I expect to learn some things on the way, but that's not the ultimate goal. Really I just want to some good books to read.

Here are the entries on his list that I've already read (but will read again) and a few comments about some of them.

98. The Man Who Was Thursday by GK Chesterton: I did a book report on this one my junior year of high school and remember enjoying the story, even though it was a bit strange. I later found out that the author wrote a number of allegorically Christian novels, of which this contains some elements, so I may have to check out more by Chesterton.

96. A Room with a View by EM Forster: This was the only book on the list I truly didn't like. I thought it was boring as heck, but I remember it being fairly short, so I'll give it another try.

87. Native Son by Richard Wright: This was one of the books I read as part of my African American lit class and I thought it was very well written.

83. Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain: It's been a LONG time since I read this one, but I remember it being fun.

69. Watership Down by Richard Adams: One of the three books I read outside of school. I liked this book - I thought the characters were interesting, even though they were rabbits.

68. Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston

67. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley: I thought this was a great book when I first read it in high school and I'm looking forward to picking it up again.

57. Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson: Been a long time since I read this one as well. Another one read outside of school.

53. 1984 by George Orwell: Maybe the worst ending (in terms of emotion, not in quality) of any book I've read. I was so mad at the ultimate conclusion, which was the whole point, I think.

44. Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe: This is one of those high school books I read that I fully expected to dislike and wound up liking quite a bit. The characters are very well written.

41. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkein: Any excuse to read this one again is fine by me. This is the third book of the ones I read outside of school.

36. My Antonia by Willa Cather

17. The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald: Same kind of deal as Things Fall Apart. It will be interesting to read this outside of a scholarly setting.

4. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee: I remember liking this book, but always thinking it was a tad over-rated. I'll give it another shot and see how it goes.

Anyone who's interested in joining this literary journey with me is welcome to. I fully understand that this kind of thing probably doesn't appeal to that many people, but I also think it would be fun to read these books with other people and have some brief discussions afterward. I'm just about to start a book I picked up today, but that one should go quickly, so I intend to start on A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lemontov by the end of next week. Let me know if you're interested!

A New Hope (Without the Jedis)

Congratulations to Barack Obama who will be the nation's 44th president beginning on January 20th. Many of you who know me know my political leanings, so I won't go into those here. But I do want to offer up some general thoughts on the country and its future.

Obama has the chance of a lifetime. I guess he would have that anyway (I mean, he is THE PRESIDENT), but even more so because of the state of the country and the world. Let's review the United States as Obama takes over:

1. The economy is hosed with no clear path to right itself, although it does appear that it's not going to get any worse. The only questions are how long it will take to get things to improve and what that will look like.

2. People have generally soured on the war. I don't even know if Bush knows why the war in Iraq started any more. Again, regardless of your opinion on the war itself, I think we need to at least reassess what the heck is going on over there and come up with a plan of action.

3. Higher unemployment than there's been in awhile.

4. Lots of other stuff that I'm sure I will remember later.

Obama really has the opportunity to be the most influential president since FDR in terms of the change he can bring about. With a Democratic Congress, he has incredible power to push across his policies. Those policies can bring the US out of its current state. Or they can bring change with no improvement, leaving us with different problems than we had before.

I'm not a very political guy. I definitely have opinions about certain issues, but they are simplistic. Anyone with in-depth knowledge of politics can confuse me in a matter of minutes. I don't like being that way, but other things have always taken priority, and I've never been motivated to take an interest in politics. I also have a profound disdain for the way politicians have to mold their principles and ideologies to appeal to the lowest common denominator, sometimes engaging in outright lying just to get a few votes.

This is the first time I feel motivated to change that and stay involved in what's going on with the US government. The next four years will be very interesting. Again, like him or not, Obama will be the next President, and it's pretty silly to hope the country gets worse just so Obama looks bad. There's nothing wrong with looking forward to the next election and hoping a candidate who better fits your ideologies is elected, but in the meantime, we're going to see a lot of changes and we should hope those changes make this country and this world a better place to live.

One last thing: there was a big deal made about Obama being the first black man to be elected president. I think that's good. There were a lot of emotional speeches from prominent media members and politicians about just how much that means. I am not old enough to remember outright segregation, but I know that racism is still rampant in the US. It may be a lot more subtle, but it's there. And let me be clear - I don't think that by electing a black man, all race issues are now gone. They're not. But this was undeniably a great moment for racial progress in the US and I'm glad it was recognized as such. I also hope that once the celebration is over, people can put the race issue behind them, no matter what side they're on, and judge the man purely as a president. I think we've come far enough as a country that that will happen.

So congratulations again, President Elect Obama. I pray that God leads you as you lead the country.

Whither thou, Garret?

Well, this could be the end of Garret Anderson’s long career with the Angels. The Angels bought out his contract today, effectively turning GA into an unrestricted free agent. I’ve mentioned this before, but I do not want to see him go. He’s been my favorite Angel for quite awhile and I’d like to see him finish his career with the Angels. Here are some of his stats and their rank amongst Angels:

.296 Batting Average (3rd behind Guerrero and Carew)
.469 Slugging (5th)
2013 Games Played (1st)
1024 Runs (1st)
2368 Hits (1st)
3743 Total Bases (1st)
489 Doubles (1st)
272 HR’s (2nd behind Salmon)
1292 RBI’s (1st)

Most of those categories aren’t even close. Garret’s been an Angel for a long time, and has been a good one. He isn’t the flashiest defender and he could certainly use a few more walks, but he’s been good for a long time.

Some of you will argue that he’s declining. I can’t dispute that. He isn’t the hitter or defender he used to be. He probably should be a platoon guy. But he should still be a part of this team. He can still contribute. He was never the face of the franchise (Salmon was and Guerrero’s been since then), but I think he’s perfectly happy with the role of quiet producer.

Some will argue that his impatient hitting approach is exactly what’s wrong with the Angels and that if they want to get better, they need to get him out of the lineup. Based on their run differential, the Angels were a 90 win team. (Let’s set aside the fact that 90 wins would have won the division by 11 games and probably would win the division by at least 5 next year.) The Angels need to improve their team for their postseason and that mostly lies with improving the offense. Again, I wouldn’t be upset seeing him in a platoon role, but I would also argue that there are many better ways for the Angels to increase their offensive output next season. Here’s my list:

1. Sign Teixeira for whatever it takes (two thirds of a season from Teixeira is probably worth an extra 3 – 5 wins over Kotchman)
2. Play Mathis once a week and Napoli the rest of the time (worth maybe a win when you factor in defense)
3. Sit GMJ down on the bench and play Morales (worth maybe another win)
4. Hope for some health and improvement from Kendrick (could be up to 2 or 3 more wins, but we can’t really know)
5. Get some improvement from Vlad who no longer has to carry the offense with Teix there and also has repaired knees (he got surgery)
6. Start Brandon Wood and get more power out of the shortstop position

Obviously some of those things will be offset by declines. Saunders may not put up numbers like that again. The Angels will probably have a 5th starter next year who is worse than Garland. The bullpen will probably take a step backward, although hopefully not by much. Either way, the things we can measure should put us up 6 more wins, which should easily win the division and match Boston’s team from this year.

Of course if we don’t sign Teixeira, that means signing Manny Ramirez or Adam Dunn or someone of that nature. Teix isn’t perfect, but he’s easily the least flawed hitter/defender on the market.

I’m not blind – there are definitely arguments to be made for letting GA walk. I’m just not ready to do that yet. He’s been a favorite player for a long time and I’d like to see him retire as an Angel with an outside chance at the Hall of Fame.

What's on Second

Well, this one should be easy. Sorry for the delay - I got kind of busy at work.

Howie Kendrick
Positives: He’s a great line drive hitter, when he’s healthy. He plays a solid second base…when he’s healthy. He should develop some power, ummm, if he can ever, you know, stay healthy.
Negatives: Well…he can’t stay healthy. I don’t know what the Angels can do to solve this problem, but they need to do something, if something can be done. He also wouldn’t know a walk if it bit him in the balls, but if he’s healthy, he should hit enough to mitigate that problem.
Contract: Unless the Angels trade him (which I think would be stupid), he’s their second baseman for the foreseeable future. I’m fine with that. As long as he’s healthy…

Sean Rodriguez
Positives: He’s young. He hit a lot of bombs in AAA, although the PCL is an extreme hitter’s league, so that’s not as good as it seems.
Negatives: He strikes out every other at bat.
Contract: The Angels have him under control for awhile.

Outlook
I really like Howie. It pained me greatly to see him choke in the playoffs, but it’s hard to castigate him for 4 games. I’m really excited to see him play a full season. I hope 2009 is the year it finally happens. Rodriguez is a decent backup for the time being.

Who's on first?

So every year when you pay your first baseman, who gets it?

All $22 million of it.

(That's some foreshadowing right there folks)

Mark Teixeira:
Positives: The guy rakes. I'm not sure I need to go into detail about just how good of a hitter this guy is, but he's damn good. He's usually good for 40 doubles, 33 HR's, 110 RBI's, 75 walks. Something that impressed me - last season he walked the most in his career (97) and actually struck out less than he walked (93) for the first time in his career. So it's possible he's still getting better. He's also a ridiculously good first baseman, having won two gold gloves. He probably would have won one in the AL again this year had he been there all season. He'll be 29 in April next season.
Negatives: If you can find one...The only two things that are remotely negative: he's slower than molasses, if I may borrow a phrase from my father, and this may have been his peak. He was 28 this season which is about the year a lot of hitters peak. Yes, he did have that ridiculous 144 RBI season with Texas a few years ago, but he was actually better this year since he did what he did in pitcher's parks.
Contract: He's a free agent. And he's a Boras client. BOOOOOOOO! Even if this was his peak year, this guy's going to be good for awhile longer. He was hurt a little bit last year with Texas, but other than that, he's healthy. He's a switch hitter who plays great defense. He's patient. I have a feeling he's going to wind up getting 6 - 8 years at $20 - 23 million per year. That's Yankee territory. But with the salaries that are coming off the Angels books, I think it's worth it for them to sign him. Give him 7 years at $22 million. Vladdy is still good, but he's getting past his prime. Having Teix in the lineup could help keep Vlad going since he won't need to be Superman all the time. I am all for the Angels breaking the bank to get this guy signed.

Robb Quinlan:
Positives: His name starts with a "Q". He can hit lefties fairly well. He can "play" multiple positions, by which I mean Scioscia puts him at multiple positions and watches him struggle with his range and terrible hands. He is cheap though.
Negatives: He's not very good at baseball.
Contract: He's a decent bench guy to have around because he is somewhat versatile, even if he doesn't play any of those positions well. If he's dirt cheap, keep him around. If not, find a young guy who's decent but not going to turn into an everyday player and put him in this role.

Kendry Morales:
Positives: He's a switch hitter. He has good pop, better than Kotchman had at this stage. Most of this is from reports, since I haven't seen the guy play all that much, but his defense is supposed to be solid, but unspectacular. He's versatile - he actually played corner outfield positions in Cuba.
Negatives: He doesn't walk and is somewhat prone to striking out. He isn't actually that young (he'll be 26 next season) and hasn't played a full year in the majors.
Contract: The Angels have him locked up through 2010. I gotta believe, one way or another, Morales will be with a MLB team next season whether it's with the Angels or they trade him.

Others:
Any others are pretty much going to be free agents. From my vantage point, if the Angels don't get Teixeira, there aren't many options that are going to be more valuable than Morales. There are better players, but they'll all be pretty expensive. Here are some possibles anyway:
Jason Giambi: Assuming the Yanks buy him out. Terrible defender - probably should be a DH. Still has some pop and walks. I would hate to see him in an Angel uniform.
Sean Casey: Slower than slow. Has virtually no power left. Would be cheap.
Nomar Garciaparra: Ummm, no thanks.
Richie Sexson: ....that was a joke.
Adam Dunn: He's not really a first baseman, but he's not really a left fielder either. There's no way he could be worse at first base. This would be our second best option if we can't sign Tex. The guy hits 40 HR's a year. He walks a 120 times a year. Sure he strikes out a lot, but I'll put up with that for the extra power.

Outlook:
Really, we have to sign Teixeira. There's no one on the FA market who does all the things he does. Hits for power. Takes walks. Hits for average. Plays great defense. The Yankees are going to come after him, and from what I've heard, he doesn't seem like he fell in love with playing on the Angels or anything. So it's going to take close to $200 million to get him signed. I don't know what the Angels limits are, but that's got to be pretty close. I just don't know if 8 years, $175 million will be enough to overcome the Yankees' offer.

But man, we HAVE to sign this guy.

Angel Catchers

I’m going to go through the Angels’ lineup position by position and evaluate the guys they have there, the contract situations, and what the plan is or should be moving forward. We’ll start with the catcher position:

Mike Napoli:
Positives: Thanks to a torrid September (gotta love the word “torrid” right? I love those words that sound dirty but aren’t, like “titillating”), Napoli finished the season as the best hitting catcher in the majors. Seriously. Look at the stats. They’re ridiculous. He hit 20 HR’s – only 3 other catchers did that and each of them had at least 125 more AB’s. He OPSed .960 (the next best guy, min. 200 AB’s, didn’t even break .900). Maybe he was really rested in September because he got hurt during the middle of the season, but he is easily the best hitting backstop no one in the league is talking about.
Negatives: He strikes out a TON. And by a ton, I mean a crapload (metric conversion: one crapload = 128 hogsheads). He is one of those three true outcomes guys – he walks, he homers, or he strikes out. These things accounted for almost half of his at bats. It’s funny – he hit 20 HR’s and only 9 doubles. Anyway, his defense also gets a bad rap. I’m not sure about how to evaluate that, but I do know that he hardly ever throws anyone out. This may be somewhat on the Angels pitching staff, since Mathis doesn’t throw anyone out either. But it’s probably a combination of his bad mechanics and Angels pitchers having long deliveries.
Contract: He’s eligible for arbitration this winter. I would imagine the Angels will come to terms on something, maybe a 2 year $5 million deal or a one year deal for a couple million.

Jeff Mathis
Positives: ……………………………(crickets chirping)…………………………..(tumbleweed rolls by)………………………….you get the picture
Negatives: Well, he can’t hit. He struck out A TON. He did hit a few homers this year, but whereas Napoli looked like he knew what he was doing on the homers, with Mathis it was more a case of a blind walrus finding a deaf penguin (do walruses eat penguins? I thought they did). And for all of his supposed defensive prowess, he also made the most errors by a catcher and was not all that much better than Napoli at throwing out base stealers. Pitcher’s ERA when he caught was much lower than Napoli’s, but I’m convinced this is because the pitchers knew they had to shut down the opponent when he was in the lineup.
Contract: He’s under the Angels control for a few seasons. Whoopee.

Others
Ryan Budde: Every time I hear his name I think to myself, “Where’s Kid Sister?”
Bobby Wilson: Contrary to popular belief, he did NOT sing with the Beach Boys.
Hank Conger: He’s the guy for the future. He struggled a little bit this year and had some injury issues, but scouts think he’s going to be a solid big league catcher. He was in high A ball this year as a 20 year old, so it would be reasonable to expect him to see big league action in either September 2010 or 2011 if he continues to develop.

Outlook:
The Angels should get Napoli under a reasonable contract for the next two or three seasons until they know what they have in Conger. My ideal situation would be to sign Napoli to a one year deal. If Conger struggles in Double A, get Napoli under contract for a reasonable 3 year deal. If Conger does well, keep Napoli around for as long as it takes until Conger is ready. Catcher is a tricky position and I’m sure Scioscia won’t want to throw the kid to the wolves, so it’s nice to have a veteran around to platoon for awhile. As for Napoli, he’s a great hitter, but he has the sort of skill set that could go south awfully quickly (see Hafner, Travis for example), so you don’t want to sign anything more than 3 years. Keep Mathis around cheaply as long as you can. His value is shot and the Angels don’t have anyone else to back up Napoli anyway, so they might as well hold onto him. There is a chance, however slight, that Mathis may turn out to be decent. The guy was drafted right behind Joe Mauer, for heaven’s sake, so someone thought he was going to be pretty good. In retrospect, the Angels should have been leery of those emailed scouting reports from soproudofjeff34@mathismom.com.

More Useless Analysis

We're going to keep seeing a lot of this, at least for a few weeks. I don't necessarily agree with Scioscia's call (I'll reiterate why in a moment), but it is hardly the worst postseason managerial gaffe ever. Let me break down this guy's points:

• The infield was in, significantly increasing Erick Aybar's chances of producing the run with a swing. Significantly? I don't know how to look this up, but I'd love to see a stat that shows a guy's batting average on ground balls with the infield drawn in versus normal. Certainly it helps, but you still have to hit a ball hard and in the right spot. I'm not sure you could call this significant.
• Aybar was hitting left-handed, giving Jason Varitek a better look at the oncoming runner. I'm not sure why this matters. Why does Jason Varitek need a better look at the runner? If the bunt goes down, no matter who's at the plate, Varitek needs to get in position to make the tag. He's gotta watch the ball, not the runner. Aybar being left-handed also makes it easier for him to bunt the ball.
• The count was 2-0, allowing Aybar to be more selective. A 2-0 count with the infield in is a hitter's paradise. A-Rod might even produce there. Consider also that Aybar drove home the winning run 24 hours earlier with a base hit. This is a decent point, but for slightly wrong reasons. A 2-0 count is just as much of a bunter's paradise as a hitter's paradise, the assumption being that the pitcher has to come in with a strike to avoid being in a bigger hole. The problem is that you can only make that assumption with pitchers who have shown a command of the strike zone, and Delcarmen had not done that, which is my biggest beef with Scioscia's call.
• The previous six hitters who faced Justin Masterson: walk, walk, single, fly ball, double, sacrifice bunt. That means five of the six who tried to get on base did so. What does this have to do with Erick Aybar and Manny Delcarmen, two guys who were very different than the others who had faced off before? Who had gotten on base before? Teixeira, Guerrero, Hunter, and Morales, all better hitters with better pitch recognition than Aybar. Masterson struggled. Who knew what Delcarmen would do?

Yes, it was a big risk. Maybe too big. Well, in hindsight, obviously too big. But the reward was huge. What were Aybar's chances of at least putting a bat on that ball? 80%? 70%? And the thing that makes a squeeze so tough to defend is that the catcher can't help field the ball, so even a bunt that goes fifteen feet in front of home can't be fielded by the catcher. If a batter gets the bunt on the ground, you rarely see the runner at home thrown out. In fact, I can't recall this happening (at least on the Angels) in the past several seasons.

So if Aybar gets the bunt down in fair territory, there's a very good chance the Angels score. If he fouls it off, he's still in a hitter's count. What were his chances of having one of those two outcomes? I don't know, but Aybar's a very good bunter with good bat control (he got 9 bunt hits on 19 attempts during the season, a .474 average), I would put it at over 50%. What were his chances of getting the run in if he swings away? Well, he doesn't have much pop, so a sac fly was unlikely (he had one in 17 chances during the season). He is a slap hitter, so he might have been able to slap something through the infield. I don't know, you add all that up, and I don't think you get to 50%.

Alright, I'm not going to pursue this any further. It's going to drive me insane. I'm probably going to start posting some possible Angels offseason moves today or tomorrow. Maybe that will help my mindset.