#scott sheldon

[grande-caps]

Sceencaps || The Lazarus Effect GALLERY LINK : [x]  Quality : BluRay Screencaptures Amount : 1774 files  Resolution : 1920x800px

-Please like/reblog if taking! -Please credit grande_caps/kissthemgoodbye!

[newgrassonthefield-blog]

How many MLB players have played at all nine positions in one game?

The short answer, courtesy of Wikipedia, is four: Bert Campaneris, César Tovar, Scott Sheldon and Shane Halter.

Below the cut is a more detailed breakdown of how each man pulled off this impressive feat. Thanks to Baseball Reference for the game and player information which has been compiled here, in one location, for your convenience.

Final score: California Angels, 5 @ Kansas City Athletics, 3 (in 13 innings)

Kansas City's record, as of that game: 51-88

First inning: Batting leadoff, Campaneris began the game at shortstop.

Second inning: moved from SS to second base.

Third inning: moved from 2B to third base.

Fourth inning: moved from 3B to left field.

Fifth inning: moved from LF to center field.

Sixth inning: moved from CF to right field.

Seventh inning: moved from RF to first base.

Eighth inning: moved from 1B to pitcher. Gave up two walks and a single, allowing one run to score, but got out of the inning with a strikeout-turned-double-play (the runner on 2B was thrown out trying to advance to 3B).

Ninth inning: moved from P to catcher. He exited the game in the tenth inning and was replaced by Rene Lachemann.

At bat: went 0-for-3 with a walk and a stolen base. [x]

Campaneris made most of his Major League appearances at shortstop (2097 games; played in 2281 games total), with occasional appearances at second, third and left field. He only played two games in center field, this one included. This game was the only one in which he played right field, first base, pitcher or catcher. [x]

--

César Tovar (playing for the Minnesota Twins, September 22, 1968)

Final Score: Oakland Athletics, 1 @ Minnesota Twins, 2

Minnesota's record, as of that game: 75-81

Before getting to Tovar, it is worth noting that Bert Campaneris was still with the Athletics at this time (though the team had since moved to Oakland). He played the entire game at shortstop.

First inning: Batting leadoff, Tovar began the game at pitcher. Gave up one walk, and also balked once, but allowed no runs. Received no decision.

Second inning: moved from P to catcher.

Third inning: moved from C to first base.

Fourth inning: moved from 1B to second base.

Fifth inning: moved from 2B to shortstop.

Sixth inning: moved from SS to third base.

Seventh inning: moved from 3B to left field.

Eighth inning: moved from LF to center field.

Ninth inning: moved from CF to right field.

At bat: went 1-for-3 with a single, a walk and a stolen base. [x]

Tovar played most of his games in center and left field (469 and 394, respectively; played in 1467 games total). He had upwards of 200 appearances at second base, third base and right field, each. He also played 77 games at shortstop. This game was the only time he played at first base, catcher, or pitcher. The fact that he started at pitcher when he had not previously pitched in a Major League game suggests that it was planned for him to play all nine positions ahead of time. [x]

--

Scott Sheldon (playing for the Texas Rangers, September 6, 2000)

Final Score: Texas Rangers, 1 @ Chicago White Sox, 13

Texas's record, as of that game: 62-77

Sheldon did not enter the game until the fourth inning, giving him just five innings to fit in all nine positions.

Fourth inning: entered game at catcher, batting 7th.

Fifth inning: moved from C to first base.

Sixth inning: moved from 1B to second base. After an out and a walk, moved from 2B to shortstop.

Seventh inning: moved from SS to right field. After two singles and one out, moved from RF to center field.

Eighth inning: Moved from CF to left field. After one out, moved from LF to pitcher. Faced one batter, whom he struck out swinging. After that at bat, moved from P to third base, where he stayed for the remainder of the game.

At bat: went 1-for-2 with a single, and also reached base on an error. [x]

Sheldon had a fairly short career, just 145 games. He played in 59 at third and 52 at shortstop, with scattered appearances at first, second, left field, right field and catcher. He also served as DH in two games. This game was the only in which he played at center or pitcher. [x]

--

Shane Halter (playing for the Detroit Tigers, October 1, 2000)

Final Score: Minnesota Twins, 11 @ Detroit Tigers, 12

Detroit's record, as of that game: 79-83

First inning: Batting 8th, Halter began the game at first base.

Second inning: moved from 1B to third base.

Third inning: moved from 3B to right field.

Fourth inning: moved from RF to center field.

Fifth inning: moved from CF to left field.

Sixth inning: moved from LF to shortstop.

Seventh inning: moved from SS to catcher.

Eighth inning: moved from C to pitcher. Faced one batter, whom he walked. After that at bat, moved from P to second base, where he stayed for the remainder of the game.

At bat: went 4-for-5 with three singles, a double and three RBIs. [x]

Halter played most of his games at shortstop or third base (262 each; 712 games total). He occasionally played at first, second, and all three outfield positions. He served as DH in 14 games. Including this game, he played at pitcher and catcher twice. Prior to this, he had pitched one inning for the Kansas City Royals. [x]

There seem to be a few trends here. First, all of these games took place in September or October, late in the season when it was more or less clear what these teams' fates would be for the year. Second, each player listed's team had a losing record. It's almost as though having them do this was a way of attempting to, in effect, salvage the season--doing something extraordinary to cap off an otherwise underwhelming year. I suppose a club that had already clinched could do it as well, but I'd think a team headed to the playoffs wouldn't want to deviate too far from a sense of normalcy.

Interestingly, all of these guys seemed to have pretty good games. None of them committed errors, despite moving around so much, and each gave relatively decent pitching performances (though with such a small sample size, it doesn't mean a whole lot). This isn't too surprising, considering that each player had a history of being adept at multiple positions, with Tovar, Sheldon and Halter being genuine utility players. Each man also reached base at least once (with Halter especially going above and beyond that).

I was also intrigued by the fact that each of these games happened in the American League. While the first two were before the introduction of the designated hitter, the second two came after. Of course, none of these players were really pitchers, which meant none of them really hit the way most pitchers do (i.e. expectedly poorly). I suppose the existence of the DH allows more freedom to toy around with the lineup, though the first two instances prove that having a DH is not necessary to pull this off.

In summary, this is a really cool thing for a guy to be able to say he did, but you probably don't want your team to be in a position to consider having a guy try this.

Now what I'd really like to see is a game in which nine guys on one team each play at every position. Make it happen...someone.

[thegruntledmudgeon-blog]

Frank Bruni: Not Every Critic Has The Makings Of A Columnist

Did you ever watch the guys play basketball on the public outdoor courts in the West Village?  These guys are regulars, and usually, they have the right to the court because they've been winning games all day.  They're incredibly good, but they'll never play in the NBA. 

There's no word (except perhaps for the now-suddenly-tarnished "exceptionalism") for the indescribable magic that separates the incredibly good from the great.  And yet, it's that magic that sends one basketball player to the pros and another to the asphalt courts (or, one pianist to Carnegie Hall and another to leading boozy Barry Manilow singalongs at the Duplex).  Yet, somehow, we all know the difference.

The New York Times has consistently found or groomed remarkable opinion columnists.  These writers have an imposing combination of skills:  They have the nose for an interesting angle, a gargantuan inventory of facts and anecdotes seemingly at their fingertips (I mean, how do they manage to remember that quote from Henry Kissinger that fits so completely into a story about Chick Fil-A?), a polemecist's instinct for debate, and to varying degrees a dry sense of humor to leaven the commentary.  Oh, and of course they can write. 

Frank Rich was a master commentator (still is, at New York Magazine) who started out as a theater critic and was moved by the Times to the editorial page.  Not being above the show-biz tradition of "if they liked it once, they'll love it twice," the Times brought Frank Bruni over from restaurant reviewing (he'd also been their Rome bureau chief).  Perhaps they were seduced by his very funny and insightful memoir, "Born Round."  (In fact, in his email to the staff announcing the move, Bill Keller explained that Bruni was moving to the Sunday Week In Review because the publication of his book would burn him as a "spy in the land of food"). 

That was in May 2009.  Frank started as a columnist a year ago, in June 2011.  As former Mayor Ed Koch would say, how's he doin'?

Like those schoolyard basketball players, not bad, but not great.

Frank Bruni is a fine writer with a breezy style and a distinct point of view, but he isn't a polemicist.  Rather than building an argument from a wealth of data, his columns are more like news stories:  New York City has added more parks in the past 15 years; a lesbian is running for Congress in Wisconsin; this year's presidential election will be all about mega-fundraising.  The columns don't weave together an argument from an array of interesting and illuminating facts....mostly, they rely on well-trod information from the day's headlines.  And, most important, they don't come to strong conclusions, let alone the sort that might spark Monday-morning water-cooler conversation.  

The best examples would be the columns that tackle the largest issues - the big, Shakespearean themes that underlie the headlines - and particularly those that do so through the lens of his own distinct view as a gay man.  Here are a couple. 

In one column, he took on right-wing politicians' hypocrisy on the issue of homosexuality.  Not an easy topic on which to plow new ground.  Unfortunately, he framed the issue by devoting the first half of the column to Bristol Palin's opposition to same-sex marriage (Bristol Palin?  In 2012?), admitting she's an "easy target," and analogizing criticizing her to shooting a moose from a helicopter...but going on to explain that she "perfectly distills the double standards and audacity of so many of our country’s self-appointed moralists and supposed traditionalists: hypocrites whose own histories, along with any sense of shame, tumble out the window as soon as there’s a microphone to be seized or check to be cashed."  Okay!  Now we're talking.  Name some names, Frank!  Unfortunately, the rest of the column is limited to observing that (a) Rush Limbaugh hired Elton John to perform at his wedding; and (b) Mitt Romney is "holding back" on this issue because Republican donors don't want the party to be tied to narrow-minded theocracy. 

In another column, he took on what promised to be a fascinating topic:  Hungary's retrograde tilt toward oppressing Jews and gays.  His support for this thesis, though, consisted of an interview with a Hungarian woman and a "going nowhere" bill that would have classified homosexuality as a "perversion," but which was not supported by most Hungarian citizens.  Not bad for a population that Frank describes at the onset as "10 million people with a tropism toward beer and a talent for brooding." 

Most recently, Frank is taking up the jokey style of his colleagues like Gail Collins.  In this week's column, he approaches the (unfortunately, one-dimensional) fact that some pollsters are surveying possible 2016 presidential votes.  He weaves in comical metaphors ("Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee so close they might as well be tucked into the same sweater vest") and outlandish projections of the 2020 race (Sarah Palin combines her candidacy announcement with the "debut of her Wasilla lounge act, 'Rock & Rogue, and the rollout of a signature eyewear collection at LensCrafters nationwide").  But, there's no "there" there.  What does it mean that pollsters are surveying 2016 votes?  What should we take away from that?  (And, what is this fascination with the Palins?)

Here's my take-away.  The long tail of Internet creativity means that more people than ever - bloggers, hyperlocal journalists, YouTube video commentators - are honing their edge of commentary.  One of them will have that undefinable magic.  That one should be writing for the Times. 

[thegruntledmudgeon-blog]

My Very Own Jew (continued)

So, if I were to have a heart to heart with my very own Jew, Yisroel, it would go something like this. 

Yisroel, my Reb Yid, I am a secular American Jew.  That is, I have a warm kinship for other Jews, but I do not practice the faith, and the religion itself remains a mystery to me.  Although I was a Bar Mitzvah, when I was called back to temple a year later, I told the rabbi that I had become a Buddhist.  I did not marry into the faith.  I eat cheeseburgers.

It seems I'm not alone.  According to the National Jewish Population Study (for which the last data are from 2000-2001), ten years ago Jews represented less than two percent of the American population.  Of those, more than half married outside the faith.  And, of those, only 20 to 30 percent raised their children as Jewish.

This is puzzling.  The Jews that I know all feel a strong connection to Judaism, at least as an ethnic group.  Jews are a vibrant and successful part of our country's culture and economy.  (Outdoors life and sports, not so much).  So, why do we treat the religion so indifferently?

Here's what I think. 

There is not a lot of what the Internet marketers would call "stickiness" to the Jewish religion. Among other reasons (and putting aside monotheistic ethics and the community of Jews), the core of the religion seems to be obedience and tribalism, neither of which is attractive to many modern Jews. 

As for obedience, a "righteous Jew" is one who obeys the mitzvot (commandments), of which there are 613 (though most of them do not apply to modern American Jews).  Unlike the commandments of most other religions, the reasons for these mitzvot do not seem immediately logical or emotionally powerful:  From the most well-known (the kosher laws, which despite later rationalizations, did not derive from ancient health codes) to the most obscure (mitzvah #491, you must break the neck of a calf by the river if there is an unsolved murder), many of the commandments seem arbitrary and illogical.  Even more confounding, the mitzvot have been analyzed to death for two millenia by yeshiva bochers and rabbis, who have created a massive oral tradition of even more prolix and granular sub-rules (one example being, you can create an "eruv" area that is exempt from certain commandments by running a wire from trees and telephone poles).  

Thus, the day-to-day practice of Judaism is one of obeying a host of laws, which often are divorced from any obvious logic or emotional power.  My guess is that this religion of obedience does not sit well with modern Jews, who come from a culture of independence and skepticism.   

As for tribalism, let's face it:  Our religion is a tribal religion that was born from tribal conflicts.  Philistines, Babylonians, Romans, Egyptians - we fought 'em all. King Josiah assembled the Torah in about 600 B.C.E. as a political screed, which presented the history of the Jews as the history of the Kingdom of Judah (and its historic king, David) rather than the Kingdom of Israel. 

Whether because of this tribal heritage or because Jews have often been under attack for the two millenia since, Judaism is now an us-vs-them religion.  Orthodox Jews are exceedingly insular...don't try to buy a Hamentaschen in a Crown Heights bakery if you're not wearing payes.  Jewish philanthropists focus their largesse on helping the Jews.  Jewish mothers pray for their kinder to marry other Jews.  My guess here is that this "is it good for the Jews?" tribalism also is not particularly appealing to modern, assimilation-minded, liberal-thinking American Jews.

Obviously a secular Jew is still a Jew.  For example, Albert Einstein was not an observant Jew, but he referred to his "Jewish soul" and believed in a non-personal God-force present throughout nature.  As to the more orthodox part of Judaism, he made clear that he had "no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion."  If Judaism is to survive, maybe it needs to survive more as a set of values, an instinctive feeling of Jewish soul (nefesh), and a supportive community, and less as a set of commandments and an insular tribe.  

So, Yisroel, I won't be putting on the tefillin.  But, you've made me think. For that, I thank you.    

[thegruntledmudgeon-blog]

My Very Own Jew!

The line is from the musical Company; Amy, who’s Catholic, recalls that when she first met Paul, she imagined falling in love with him and having “my very own Jew!” (Though, in the bang-up 2008 revival, doesn’t Paul (Robert Cunningham) look as Mormon as Mitt Romney, while Amy [Heather Laws] could be your quirky cousin Sophie?)

Anyway, it turns out that I also have my very own Jew.  His name is Yisroel, and he's from Australia.  Our courtship, however, has been a bit fraught.

Yisroel is a Lubavitch orthodox Jew.  He spends his Fridays (pre-sundown, natch) roaming through our office building, asking in each office whether any Jews work there.  Because I travel so often, I missed him for several weeks.  However, a few weeks ago (at least, in the version of the story I prefer), when I was away, Yisroel cornered my office-mate Jeff Weinstein and asked him whether, by any chance, Weinstein might be a Jew.  His response? "Not me!  Now, Sheldon over there.  HE'S a Jew!"

I, meanwhile, heard about Yisroel's visits, and wondered what I would say to him once we met.  I knew that the Lubavitch are committed to bringing secular Jews like me into orthodox Jewish practice - but how? I assumed he would come well-prepared with some probing questions and polemic points.  Of course, I could have told him just to go away; but talking to him promised to be more interesting than writing another coverage opinion for AIG.

Finally, I was in the office when Yisroel visited.  He turned out to be a young rabbinical student, as meek and pliant as the Barbra Streisand character in Yentl. 

He made some polite small talk, told me he is studying at the rabbinic school in Morristown, and asked me if I happened to want to put on some tefiliin.  Well, no.  I guess even orthodox boys want to get right to third base....no candy, no flowers.  Then, after ten minutes, he was gone, leaving me with his weekly copy of Rabbi Schneerson's newsletter. 

I haven't seen Yisroel since.  However, he got me thinking about Judaism and about the Lubavitch and Satmar sects in our area.  More in a separate post....