SB Nation User Blog: Nico

Winter Meetings Day 1 -- Rumor Mill In Full Swirl

Nico — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:51:53 -0000

How much to believe each rumor you hear from the Winter Meetings? Probably about as much as you believe each rumor on every "baseball rumor" site around the web. In other words, 90% of all rumors are false, and the other 10% are simply ridiculous.

Nonetheless, some of the "news" coming out of the Winter Meetings so far is interesting -- and could potentially be interesting to the A's...

If any of this is to be trusted...

The Phillies might be looking to deal Joe Blanton, seeking a more affordable pitcher in return for the arbitration-eligible Cake of Cups. The A's, really in need of a veteran starter who fits in the rotation's upper-middle, could certainly use a guy like this Blanton character and if anyone has young, affordable major league ready pitchers in the mix, it's Oakland. Hmm... Reverse rebuild! Seriously, though, now that Blanton's trade value is lower than when the A's dealt him -- because he has fewer years left on his contract -- perhaps the A's could reacquire Blanton for less than they got for him and wind up with Cardenas and Blanton...

The Rays are making a play for Roy Halladay that could include sending BJ Upton to Toronto where he could be flipped to a third team. Drool. Yes he had a really rough season in 2009, but BJ Upton is a very talented player who is only 25. Buy low!

Dan Uggla's name has resurfaced as a "likely" trade target, with the Giants named as a possible front-runner (not sure why, since they have Freddy Sanchez at 2B and Pablo Sandoval at 3B -- are they thinking of putting Uggla at 1B?). The blurb with the rumor notes the Marlins seeking bullpen help this off-season. Get 'er done, Billy!

Oh, and Rotoworld suggests that the Pirates are "making a push for Bobby Crosby." On purpose??? I think I'm starting to comprehend how 81 wins have eluded them for the past 17 years. That's not "rebuilding" -- that's just flipping off your fans while saving a finger.

Finally, I just need to say it: Brandon Inge!!! No rumors, there. Just me saying "Brandon Inge!!!"

Winter Meetings!!!

Nico — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:36:49 -0000

When you sing, "It's that wonderful time of the year..." you're not referring to Christmas. Not unless you like sloppy wet kisses from Aunt Bertha and another pair of socks that don't match the shirt you didn't want last year. No, this is the magical time of the year when important-looking people descend on the same hotel to discuss how they can fill each others' holes and not in a dirty way.

Every off-season has a slightly different flow. This year's pace has been to see a fair amount of activity prior to the Winter Meetings, including several of interest to A's fans. JJ Hardy, Marco Scutaro, and Chone Figgins have all found new homes while the A's left-side of the infield still looks like Cliff Pennington and the rotting immobile corpses of Eric Chavez and his new likeness, Dallas McPherson. Or maybe 3B will be anchored by Jake Fox, and I mean "anchored" in that "can't actually move, weigh you down" kind of way.

Trying to predict what Billy Beane will actually do is like trying to guess whether Andy Pettitte is throwing to 1B or home. Since free agents apparently aren't enticed by Fatapples or money, if the A's want to improve their 2010 outlook Beane will probably be doing it via trade. Enter the Winter Meetings, where groundwork is laid for Xmas surprises to follow...

Dan Uggla? The A's seem fascinated right now by any player who shows some power and a profound lack of mobility. Uggla has not played 3B but his lack of range would play better there than it has(n't) at 2B. Following a low BABIP first half, Uggla rebounded to put together a solid second half in 2009 and his 31 HRs are drool-worthy for a team like Oakland.

Now that I've mentioned Uggla, it is officially guaranteed the A's will not trade for him. You see, being an A's fan is always about being surprised. Billy Beane is the master of the one trade you didn't even imagine, which is what makes December so exciting and scary all at the same time.

Jed Lowrie? Hardy unexpectedly flipped by the Twins? Erubiel Durazo? Rickey?

Nobody? OK, now I'm depressed.

Somebody!!!!!! But who?

A Good Trade Doesn't Have To Be Foxy

Nico — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:14:53 -0000

Since the Jake Fox trade (which is totally different from "the Jeff Gray trade"), I've heard mostly two predictions in regards to Jack Cust's future with the A's: Either this means Cust will be non-tendered or traded or it means humanity will be enduring the defensive stylings of either Cust or Fox in 2010. One way, the A's very bad offense of 2009 just got a bit worse. Another way, the A's have decided to emulate their favorite company softball team out in the field. However, I really don't see either of those two as the strongest possibility.

NO! Don't jump!!! You have so much to live for!!! {sees left side of the infield} Never mind. Jump.

Remember that Jake Fox is under contract control for 5 years. Is it not possible, even likeliest, that Fox will simply be Cust's "heir apparent" at DH in 2011? Fox could certainly get some ABs against LHP in 2010 and thus combine with Cust to be an even better version of Cust at DH, and then take over as the team's "klutz who can hit and doesn't cost much."

What the Fox acquisition tells me, more than suggesting anything about Cust's immediate future with Oakland, is that the A's don't have designs on DHing Wallace or Carter over the next 2-3 years -- which is as it should be. If you look at a "5-year plan," as Beane must, Cust isn't in very much of it no matter what, and someone has to be. So don't write off Cust, or buy him a new glove, just yet.

In other news, the Marco Scutaro story -- that he turned down more money from Oakland to sign with the Red Sox -- continues a disturbing trend. Free agents don't want to come to Oakland, even when the A's open up their pocketbook and try to compete financially.

Apparently Oakland's clubhouse facilities are embarrassingly run down, and we know that attendance is so low even Thomas Edison would have difficulty discovering any electricity there on a typical weeknight. The A's have a team that figures to be good pretty soon, so "lack of competitiveness" should be less and less of a factor each year right now. Yet the results are the same: Players will pay Oakland in order not to play for them. This makes me a sad panda. New stadium, please -- Oakland, San Jose, My House. Anywhere.

Musings From The Scou Ting Dynasty

Nico — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:32:15 -0000

Alas no, this post is not about Angel Villanova. Or Lincecum. Or Loaiza. Goodness gracious, does anyone play baseball and still obey the law? You know you jaywalk, Mark Ellis. Admit it -- just admit it! I'd make a terrific district attorney.

Are you currently in the process of trying to avoid thanksgiving leftovers? The best way is to quit cold turkey. That's not funny on so many levels.

Don't jump! OK do, and we can talk about scouting, not "metrics" and not "eyeballing," but that third way...Intrigued? Well, jump anyway and let's talk...

When deciding whether an A's player is going to be any good, I use a third method besides examining the numbers and checking what my eyes tell me: I listen to what the A's say and do about him.

For example, I have been bearish about Ryan Sweeney's ability to develop power (and by "bearish" I mean I can't bear to look at his HR totals), because the minor league track record says he never has hit for power and my eyes see an all-fields swing that can't hit HRs the other way. Yet the A's clearly seem to believe Sweeney will develop power and it's not just "happy talk" spin. They have said, consistently, they believe in Sweeney's ability to develop power, they dealt Carlos Gonzalez, and they are building their next contender with Sweeney at the core.

This affects my opinion. If the A's truly believe Sweeney will develop power, and are putting their money where their mouth is, that's the opinion of people who have access to more information than I do, people who see him more, people who know more about scouting than I do, people who have more riding on the accuracy of their beliefs than I have on mine.

Now of course it could be that the A's have no such belief about Sweeney -- that he's who they have so they're talking him up, or that they think he can be an excellent corner OFer without hitting for power. Who knows? My point isn't about Sweeney in particular. It's about all situations where I can use the A's opinion to help form my own.

The A's think Wallace might be able to stick at 3B. The A's felt it made sense to put Cahill into the rotation in 2009. At draft time, the A's thought more highly of Weeks than of Wallace. The A's feel Souza is worth protecting on the 40-man roster. The A's think Rajai Davis can hit well enough to start in CF. Rather than ever just "disagree," I always try, first, to ask myself, "Why?" Because there's often an answer that involves more complex insight, or more information, than I have or have access to.

Should "the A's believe..." be a "top 3" consideration when forming your own scouting opinion? I weigh it pretty highly. But then I'm in the position of knowing I'm rarely the smartest person in the room. Right, Poochini? Cindi?

First Base: A Glut With No Players

Nico — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:56:31 -0000

More photos » by Mark J. Terrill - AP

"Chloroform? Oops."

Browse more photos »

Imagine playing "musical chairs" at a party, where the music stops and there's an empty chair but nobody standing looking for a place to sit. That's more like the "musical chairs" problem the A's could find themselves with at the one position commonly thought to be over-crowded: 1B.

Brett Wallace? That's the guy who has never actually played over at 1B, the guy who continues to play at the position the A's really need a solution. Sure, he could move over to 1B at some point and stay there, but that's a bit different from saying he's adding to a glut. That's kind of like hearing that someone is from Michigan and replying, "Really? I have a brother who's from Wisconsin."

Speaking of my brother, he and his family had a turkey for Thanksgiving again this year. And as usual, they ate lobster. You see, each year my brother (I'm the normal one), his wife, and their three kids, adopt a foster-turkey -- which is different from a Foster Farms turkey in that these turkeys are neither frozen nor deceased. Tom, as this year's guest of honor was called, was very much alive, trotting around the house while somewhere upstream in Philadelphia a lobster went, "Aw man, really?" to a skilled fisherman. However, as my brother projects to be no more than an average 1Bman, he will no longer be part of this conversation.

Chris Carter? Well, in contrast to Wallace 1B is exactly where Carter has been playing but it seems pretty widely agreed that it's one position where he won't stick. In other words, Wallace hasn't yet proven he can't stick at 3B and hasn't shown he can play 1B, but Carter has shown what he can't do at 1B and it's a lot. LF seems like a good bet, and DH appears to be in Carter's future ahead of "happy 30th birthday, Chris!" 1B, on the other hand, is looking less for Carter like a position he'll play long-term, and more like a place he has stood near for far too long.

Sean Doolittle? Here's a guy who finally has the right combination of "plays the position well" and "might hit big league pitching." However, he now has multiple strikes against his making it as a major league 1Bman. Generally healthy, Doolittle suffered a rather significant knee injury last season, one that could impact him into this year. So before we worry about where he'll play and how well he'll play, we need to wait to see when he can play and whether he can come back at 100%. Then he has to be good enough for the big leagues -- which was never a certainty, just a hope. And then 1B has to be where he lands, and it's not where he was primarily playing at the time he lost a knee.

Speaking of which, I'm thinking of starting a knee replacement company. I'm going to call it the Knee Co. (pronounced "NEE-koh") and...well, honestly that's as far as I've gotten.

All of which brings us back to Daric Barton. A guy who didn't take at catcher, couldn't handle 3B, but has found 1B much to his liking -- so much so that he singles a lot, but then so did Hatteberg -- and now stands as an incumbent who is still young, can field the position well, and was always touted for his hitting.

Could 9 Daric Bartons outscore the 1927 Yankees, or would they just fall off, one by one, into a shallow pool in some Synchonized Swimming nightmare? I don't know. But right now Barton is more than the best 1Bman the A's have. He might actually be the only one.

On Cunningham, Patterson, And My Lying Eyes

Nico — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:44 -0000

More photos » by Charles Rex Arbogast - AP

Aaron Cunningham gets ready to show Bobby Crosby what it means to make contact.

Browse more photos »

The trouble with "eyeball scouting" is that sometimes you see things but that doesn't mean you can explain them. I'm curious to get the community's take on two especially puzzling major league samples, those turned in by Aaron Cunningham and Eric Patterson, both of whose callups have shared the same phenomena: Swinging through fastballs.

In Cunningham, you have a hitter who has raked at every minor league level and who, as a result, projects to be a pretty good major league hitter. In Patterson, you have a hitter capable of turning AAA into his own "Hey look, I'm Curtis Granderson!"fest. Yet in both, you have players who have not only failed to turn in good major league numbers overall in their cups of coffee (still adding up to small samples, aka "decaf"), but more surprisingly who have looked positively Jack Hannahan in swinging right through fastballs.

Of all things. In the minors, you have plenty of pitchers who can't command their offspeed stuff or throw enough fastballs for strikes. The one thing you generally get, though, is pitchers who can throw a fastball reasonably hard -- so if the thing you can't do as a hitter is make contact with a good single-A fastball, that's going to catch up to you faster than if you can't recognize a major league slider.

So then maybe you argue that major league breaking pitches and changeups are so much better than those of AAA that the Cunninghams and Pattersons are forced to wait longer and can no longer catch up to the good fastball. Yet we know (because they say so and we believe them) that hitters almost all "look fastball and adjust to offspeed pitches."

This is where my lying eyes come in. The stat-savvy part of me knows that Cunningham's track record and age suggest he will in fact hit big league pitching, so then I'm stuck trying to reconcile the scouting report I would have had if I just saw him play but didn't know his age or track record with the one I actually believe: That somehow, for some reason, he will probably come back up at some point soon and start connecting with the same fastballs he missed in earlier stints. Why?

Let me know your thoughts on Cunningham and Patterson, and why sometimes a good hitting prospect can't connect with a basic major league fastball for a while when they actually can. And share your thoughts about other "lying eyes" scouting that confounds your sensibilities. And have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Warning: Taking Seriously May Be Harmful To Your (Mental) Health

Nico — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:39:02 -0000

First and foremost, all day Saturday (9am-5pm), I'm in front of the CVS at Shattuck/Rose in Berkeley, supervising student volunteers who will be ~~guilt-tripping~~ encouraging shoppers to donate canned foods and Robert Parishibles to the Alameda County Community Food Bank. OptimistPrime and 67MARQUEZ have promised to stop by at some point, and not just because I informed them that if they did stop by I would match all the canned food donations but if they didn't stop by I would take cans out of the barrel and hurl them at frightened kittens. Gigglingone is still thinking about how she feels about animal brutality and is listed as a "definite maybe."

Please stop by and say "hi" if you can. (I don't mean if you can say "hi" -- I mean if you can stop by.) By doing so, you will be helping the hungry (because if you don't stop by, I will see to it that my student volunteers starve). Oh yes, of course, you can bring canned foods too -- terrific idea, excellent point. But mostly, stop by and entertain me. And please don't use excuses like "I live on the East Coast" or "I have to go to work," because we both know that you can still buy a plane ticket and arrive before 5pm, or you can quit your job in order to come entertain me.

So be a team player -- show some grit and intangible leadership and tell the world, "I will make this a canned food drive, not a can't food drive." You were going to come until I said that, weren't you? Dang.

In other news, I'm excited to see some of baseball's metrics now being applied to other sports, as it shows how baseball is really at the forefront of complex statistical analysis.

Baseball fans are familiar with FIP, a pitching metric that only looks at "fielding independent" results such as walks, HRs, and HBP. The NBA has announced they will soon begin using a similar metric known as DIS. DIS stands for Defense Independent Shooting, and will look only at free throws, breakaway layups, and shots defended by Steve Nash. They are also trying to incorporate "line drive rate" into the metric, but so far only Shaq's free throws would be affected anyway.

I really don't get what takes so long about these Staturday posts -- I whipped that one out in less than 15 minutes. What do you mean? That's what who said? Oh, heh.

Finally, John Sickels interviewed Billy Beane yesterday. (I don't mean "He should have interviewed Billy a long time ago!" or "In his last act before dying, Sickels interviewed the A's GM. I mean this information is also the last item in this post.) The interview went kind of like this.

See you tomorrow for a cartoon and a real post -- or see you later today if you care at all about kittens.

The Art & Science Of Well-Timed Acquisitions And Trades

Nico — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:37:48 -0000

Here's how a conversation generally goes with a passionate A's fan unclear on the concept:

2008: "We should get J.J. Hardy; he's really good."
"No way -- we'd have to give up so much to get him!!!111"

2009: "We should 'buy low' on J.J. Hardy."
"No way -- now I'm worried that he sucks!!!111"

2008: "We should sign Russell Branyan; he'll be really cheap."
"No way -- he's not that good!!!111"

2009: "We should sign Russell Branyan; he's proven himself now."
"No way -- now he's overvalued!!!111"

"Hasn't proven he's any good yet!!!111"
"On the decline!!!111"
"Too injury prone!!!111"
"Too good; we can't afford him!!!111"
"Not good enough; we don't want him!!!111"

Thing is...If you stay away from players who just showed how bad they can be, and stay away from players who might have just shown the best they'll ever show, stay away from players who are risks for decline and injury, and don't even think about those really pricey players who are good, established, healthy, and in their prime...Who exactly is left?

This Winter's free agent market features the usual blend of all of the above. Marco Scutaro and Russell Branyan will probably never duplicate the seasons they just had, Miguel Tejada has been declining ever since whatever birthday he had 3 years ago, Ben Sheets and Justin Duchscherer are two of the finest starters who rarely actually pitch, and they certainly never pitch to Nick Johnson, and so on.

The A's current roster has these components as well. You could "sell high" on Rajai Davis and risk trading away one of the few players who actually played well last year -- well at a position where defense is especially important and the dropoff defensively on the current "CF depth chart" is significant. You could trade Travis Buck and/or Daric Barton because they've shown the potential not to be the answer, but then you have to trade them for "might not be the answer" value -- as happened with Sean Gallagher and more recently with Hardy.

The potential trade market is similar too. You could get Garret Atkins for fairly little, but fairly little is what you'll probably get from Garret Atkins. You could roll the dice on the potential hitting prowess of a "major league ready" young slugger like Mat Gamel or Jake Fox, giving up defense for players whose offensive abilities are still unknown. You could hope that Jed Lowrie is as good as he was when he was healthy and is as healthy as he was when he was good, and have two shots at getting burned.

So who might be just good enough to help and just old, young, brittle, or unproven enough to be affordable?

Among free agents, I like Troy Glaus because he's a masher who could provide some insurance at 3B and 1B, while primarily serving as DH (and yes, that means you might see Jack Cust with a glove). The downside is that Glaus is a "triple-threat": He could be declining, he could be injured, and he could be not worth it by way of making Cust field. So it's far from a slam dunk.

Among trade targets, I like Chase Headley because the upside is substantial but he hasn't broken out to where his trade value is through the roof. He also slugged under .400 last season. See? The very reason he might be attainable is also the reason he might be no better than the guys we have (Buck, Cunningham, Barton...). Given that 2009 was not kind to Headley, I wonder what his asking price is for the rebuilding Padres. (Do they know they're rebuilding? If not, someone really should tell them.)

I like Todd Frazier (Reds) because I think he can hit and he is still only a prospect so the asking price shouldn't be outrageous. He also has exactly zero major league hits, walks, and HRs, so it might be a bit early to build the franchise around him.

I also like Shin-Soo Choo because he's really good -- yet the Indians, having recently lost CC Sabathia and Cliff Lee, really should be setting their sights on rebuliding their pitching and Choo might be just "not Grady Sizemore or Asdrubal Cabrera" enough to be considered tradeable. Maybe it's because he plays in Cleveland, but Choo strikes me as a real "under the radar" player -- a guy you think is "pretty good" until you actually look at the numbers and realize no, he's "very good." I wonder what the Indians would ask for in return.

I also wonder where my pants are. Curse you, Sunday morning!

"Manager Of The Year" -- Not For Whom To Vote, But How?

Nico — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:07:40 -0000

There are two things we could do today that we won't do -- three if you include doing the dishes -- and they are to debate whether managers are important, i.e., impactful enough to be worth analyzing, and to debate who should win the coveted "The votes for these awards are always made by the wrong people for the wrong reasons" award for 2009.

If you find yourself venturing into either of these two conversations, then you have to do the dishes and make it a trifecta. Today we're going to look at the "how" -- if intelligent people voted intelligently (sorry, Rafael Palmeiro: NO GOLD GLOVE FOR YOU!), what would form the basis for assessing the Manager of the Year?

The dilemma, conundrum if you will (dilemma if you won't), starts with the fact that managing involves several distinct aspects, most of which are not subject to much concrete or tangible assessment. One is "leadership," another "getting the most out of the team you have," a third "tactical decisions." Managers also communicate with players and the media, convey expectations and enforce limits on and off the field, oversee a group of coaches who serve as important instructors and mentors, and occasionally help the team balance baseball with real life distractions such as sudden tragedy, ill-timed drug suspension, or Milton Bradley.

So in 2009, the Angels were projected to win around 86-88 games, endured a shocking tragedy 3 days into the season, had 1/2 their rotation on the DL for two months, and won 97 games. The Dodgers lost Manny Ramirez for 1/3 of a season but didn't miss a beat. Those two teams also had a heck of a lot more talent than the Giants or Rangers could muster as competition.

The Rockies went from terrible to terrific right as Clint Hurdle became Jim Tracy. Correlation is not causation, and yet the contrast is also stunning.

Ron Gardenhire's Twins seemed to overachieve, winning a weak but not putrid AL Central with a rotation anchored by Carl Pavano, Brian Duensing, Nick Blackburn, and occasionally something called a "Manship," while Francisco Liriano flopped, Glen Perkins and Kevin Slowey were sloweyed down by injury, and then Morneau went down for the stretch drive while even more troublingly, Nick Punto and Brendan Harris didn't.

So how would you take all the teams, with all their given talent and lack thereof and all the unexpected bumps along the way, look at 30 managers and all that goes into being the captain of a ship with a supporting cast roughly as diverse as the crew on The Love Boat, and pick out your Managers of the Year? A job where what you get out of a team is often mistaken for what you put into it?

{credit: The New Yorker Magazine}

Rules That Need To Be Changed

Nico — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:46:40 -0000

Speaking of umpires, umpires need to enforce the rules rather than either making them up ("No, that's only a strike when the count is 3-0"), inventing them ("Ah, that's the 'neighborhood play' as found in section...um, section...well it's the 'neighborhood play'"), ignoring them ("You have 20 seconds to throw the pitch, Betancourt, and you're now at 18...19...19.5...19.9...19.92...Seriously, throw it soon, ok?"), not noticing them ("No, he's not out unless he's tagged while not on the base. He was? Right in front of me? You don't say!"), or randomly channeling Shakespeare ("Ah, but Mauer, you see: Fair is foul...").

And while we're asking the umpires to enforce the rules, could we make a few of the rules better? Some changes I'd like to see...

* Rule Change #1: You can make two trips to the mound each inning before you must make a pitching change. And this includes the catcher.

This would speed up games and would also force baseball players to play the game like athletes do in every other sport. In basketball, you don't see the point guard drive to the left wing, look at the center posting up, and go, "Hang on, hang on -- hey Andre, Larry, come over here. I think we need to set up a bit differently..." You get a very limited number of timeouts if you want to have those discussions, or you can have them during natural breaks such as free throws, TV timeouts, and strategic mascot decapitations ("Oops, clumsy me! I thought for sure I was firing the ball to my center. Well, as long as there's a break let me chat with my small forward").

In baseball, the catcher puts down signs, the pitcher can shake them off -- if there's true uncertainty about what the signs are, the catcher can use up a trip to the mound to sort things out. Heck, in any given inning the catcher can go out one time and later in the inning the pitching coach can still come out to settle the pitcher down by fondling his ass and pointing out that "go get 'em" is an excellent strategy.

This is a baseball game, not a series of committee meetings. Only in baseball would the shortstop have the nerve to join 3 committee meetings in 10 minutes and never once bring refreshments.

* Rule Change #2: Only the base umpire rules on a check swing.

It is absurd, in my opinion, for the home plate umpire ever to judge a check swing. For him to do so is essentially an admission that he was focused partly on the bat at precisely the time he was supposed to be watching the pitch. Meanwhile, you have someone else who at the moment the pitch crosses the plate, has nothing else to do except watch for a check swing, who is in an excellent position to judge a check swing, and who -- and this is a stroke of good fortune -- happens to be one of the umpires.

Furthermore, why does there need to be an appeal? If a right-handed batter checks his swing and the 1B umpires sees it as a swing, why can't he just indicate that it's a strike? And if not, indicate "no swing." It should be his call, and only his call, and like with every other call in the world, perhaps the umpire whose call it is should just go ahead and -- gee I don't know -- make the call?

All this would save Adrian Beltre a lot of trouble. (Not that you can blame Beltre for trying to preserve any balls he can.)

* Rule "Change" #3: There is no such thing as the "neighborhood play" and no such thing as a "takeout slide."

Leave the "neighborhood play" to Mr. Rogers and leave "takeout" to Chinese food. The former is not necessary without the latter, and the latter is barbaric. Plus, neither actually exists in the spirit -- or language -- of the rules of baseball. You are supposed to get forced runners out by touching the base, not by getting near it, and you are supposed to slide in order to avoid going past the bag, not to disrupt the fielder by maiming him.

Either give the middle infielders a tape measure in order to establish "proximity" as they turn two, and give the baserunner a Bengal tiger in order to assist with the maiming process, or get rid of both conventions that don't actually exist and force both sides to play actual baseball on a DP grounder.

What do you think? And what did I miss?