Don't it always seem to go
You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone
They take paradise, put up a parking lot.
(Joni Mitchell--Big Yellow Taxi)
Well, it finally happened. Tony La Russa announced his retirement today as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. I think STL fans fall into one of three camps regarding TLR. (1) He is the greatest manager of all time and we are lucky to have had him. (2) He is the village idiot and should have been run out of town years ago; the team won with superior talent and despite the manager. (3) Tony is a great, Hall of Fame worthy manager who could drive you absolutely nuts with some of his managerial moves.
Although I know people in all three camps, most of the most thoughtful ones I know tend to fall into the third group. This is also where I reside. Let's start with what many believe to be his shortcomings:
Tony is one of the more thin-skinned, smug, cocky managers I have ever seen. He treats both media and fans with contempt. He acts as if he is much smarter than everyone else and only an idiot would question him. He is a hot-head and very unlikable from a distance.
At times, he takes the bullet for his team regarding moves. At other times, he tries to shift blame (the bullpen phone snafu) or ignore the issue completely (his drunk driving arrest about which he never spoke).
His hot-headedness affected his relationship with some players. His feuds with players like Ozzie Smith, Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, and Colby Rasmus got them all run out of town. I will admit that the Rasmus trade was a key to winning the WS this year. You always should be willing to trade future assets to win now. The problem I had with the trade is that I really don't believe that was TLR's motivation in pushing for it; rather it was his pique at Rasmus. I think there was a little luck there.
Though he has a lot of company among his managerial brethren, he seems to eschew modern player measuring tools in favor of having "scrappy" players. Therefore, we are always treated to heavy doses of guys like Nick Punto (career OBP .325, career OPS+ 76!!!), Aaron Miles (career WAR 0.8--the definition of average).
His over-specialization of pitchers meant that he had to carry 12-13 pitchers. This so limited the bench that he could never carry decent pinch-hitters. Rather, to be on TLR's bench a player had to be able to play multiple positions which often meant guys with weak bats.
He, again like many managers, gave too many ABs to washed-up players for their "veteran leadership," even thought it is getting on base that scores runs.
I also find it really hard to believe that he had no knowledge of the steroids issue. His defense of Mark McGuire--while throwing Jose Canseco under the bus--is impossible to defend.
All this sounds like I think he was a terrible manager--far from it. But these warts really made it hard for many fans to really like him.
But LaRussa was quite an innovative manager at the same time. His use of the bullpen--while overdone at times--influenced all of baseball. He was an innovator in the use of video with hitters. He was not a gut-feeling manager most of the time, but kept tons of match-up stats that rightly affect playing time. By all accounts (with some notable exceptions), he was a good motivator and ran a quiet, business-like clubhouse. He wisely deferred to Dave Duncan--clearly the best pitching coach in the game--with good results.
In the end, the good far outweighs the bad in evaluating his career. He was a great manager, albeit with some serious quirks.
For the Tony-is-an-idiot crowd, however, I don't think today should be a celebration. The team will move on but it is fair to ask how well. Will management be able to find a manager who can seamlessly move forward? If they make a mistake and the team finishes below .500 for a few years in a row, STL fans would be up in arms.
Though I think they will make a good move, it is a precarious time.
I remember years ago when Fleetwood Mac toured for the first time without Linsdey Buckingham. Though Buckingham was the guy who made the band sound as it did, he was also, shall we say, a little weird. His perfectionist streak annoyed both the band and fans at times. His public persona on stage was at times downright embarrassing. Other than the good music, there was nothing that attracted you to him.
But when the band decided to tour with two guitarist/singers replacing their leader of more than a decade, one reviewer summed up his absence with this phrase: "Less artistic posturing; also, less art."
I hope that St. Louis fans don't end up wishing that he would come back, but you never know.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Elections, the Finale (Hopefully)
If people are interested in a different kind of election, I offer for your consideration what the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does. For those who are not aware, the LCMS is a conservative denomination. It has a congregational system and supervising districts (as we do), rather than central control by bishops as most other Lutheran groups do.
For their national President, the procedure is as follows: Circuits (our sections) elect delegates to the tri-annual convention, one lay and one clergy. Not every church or minister can attend as voting delegates. The circuits also have the right to make nominations for national office. The districts likewise are allowed to nominate candidates.
These nominations are gathered at headquarters. Each one nominated is contacted to see if they wish to run. The candidates are then allowed to put together documents outlining their qualifications and positions. Before the convention meets, a booklet is mailed out with all the business to be conducted and includes these candidate statements. (Also, the number of districts and sections that place a person's name into nomination is given.)
This would place an expectation upon any office-holder who did not expect to run for re-election to announce his or her intent quite a ways in advance so that others could be nominated.
The mechanics are simple enough. We would just need to decide the details.
Now I have a caution. I find the Missouri Synod Lutherans to be very heavily politicized. There are (and have been for many years) organizations within the denomination taking political positions on their future and direction. The recently un-elected president, Jerry Kieschnick, was considered to be part of the liberals and the new president, Matt Harrison, was the darling of the conservatives. (For the record, I have spoken to Matt Harrison several times when I was a student at Concordia. He seems to be a smart, good guy. I also knew that the would be president as early as 2006, though it took until 2010. I have never even seen Jerry Kieschnick.)
I don't mean the terms liberal and conservative in any way that reflects our political system or the Biblical theological world. For the LCMS, a liberal believes the church should be more like American evangelicals (less emphasis on liturgy, clergy robes and collars, and the confessions; more contemporary worship; among some acceptance of female clergy). The conservatives believe the church should be more like it was in the time of Luther (heavy emphasis on liturgy and the confessions; traditional worship; little contact with other denominations). I have generalized here and if any of my LCMS friends read it, they may take me to task. The point is that, although the divisions are put in theological terms, the biggest factional divisions are over church operations.
The politics are a bit ugly for my taste. There are newspapers and websites keeping these issues going and recruiting ministers and lay people to their particular side. As an outsider to their culture, I don't like it.
This is the biggest issue that keeps me from throwing my full support behind a nomination system that allows us to hear from the candidates. Though we have political things going on, our culture pushes those into the background. Overt politicking is frowned upon. I fear that a system like the Missouri Synod uses would inevitably lead us to blatant politics and factionalism. I'm not sure we would like it.
So I have shown you a method from another denomination. It can be done. What we need to decide is if we really want it.
For their national President, the procedure is as follows: Circuits (our sections) elect delegates to the tri-annual convention, one lay and one clergy. Not every church or minister can attend as voting delegates. The circuits also have the right to make nominations for national office. The districts likewise are allowed to nominate candidates.
These nominations are gathered at headquarters. Each one nominated is contacted to see if they wish to run. The candidates are then allowed to put together documents outlining their qualifications and positions. Before the convention meets, a booklet is mailed out with all the business to be conducted and includes these candidate statements. (Also, the number of districts and sections that place a person's name into nomination is given.)
This would place an expectation upon any office-holder who did not expect to run for re-election to announce his or her intent quite a ways in advance so that others could be nominated.
The mechanics are simple enough. We would just need to decide the details.
Now I have a caution. I find the Missouri Synod Lutherans to be very heavily politicized. There are (and have been for many years) organizations within the denomination taking political positions on their future and direction. The recently un-elected president, Jerry Kieschnick, was considered to be part of the liberals and the new president, Matt Harrison, was the darling of the conservatives. (For the record, I have spoken to Matt Harrison several times when I was a student at Concordia. He seems to be a smart, good guy. I also knew that the would be president as early as 2006, though it took until 2010. I have never even seen Jerry Kieschnick.)
I don't mean the terms liberal and conservative in any way that reflects our political system or the Biblical theological world. For the LCMS, a liberal believes the church should be more like American evangelicals (less emphasis on liturgy, clergy robes and collars, and the confessions; more contemporary worship; among some acceptance of female clergy). The conservatives believe the church should be more like it was in the time of Luther (heavy emphasis on liturgy and the confessions; traditional worship; little contact with other denominations). I have generalized here and if any of my LCMS friends read it, they may take me to task. The point is that, although the divisions are put in theological terms, the biggest factional divisions are over church operations.
The politics are a bit ugly for my taste. There are newspapers and websites keeping these issues going and recruiting ministers and lay people to their particular side. As an outsider to their culture, I don't like it.
This is the biggest issue that keeps me from throwing my full support behind a nomination system that allows us to hear from the candidates. Though we have political things going on, our culture pushes those into the background. Overt politicking is frowned upon. I fear that a system like the Missouri Synod uses would inevitably lead us to blatant politics and factionalism. I'm not sure we would like it.
So I have shown you a method from another denomination. It can be done. What we need to decide is if we really want it.
Friday, October 21, 2011
A/G Elections Take 2
At the special District Council for the Southern Missouri District this week, there was a great deal of sentiment to changing our tradition so that delegates would hear from the candidates and know something about them and their views before voting. We have no mechanism for this and even some reasons against such a system. We have traditionally believed that if we pray, God will direct our voting and that it makes no difference what we know.
This is mostly pious fiction. First, we normally re-elect incumbents. Typically, they receive the necessary two-thirds on the nominating ballot. Second, when electing a superintendent to a vacant position, the top candidates are district officials or presbyters. This is even true of the assistant superintendent and secretary-treasurer. If a candidate arises who is not already an official or a presbyter, it is the pastor of a large church.
The point is this: Only those who have a well-known name get elected. If we were really hearing from God, wouldn't you expect maybe, just once, a complete unknown would be elected. Like Saul or David were chosen. But this never happens.
So, we recognize that what we know (or think we know) about people in the district affect our voting. We hope and pray that God will guide us, but we are limited to those we know something about. So if we can get beyond the pretense that it is all about God directing us, perhaps we should consider being more knowledgeable about those upon whom we are voting.
The only way that I can see such a thing working is to completely change the nominating process. I think you would have to have the candidates declared ahead of time so that they have time to put together positions that the district could disseminate to the voters.
I know of one denomination that has this type of system. I got a PhD at Concordia Seminary which is part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. So this post doesn't get too long, I will post again in a day or so that spells out their system for your consideration.
This is mostly pious fiction. First, we normally re-elect incumbents. Typically, they receive the necessary two-thirds on the nominating ballot. Second, when electing a superintendent to a vacant position, the top candidates are district officials or presbyters. This is even true of the assistant superintendent and secretary-treasurer. If a candidate arises who is not already an official or a presbyter, it is the pastor of a large church.
The point is this: Only those who have a well-known name get elected. If we were really hearing from God, wouldn't you expect maybe, just once, a complete unknown would be elected. Like Saul or David were chosen. But this never happens.
So, we recognize that what we know (or think we know) about people in the district affect our voting. We hope and pray that God will guide us, but we are limited to those we know something about. So if we can get beyond the pretense that it is all about God directing us, perhaps we should consider being more knowledgeable about those upon whom we are voting.
The only way that I can see such a thing working is to completely change the nominating process. I think you would have to have the candidates declared ahead of time so that they have time to put together positions that the district could disseminate to the voters.
I know of one denomination that has this type of system. I got a PhD at Concordia Seminary which is part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. So this post doesn't get too long, I will post again in a day or so that spells out their system for your consideration.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Southern Missouri Special District Council
I had posted these comments on a Facebook page but they were removed by the page's creator as not being germane to the subject of his page. I disagree, but it's his page. As suggested by a couple of people, I am repeating those thoughts here.
Yesterday, more than 670 ministers and delegates from the Southern Missouri District of the Assemblies of God met to select a new Superintendent to replace Bill Baker who resigned mid-term and between regular council meetings.
There has been a groundswell developing in the district for younger, new-styled leadership. At least one web-site and a couple of Facebook pages have discussed this issue. Though I am not that young anymore, I sympathize with them. I have always found this district to be somewhat fuddy-duddy in its approach.
Ordinarily in settings like this, one of the other top district officials are the favorite to be elected. The Assistant Superintendent withdrew his name immediately upon being nominated, leaving only the Secretary-Treasurer, Stan Welch, on the ballot from the district officers. Sure enough, after the first electoral ballot, he was leading by a wide margin over a dozen or so candidates (I wish I had access to actual numbers).
On the third ballot, as per our bylaws, everyone but the top three were dropped from consideration. On this ballot through the fifth Stan Welch had a clear lead over the other two. However, his vote total didn't change and he hovered just below 50% (two-thirds is needed for election). One of the districts executive presbyters, Don Miller, began to open up a lead over another executive presbyter, Mickey Davis and was closing in on Stan Welch.
On the sixth ballot Don Miller passed Stan Welch and by the eighth ballot he went over the two-thirds necessary and was elected superintendent.
If you were there, you already know this, if not, I'm glad I could give you the information. But what I find interesting is the story that I think is told by this election.
As I said, it would have been following precedence to elect Stan Welch and, in fact, something like half of the voters seemed to lean that way. Another thing that traditionally happens in elections like this is that when one candidate has a large lead, supporters of the other candidates begin to shift their vote to the leader who looks "inevitable" to them.
Well, that's not what happened this time. Those supporting the other two candidates stayed their course and many of those who had been voting for Stan Welch began to shift. I won't say that this has never happened before, but it is hardly common.
I believe that--fair or not--a sizable portion looked upon Stan Welch (whose position, like the superintendent is a full-time job) as part of the status-quo that they wanted to see changed. I have not been around here long enough to know any of the players in our little drama, but I did already note that the two alternative candidates (including the eventual winner) were executive presbyters. They have many responsibilities and duties that they could also be considered status-quo.
This leads to a possible alternative explanation--that what the voters really wanted was someone who was currently a pastor so that experience would be fresher with the new superintendent. While this may have been behind some of the voting, I still think the non-status-quo argument is the strongest.
It remains to be seen if Don Miller desires to do things differently. I am looking forward to the future with interest.
I would love to hear from those who have the same or a different take on the proceedings. If you got here from Facebook, you can respond there. If you respond on this blog, please use your name. I find it personally frustrating to respond to Anonymous.
(Humorous aside. I was sitting near Ted Cederblom, pastor of the church where the meeting was held. As it began to fill, I asked him, "How many does this church hold?" He shrugged and guessed maybe 500. When the registration closed, it was announced that 678 delegates were present (along with a section of non-voters). I then told him, "Now you know.")
Yesterday, more than 670 ministers and delegates from the Southern Missouri District of the Assemblies of God met to select a new Superintendent to replace Bill Baker who resigned mid-term and between regular council meetings.
There has been a groundswell developing in the district for younger, new-styled leadership. At least one web-site and a couple of Facebook pages have discussed this issue. Though I am not that young anymore, I sympathize with them. I have always found this district to be somewhat fuddy-duddy in its approach.
Ordinarily in settings like this, one of the other top district officials are the favorite to be elected. The Assistant Superintendent withdrew his name immediately upon being nominated, leaving only the Secretary-Treasurer, Stan Welch, on the ballot from the district officers. Sure enough, after the first electoral ballot, he was leading by a wide margin over a dozen or so candidates (I wish I had access to actual numbers).
On the third ballot, as per our bylaws, everyone but the top three were dropped from consideration. On this ballot through the fifth Stan Welch had a clear lead over the other two. However, his vote total didn't change and he hovered just below 50% (two-thirds is needed for election). One of the districts executive presbyters, Don Miller, began to open up a lead over another executive presbyter, Mickey Davis and was closing in on Stan Welch.
On the sixth ballot Don Miller passed Stan Welch and by the eighth ballot he went over the two-thirds necessary and was elected superintendent.
If you were there, you already know this, if not, I'm glad I could give you the information. But what I find interesting is the story that I think is told by this election.
As I said, it would have been following precedence to elect Stan Welch and, in fact, something like half of the voters seemed to lean that way. Another thing that traditionally happens in elections like this is that when one candidate has a large lead, supporters of the other candidates begin to shift their vote to the leader who looks "inevitable" to them.
Well, that's not what happened this time. Those supporting the other two candidates stayed their course and many of those who had been voting for Stan Welch began to shift. I won't say that this has never happened before, but it is hardly common.
I believe that--fair or not--a sizable portion looked upon Stan Welch (whose position, like the superintendent is a full-time job) as part of the status-quo that they wanted to see changed. I have not been around here long enough to know any of the players in our little drama, but I did already note that the two alternative candidates (including the eventual winner) were executive presbyters. They have many responsibilities and duties that they could also be considered status-quo.
This leads to a possible alternative explanation--that what the voters really wanted was someone who was currently a pastor so that experience would be fresher with the new superintendent. While this may have been behind some of the voting, I still think the non-status-quo argument is the strongest.
It remains to be seen if Don Miller desires to do things differently. I am looking forward to the future with interest.
I would love to hear from those who have the same or a different take on the proceedings. If you got here from Facebook, you can respond there. If you respond on this blog, please use your name. I find it personally frustrating to respond to Anonymous.
(Humorous aside. I was sitting near Ted Cederblom, pastor of the church where the meeting was held. As it began to fill, I asked him, "How many does this church hold?" He shrugged and guessed maybe 500. When the registration closed, it was announced that 678 delegates were present (along with a section of non-voters). I then told him, "Now you know.")
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Steve Jobs at the Pearly Gates?
The New Yorker magazine has this clever cover of Steve Jobs being checked by St. Peter not in the physical Book of Life, but on an I-pad. (Although, as my friend Ilene Vick notes, he was a Buddhist.)
This reminds me of one of my favorite nerd jokes. The story is that Bill Gates died and was met by at the entrance to heaven. St. Peter said, "Bill, we are just not sure what to do with you. On one hand, your software brought the computer to so many people for their enjoyment. On the other hand, it was buggy and crashed a lot, causing people to take God's name in vain."
He went on, "Here's what we are going to do. You are going to spend two weeks in hell and then two weeks in heaven. At the end of that time, you will get to choose where you will spend eternity." Bill thought that sounded like a good plan and was immediately transported to hell.
Upon arrival, he was amazed. White sandy beaches stretched as far as the eye could see. Every day was bathed in beautiful sunshine. The beaches were filled with hot women in bikinis. There was ample beer and a party going 24/7. "I'm not sure how heaven is going to top this," he thought.
After two weeks, Bill was transported to heaven. This was a beautiful, marvelous place that his mind found difficult to grasp. It was calm and peaceful and filled with wonder. After a few days, however, it began to feel a little...well, dull. Nothing was happening to stimulate his senses as had been the case in hell.
At the end of the second fortnight, St. Peter summoned Bill and asked him, "Which will it be?" Gates answered, "Heaven is a wonderful place, but I think I would prefer hell." "As you wish," St. Peter declared and Bill Gates was transported away.
After some time had passed, St. Peter made a visit to Bill Gates in hell to find him in torment in the flames. Gates cried, "This is awful. Where are the sandy beaches? Where are the girls and the beer? This isn't what I signed up for." Whereupon Peter replied, "Oh, that was the beta version. This is the final release."
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Riddle of Columbus Day
Friends on Facebook have been posting interesting sayings regarding Columbus day: Let's Celebrate Columbus Day by walking into someone's house and telling them we live there now. Or this: If the Somalia pirates discover something while they are murdering and robbing like Columbus did, will we make a holiday for them?
It's easy and fashionable to denigrate Columbus and, by extension, the European colonization of the Americas. The indigenous peoples were treated horribly--killed, enslaved, relocated, absorbed. I have two thoughts on this trend:
(1) Anyone willing to give up their house or land so that we can return this continent to its state in the 16th century? I didn't think so.
(2) Europe desired to explore and expand. Anything inherently wrong with that? When arriving on this continent, they were technologically light-years ahead of those people who resided here and those people didn't exactly fill the lands, but only lived in a few areas. So what were the colonists to do? Turn around and go home?
Should they have acted differently? Absolutely. But this does not excuse the smug self-righteous exercise of demonizing Columbus and the exploration of the New World. Can we have a little balance here?
It's easy and fashionable to denigrate Columbus and, by extension, the European colonization of the Americas. The indigenous peoples were treated horribly--killed, enslaved, relocated, absorbed. I have two thoughts on this trend:
(1) Anyone willing to give up their house or land so that we can return this continent to its state in the 16th century? I didn't think so.
(2) Europe desired to explore and expand. Anything inherently wrong with that? When arriving on this continent, they were technologically light-years ahead of those people who resided here and those people didn't exactly fill the lands, but only lived in a few areas. So what were the colonists to do? Turn around and go home?
Should they have acted differently? Absolutely. But this does not excuse the smug self-righteous exercise of demonizing Columbus and the exploration of the New World. Can we have a little balance here?
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Most Interesting Country Album Ever
(Note: I am once again returning to blogging. I have actually discovered a couple of people were reading. This is not my deepest post, but it might be interesting to someone.)How do you like that title? Well, hear me out. I am not a real country fan. Back in the day, I liked the late 60s-early 70s country rock of the Byrds, Flying Burrito Bros, Poco, and Eagles, but it didn't get me into the originals. I discovered bluegrass when the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band put out Will the Circle Be Unbroken.
At the same time, I detested Tammy Wynette-styled music and the Nashville Sound. Today, most pop-country offends my ears with its lack of authenticity or artistry.
That said, this album is a wonder. Hank Wilson's Back is the 1973 product of Leon Russell, an Oklahoma-raised turned L.A.-hippie musician. It actually received a bit of airplay on FM rock stations, who recognized its genius even though they didn't ordinarily play country music.
What is immediately obvious is Leon's love of this music. This is stone-cold country, made in an era when the record-buying public wasn't interested; he certainly didn't make it to be commercial. There are no dumb songs here; no D-i-v-o-r-c-e corniness. There are quite few standards, a few more-obscure (at least to me) but quality tunes.
Just about every country genre is covered, either by song or style. There is bluegrass, straight-ahead country, Nashville sound, honky-tonk, Texas swing, even a hippie-styled update of "Battle of New Orleans." The only thing missing is cajun music. Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, Jimmy Driftwood, George Jones, and Ledbelly are among the songwriters covered.
If you have any interest in authentic quality country music, this album is certainly worth a listen. Tracks are available on You Tube and Grooveshark. If not, thanks for stopping by; perhaps I'll have something more interesting for you next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
