Fantasy catcher debate

I should note that my smack was intended somewhat facetiously, but I will stand by it and take responsibility for my apparently abbrasive remarks. First I should note that Mauer was my number 1 ranked catcher and I would have chosen him over McCann, Martin, Soto, or anyone else. With this in mind, I was clearly thrilled when Mauer was still available even after the other three were taken off the board. I find it completely understandable that McCann was chosen first, especially when considering he has been quite successful for Robbie in the past. To classify a Mauer-McCann dilemma as a crapshoot is okay with me. You're getting two totally different players who give you completely different statlines. Mauer's was my preference from day one. As Troy did, I guess I'll examine each player and try to express my pre-draft feelings on each (inevitably, there will be some hindsight mixed in - I will accept my just punishment).

MCCANN - No problems with making Brian McCann the number 1 catcher in the league. Clearly provides more power than any other catcher (although Soto rivaled him in his rookie season). Over the past three seasons, McCann's lowest RBI total was between 87-93, so you know what you're getting. A career .297 hitter, though it's hard to know if you're getting the .333 McCann from his breakout '06 season, or the .270 McCann that followed, or the .301 McCann last season - which is probably the safest assumption to make. Has the natural catcher run defeciency, having scored a career-high 68 last season (indeed, his .333 avg, 24 HR, 93 RBI line from '06 netted only 61 runs). Eye problems this year were clearly unforeseeable. (That sentence was brilliant art.) Draft McCann if you're looking for power from a traditionally defensively-driven position that is often a liability on fantasy rosters.

MARTIN - His '06 season, which gave him 415 ABs, was his introduction to the limelight as an up-and-coming top tier catcher. During the season, he hit .282 with 10 HR, 65 RBI and R, and even added 10 steals. His '07 season did nothing to diminish the hype, and he became arguably the best catcher in the game, hitting .293 with a perhaps-uncharacteristic 19 HR, to go with 87 RBI and R, plus a 21 in the stolen bases category that would make fantasy owners water at the mouth. Never really caught fire in '08 as his average dipped to a still-respectable .280 (especially for a catcher) with more reasonable power numbers (13 HR, 69 RBI, while still posting an impressive 87 runs). His 18 stolen bases were again a huge plus at the catcher spot. Also, he entered '09 with eligibility at 3B, which was perhaps perceived as more useful than it really is (alas, there is no shortage of third basemen who can give you 15 HR and 80 RBI, although the stolen bases are still a plus at that position).

SOTO - Hyped following his '07 impression, which saw him hit .389 over only 54 AB. Sort of the Pablo Sandoval of '08. Unlike Sandoval, Soto lived up to all of the hyped, hitting .285 with 23 HR, 86 RBI, and 66 runs (again, typical low-run total for a catcher). Not much reason to be down on him for '09, other than a short track record and perhaps superstitions of the dubious sophomore slump. Essentially, he had one year of McCann-like numbers, so no reason to draft him over McCann (who averaged those numbers over the last three years) unless you're expecting him to improve and hit 30 HR and 100 RBI...

MAUER - Blew up in '06, taking the batting title with a .347 mark, posting 13 HR, 84 RBI, and 86 runs. The HR mark would turn out to be an aberration, as his '07 season slumped to a .293 average with just 7 HR, 60 RBI, and 62 R. However, returned to form in '08, hitting .328 with 85 RBI and 98 runs, but only 9 HR. A career .320 hitter, but don't expect anything more than 8-12 HR. However, entered '09 with some injury issues...

Clearly, my affinity for Mauer is NOT the result of disdain for any of the other catchers. In my recent evaluation, I have become aware that all four candidates were clearly in the top tier, and could be counted upon for productive seasons. Alas, let me explain why I had Mauer as my top catcher.

With any player, you're going to get good production in certain categories and a lack of production in other categories (save for such rare players as Pujols, Rodriguez, Wright, etc.). Thus, a player's value is often based on the preference of the stat categories which they tend to produce. For instance, it may in fact be preferable to have Adam Dunn on your roster than Ichiro Suzuki, in the case that you are coveting 40 HRs over a .320+ batting average. For this reason, comparing players of different tendencies is sometimes a touchy matter I suppose.

In comparing McCann with Soto, I felt that they were very comparable in their production in 2008 (both hit 23 HR, McCann drove in 1 more run and scored 2 more). I ranked McCann above Soto because I felt McCann was much more likely to produce those numbers again in '09. Note the fact that McCann, Martin, and Mauer both recessed considerably in the season immediately following their breakout year (Martin in '08, Mauer and McCann in '07). I also felt that McCann had the advantage in average, feeling that his .301 mark in '08 was a true reflection of his career numbers (.297) as was Soto's .285 mark (.279 career).

When comparing McCann with Martin, there was no question in my mind that McCann would be the better choice. Martin's only true advantage over any of the other catchers in question was his stolen base ability, which would possibly net up to 20 steals - and, to a lesser extent, his 3B eligibility. My major concern with Martin was I felt like his career was already regressing. I know I have noted that each of these guys recessed in the year following their breakout/best year, and Martin's '08 season could be dismissed as such. But personally, I felt a different vibe about Martin, and expected his '09 totals to be more similar to his '08 totals than his '07 ones. I suppose it wouldn't be wrong for anyone to expect a return to the nearly 20 HRs and 90 RBI production, but that was not my feeling. My opinion of Martin was as a .280 hitter, with about 15 HR, 70 RBI, and 80 runs. His 15-20 steals, in my opinion, would not make up the difference to McCann's line, which I felt would be somewhere around .300/25/90/65.

Mauer is unique from the other three in that he is average is far superior to "satisfactory." In my opinion, the chance to get a batting champion in the catcher spot would be too much to pass up. Unlike HR, RBI, R, and most of the other stats, a low average by one player can negatively affect the rest of one's team totals. In my opinion, it is easier to make up the counting stats (i.e., the non-average ones) than it is to account for a low average. Having a career .320 (.320!!) hitter in the catcher spot is such a plus to me that I would accept a .320/0/25/25 line with joyful exultation. Moreover, Mauer's lack of home runs does not reflect an anemic amount of power (in the case of slugging percentage). Aware that a guy like Ichiro or Chone Figgins can tear apart a team's slugging percentage just as easily as Adam Dunn can damage a team's avg., I carefully noted that Mauer's slugging percentage was not unreparably below those of the other top catcher. In fact, Mauer's career .466 SLG is significantly better than Martin's .424 mark, and only slightly below Soto's .474. McCann's .500 slugging percentage was significantly better than any of the others in question. Thus, in reference to all other than McCann, Mauer's slugging percentage was comparable or better than any other option, leaving his HR total as his only defeciency. Mauer has produced seasons of 84 and 85 RBI within the last three years: Martin only topped 70 once during this period (with 87), and Soto's mark of 86 last season was not significantly superior. McCann, again holds the advantage, posting 93, 92, and 87 in the last seasons, respectively.

Clearly. Unmistakeably. The question was simply between McCann or Mauer in my mind. Who would I want in my lineup at the "C" slot? I think it is fair to assume that both McCann's and Mauer's '08 statistics were accurate reflections of their mean ability and that their '09 numbers would be in line with them. In 2008, McCann posted marks of .301 (.004 above his career average), 23 HR (1 off his career high), 87 RBI (6 lower than his career high), and 68 runs (7 above his career high). Mauer his .328 (.008 above his career mark), 9 HRs (4 lower than his career high), 85 RBI (1 above his career high), and 98 runs (12 above his career high).

I will go out on a limb here and post what I would consider (and did consider, at the time) fair projections of each player's 2009 stats, based on their career numbers and also placing slightly more value in last season. With some room error, let us assume that these are fair assumptions for each player:

McCann: .300, 25 HR, 90 RBI, 65 runs.
Mauer: .320, 10 HR, 80 RBI, 85 runs.

It is only fair to add that McCann's slugging percentage would likely supercede Mauer's by roughly 30 points.

I decided that Mauer was the more productive player for a catcher in a fantasy lineup. You won't find .320 at catcher anywhere in the league. Heck, you will struggle to find .320 anywhere at any position in the league. I can find guys who will knock 20-25 homers at almost any other position, and Mauer's run total (underrated, I think, because it is uncharacteristically high for a catcher) more than makes up for McCann's RBI advantage. It basically becomes a battle between average and HRs. At catcher, I certainly value average more, because Mauer's actually would pull up my entire lineup's average...from the catcher spot! What a luxury! Meanwhile, I can do without the 10-15 homers over the course of an entire season.

Clearly, since the argument requires such explanation, McCann is certainly just as viable as the top catcher choice (as he turned out to be). It was simply a matter of preferance that had me valuing Mauer of McCann, and the fact that I felt a lack of power at catcher would be far less damaging than a lack of average (although, McCann's average is a "lack" only when compared to Mauer's).

However, I think it is ridiculous to rank Martin and Soto over Mauer, especially when realizing that ours was not the only league to do so. Alas, many experts ranked Mauer in the 4th spot. I'm not saying it wasn't the consensus. I'm just saying it was an absurd consensus. Admittedly, that's easy to say at this point of the season. I would not be depressed if I had chosen McCann over Mauer (in Robbie's case), but had I been one who selected Martin or Soto with Mauer still on the board, I couldn't live with myself. Mauer's '09 early power surge aside, I think the choice clearly should have come down to McCann and Mauer at the top tier, with Soto and Martin following. Obviously, I'm not complaining. Honestly - I got Mauer after Martin and Soto had been selected?! No complaints or regrets here...just perhaps a little bit of good-fun gloating and exhiliration at the providence that dropped him into my lap.

Film Festival

I enjoyed Friday night's Open Frame Film Festival, although I guess I was expecting a little bit more. Most of the films were well-produced; in fact, some of them were enjoyable primarily on their production merit. It was also neat to see the films that some of my friends had acted in or taken part in the production process, and the festival provided a welcome outlet to relax the night away.

I was a little surprised at the lack of depth in many of the storylines. Some were simply pointless (although, in my estimation, some were intended to be so, and thus were effective) while others told a nice story but didn't provide me with a meaningful experience. I'm trying not to be overly critical, especially because I realize that the students put a huge amount of work into these films. It's just that I'm not sure what to blog about the festival, save for hitting the high and low points.

Speaking of low points, I was very disappointed with the gratuitous use of swearing in some of the films. I did my due diligence in keeping an open mind in response to the films, but I was appalled during "Hugging Strangers" (I believe was its title) by the unnecessary, unentertaining, and inappropriate, gratuitous repetition of the "F-bomb." Other films contained similar scenes, although none used language as strong and repetitiously as that film. In light of Eyes Wide Open, I understand that my response should be one of redemption for popular art. What I cannot fathom is why Christians would find such pleasure in creating art that so obviously needs to be redeemed. In my opinion, the producers (specifically of the film I mentioned) neglected their responsibility as co-creators with Christ by including malformed humor that, to me, reviled His name.

Eyes Wide Open

I've been wanting to blog about "Eyes Wide Open" but I figured it best to reflect on the book as a whole. Thus, now that we've finished reading and discussing it, I'll offer my response. In a positive sense, I feel little need for this post to take on the nature of a critique; rather, I would prefer to examine my expectations, reactions, and conclusions regarding Romanowski's work.

Admittedly conservative (particularly in regards to mass media), I was skeptical about what standpoint Romanowski would take in his writing about the relationship Christians should pursue (or avoid) with popular culture. I have consciously resisted the pull to just dive headfirst into the dangerous waters of our sinful culture on the premise of "relating" to my non-believing neighbors. Frankly, I'm sick of the notion that in order for our Christian message/lifestyle to be effective, we must first submerge ourselves completely into contemporary media in order to establish a common ground with unbelievers. I uneasily expected Romanowski to advocate such treatment of culture, and I assumed the title of the book implied such a standpoint.

I was wrong. From the beginning pages, I began to realize that Romanowski's viewpoint was much the same as my own, and although his familiarity and comfort with popular media was far greater than mine, he treated it much the same as I try to. I was impressed by the delicate balance with which Romanowski treated our culture, contemporary media, and the way it should be approached by Christianity. His assertion that "the popular arts are not outside God's judgment - or beyond God's redemption" struck me as a poignant expression of the way I've always felt that media should be treated. Far too often, Christians treat the popular arts as if its creators and viewers are not responsible for its content. This has always bothered my spirit, but unfortunately, this awareness has inclined me to simply hide from all the negative influences of contemporary media (admittedly missing the good, but considering myself better for it in the end). I have struggled to know where the fine line is between being actively involved in media without gratuitously giving myself over to the sinfulness it often condones. Romanowski's suggestion that we should work to redeem the popular arts resonated with me tremendously.

There are numerous aspects of the book that were also affirming for me, and though I will not expound on them I would like to list them here: that faith is not the issue, but rather the context; also, that "Christians need not shy away from the reality of evil in favor of sentimentalism, but a difficulty for artists is to treat the ugliness, brutality, vice, and meanness of sinful humanity without falling into the kind of gratuitous and exploitative depictions that characterize many productions."

Again, an exhaustive account of the things in this book that impacted me would make this post excessively long (as if it's not already). I will conclude by saying the I appreciated Romanowski's profound ability to advocate involvement with popular art while strongly cautioning against a passive intake of it. With "eyes wide open," we must not simply absorb all of the entertainment we can in efforts to simply familiarize ourselves with it; rather, as Romanowski makes clear, we should constantly look for ways in which we can become involved in God's redemptive plan for our culture.

3-31-09 Lecture Summary

Professor Rudd taught us about parasocial interactions. The interactions are defined as a one-sided relationship with a media figure, and were thorougly studied by the psychologists Horton and Wohl. As Rudd pointed out, parasocial interactions aren't really relationships at all, since a "relationship" necessarily involves at least two people. Still, parasocial interactions have a profound impact on our lives and the way we interact with other people.

Rudd then explained the interpersonal relational theory and how it is applied to parasocial interactions. The theory states that people don't disclose secret information until they're confident that the listener has earned their trust (over time). This effect can be thought of visually as a bull's-eye, in which each ring signifies a different level of the depth of information willingly disclosed. The outer ring signifies casual, surface information such as name or physical appearance. While moving toward the center of the bull's-eye, each ring signifies increasingly personal, secretive details that require more time and comfortability with someone in order to be readily shared.

Interestingly enough, we also learned that there is no correlation between loneliness and high parasocial interactions. Likewise, social skills do not correlate to high parasocial interactions. However, research has found that fewer opportunities for social relationships predict higher parasocial interactions.

Lastly, Rudd described ways in which media producers use parasocial relationships. One way is that producers focus on making productions (and personalities) seem more realistic. Other ways are frequency and consistency of appearance (of a certain actor, host, etc.), stylized behavior and conversational manner, and the effective use of the formal characteristics of television.

Problems and Possibilities

The relationship between mass media and society, in many ways, exists to promote unity.  Millions of consumers, whether their diets consist of books, television shows, music, or other texts, may be quickly joined with other consumers based on sharing tastes or information.  This unity opens up countless possibilities, as well as problems, that result from this unique relationship.

Although the word "unity" is rather quite neutral by definition, it has assumed a positive connotation in our society.  Mass media provides our society with a sort of surface unity, making most of us aware of news, ideals, and even the ways in which our own emotions are common with those of our fellow citizens.  In the past, it has helped our nation rally with one purpose, providing us with a sense of solidarity and camaraderie, such as we saw following the tragic events of September 11, 2001.  In this sense, mass media's relationship with society is positive because the media informs the citizens of what is going on in our nation and others, sometimes promoting care and concern for our brothers (Hurricane Katrina comes to mind).

However, unity may be used negatively as well.  In fact, depending on the nature and intentions of those being unified, "unity" can be a dangerous collection of individuals with a shared harmful purpose.  This can be promoted, perhaps even intentionally, by media providing consumers with inaccurate or slanted information.  This can often be seen during election years, when it becomes hard to discern the truth among all of the stories and rumors that the media circulate around the candidates.  As a result, the society is in danger of becoming a misinformed (albeit unified) group of activists rallying around a cause with questionable validity.

It is important for us to realize that unity is beneficial only when centered on the truth, and that we are at the mercy of the media as it filters which information becomes available to us.  Being aware of these factors will help us to understand the relationship between mass media and our society and to help us pursue the benefits of the unity it enables.      

Truth/Fallacy in the "Pull Yourself up by Your Bootstraps" Myth

The myths in contemporary media can be beneficial to people who hear it and believe in it, organizing meaning in a way that allows them to identify their own experiences with it.  The truth in these myths can be helpful in this way, but these same myths also may be untrue in potentially harmful ways.  One of these myths, categorized as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," is both beneficial and potentially harmful because of its capacity for being both true and false.

History holds countless examples of individuals who overcame dire circumstances with little help other than their own will and determinism.  In doing so, these individuals often bettered the circumstances of others around them as well.  One such individual that comes to my mind is Jackie Robinson, the African-American baseball player in the major leagues.  Despite an unimaginable amount of opposition, prejudice, and hate mail, Robinson overcame the color barrier and had such a successful career that he has since been inducted into the Hall of Fame.  Not only that, but he also paved the way for other African-American ballplayers to be given the opportunity to play in the major leagues, and in today's game we are seeing much more diversity among both players and managers.  It should also be noted that both the current and previous career home run leaders, Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron, respectively, were African-Americans.  These records would not have been attainable by these men were it not for Robinson's courageous success in the majors.

However, it is my opinion that although there are numerous examples similar to Robinson's in which an individual overcame the odds and bettered the circumstances of those around him, this myth lends itself to the dangers of an "I can do it all myself" mentality.  We must not let this bold individualism overshadow the equally necessary skill of teamwork and cooperation with other individuals.  Certainly, teams and groups have also attained previously unattainable goals as the result of their chemistry and unity.  Faith solely in oneself and one's own ability can negate the benefits of working with others.

Thus we see that although myths in contemporary media can be beneficial in the right amounts/circumstances, they can also been misused in ways which are detracting.  We should be careful when applying these myths to our own lives, gaining hope from the success and being aware of the risks by which they are always accompanied.  

Bourne Identity: The Myth

Last night, I saw for the first time the movie "The Bourne Identity," which is the first in a trilogy.  I began to recognize some of the myths we learned about in class that were evident in the film's plot line.  In fact, the plot is sort of a hybrid between the myth "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "presence of a conspiracy."

I think the film borrows bits of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" because the main character, Jason Bourne, has to work alone for most of the film.  Although he has a companion, Marie, Bourne doesn't even know who he is at the beginning of the film (the result of his being shot and nearly drowning in the ocean).  In attempts to ascertain his own identity, Bourne traces his own footsteps into the past so he might find the truth about who he is and what his life was before he lost his memory.  Because he works predominantly alone, I think the storyline fits the myth well.  However, the myth typically has the individual pull everyone else around him up with him, but this is not true in this film (although he is beneficial to his lone companion).

The movie intertwines this myth with the "presence of a conspiracy" myth, which dominates the story.  Bourne finds out that he was (is) an assassin who had been hired and trained by a secretive American government agency.  This agency is made up of powerful men who try to undermine the government by hiring assassins and working their will in international affairs behind the government's back.  Although the assassins themselves obviously know the secret of the agency, Bourne is the only one who is a threat to expose it.  Thus, Bourne and the agency line up with the "one man knows the dark secret of the powerful men" pattern that is true of the myth.