Office Hours is back this Friday 8/12 2-3pm EDT. Join the pack to check it out.

Never Give Up Hope

I was re-reading Ben Hunt’s superb series Things Fall Apart in the midst of research for my own c
You have reached the maximum number of free, long-form articles for the month.

Please join here to read the rest of this content.

Paid Members can log in here.

To learn more about Epsilon Theory and be notified when we release new content sign up here. You’ll receive an email every week and your information will never be shared with anyone else.

Comments

  1. Wow, I’ll be sure to tell my dad about that Rush Limbaugh nugget; he was a huge Brett fan. Welcome aboard David!

  2. David, I really like this new angle - ancient literature, movie quotes, and philosophic remnants are wonderful but good ol’ Americana fills a need - especially when it’s real and back in my day. Good on ya, mate, keep ‘em comin’.

  3. Avatar for dsalem dsalem says:

    Thanks, Jason. Like your dad, I’ve always admired Brett’s athletic abilities (but not necessarily his politics), not only on the diamond but elsewhere. Several months before the Pine Tar Incident, I was in line outside a sports bar in downtown Chicago watching through the window as a manifestly gifted athlete made something like 15 straight one-handed “swishes” at the indoor basketball hoop situated on the indoor side of the window. When the shooter finally missed, gave up the privilege of getting-another-shot-if-you-make-one, and turned around, laughing and taking high fives from bar patrons waiting for their own turns to shoot, I was pleased but not truly surprised to see that the one-handed wonder was George Brett — in Chicago to pocket some dough as a spokesman for a sporting goods company exhibiting at the same trade show I was attending that week. Like just about everyone who’s ever played in the big leagues, Brett was and is a superb athlete. I could cite numerous other examples of MLB players who’ve excelled at sports other than baseball, especially those entailing precise repetitive motions after carefully executed moments of relative stasis, e.g., Hall of Famer and ace golfer Mike Schmidt, future Hall of Famer and ace bowler Mookie Betts, etc., etc. In a long form note for ET that’ll appear in due course, I’ll tell a true tale about a fun encounter that my own dad and I had with Schmidt on the golf course some years ago, while Schmidt was honing his game in hopes of making the senior PGA tour.

  4. Avatar for dsalem dsalem says:

    Thanks. Will do, enthusiastically and happily.

  5. “As became clear…final half-inning.” 80+ words!! Time for relief ;()

  6. Avatar for dsalem dsalem says:

    Point well taken, gratefully and smilingly. That said, I presume in crafting certain unusually (if not overly) long sentences that many readers will have endured even more tortuous baseball-related experiences, like the one suffered by fans attending the Giants-Angels game last April 22nd. That game featured the longest at-bat in MLB recorded history: Brandon’s Belt’s 21-pitch, 13-minute tussle with Angels pitcher Jaime Barria. Sadly for Belt, his record-setting at-bat ended in an out — a fly ball caught by an Angels outfielder.

  7. Cheers! Bull pen relief is a winning strategy, too !

  8. Looking forward to it!

  9. David, setting aside silly things such as “rules” and whatnot, and focusing on the “spirit” of the game, in the case of Altuve/Betts, why should the benefit of the doubt be given to the fielder versus the batter? The former needed to make an exceptional play on a ball that the latter objectionably hit out of the park. The call, very clearly, should have been given to the batter and upon review a “lack of evidence” should have justified the call on the field. When, in fact, the reverse happened. It was plain as day that the call on the field couldn’t be overturned, it just seems like the benefit of the doubt should have been given to the batter and not the fielder. I suspect our widening gyre will prevent us seeing eye to eye on this but I know you know in your heart that I’m right.

    Cc: Ben and Rusty

  10. Avatar for dsalem dsalem says:

    James: Thanks for your thoughts here. While agreeing that we’ll have to agree to disagree, agreeably, on whether fans interfered with Betts, I’ll offer here something that space limitations prevented me from including in “Never Give Up Hope”: in baseball as in society more generally, I think the rules and interpretations of same should do all they can to promote the behaviors we most want to have fans and citizens more generally exhibit. By my lights, baseball wants and indeed needs for fans fortunate enough to have front row seats to do all they can to “stand back” when their failure to do so could prevent on-field athletes from doing their best. Altuve had a chance to do his best at the plate in Game 4, and performed admirably, no doubt about that. Alas, Betts was deprived of the chance of doing his very best. The rules of baseball and interpretations of same fall short when they encourage or even tolerate such deprivation, IMHO, with emphasis on the “H”. Thanks again for weighing in. Humbly and respectfully, David

  11. I thought the rules on fan interference only applied to those actions within the playing field. Therefore, the question is or should be whether the attempted catch was within the playing field or outside the playing field. If the former, no doubt about interference. If the latter, no interference and the Altuve home run should have been allowed.

  12. You are suggesting there should be ‘behaviors we most want’. Reluctantly, I could agree with that as long as we could agree that batters should call pitches against themselves, tennis players could over-rule line judges against themselves, and football players could spot the ball less advanced.
    We both know none of that is likely to happen. And so we have to rely and play by the existing rules - not an idealized (relativistic) version. Sorry to be a pain!

  13. Point of order - There was only ONE camera angle that gave the answer to the question of “Interference?” or “No Interference?”; and the photo above is not it, but the photo is useful. In the photo above, the guy in the WHITE shirt is the key, for his hand hits the hand/arm of the guy in the orange shirt (and what looks to be a “Reagan/Bush” ball cap) - and “Orange shirt” is responsible for closing Betts’ glove which otherwise certainly makes the catch. TBS looked at the play from as many angles as they could, but the one that would have given the answer was blocked (if memory serves) by a Security Guard. However, the smoking gun was the one angle which showed the SHADOW of the arm of the guy in the white shirt fully formed on the yellow paint defining the top of the wall. If he was NOT in the field of play, his shadow could not possibly have shown and extended over the yellow paint. And if white shirt’s arm and hand are in play, by definition Orange Shirt’s are as well. Unfortunately, Ron Darling and Brian Anderson didn’t notice the shadow, and TBS only went to that angle a couple of times. The call was correct for those with Clear Eyes and Full Hearts (even if that heart belongs to a Yankees fan!). And its STILL true even if I fully disclose that my Grandfather worked at the Deaconess Hospital and we could walk to Fenway…

Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum

Participants

The Latest From Epsilon Theory

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.