Milwaukee Brewers Catcher George Kottaras Hits for Cycle
Tonight, Milwaukee Brewers catcher George Kottaras hit for the cycle. He’s only the seventh Brewer to have done so, and is the third catcher behind Charlie Moore (who did so in 1980) and Chad Moeller (who did so in 2004) to have attained this feat. Kottaras is also the first major leaguer to have done so in 2011.
Now, for you non-baseball fans out there, “hitting for the cycle” means that Kottaras hit a single, a double, a triple and a home run in the same game. It is exceptionally difficult to do, and happens only rarely. (For example, Corey Hart nearly hit for the cycle a few weeks ago, but didn’t quite get it. And my favorite minor league player, Vinny Rottino of the New Orleans Zephyrs, nearly hit for the cycle this year but didn’t quite make it, either.)
Here’s a player analysis of the six Brewers (before tonight’s game) who hit for the cycle, in case you’re interested: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/392627-player-analysis-the-six-brewers-who-have-hit-for-the-cycle
Here’s part of what the Bleacher Report article has to say about Charlie Moore, the second Brewers player overall to do so:
Moore reached the cycle on Oct. 1, 1980 . . . According to Baseball-Reference.com, Moore pounded out four hits in a 10-7 win against the California Angels. Moore went 4-for-5, knocking in three runs and scoring three times.
A bit later, the same article observes:
Moore’s career spanned 15 seasons and 1,334 games. He finished with 1,052 hits, 408 RBI, and a .261 lifetime batting average.
During his time with the Brewers, Moore played multiple positions. As a right fielder in ’82, Moore posted an impressive .992 fielding percentage, second best in the American League.
I was young in 1982, but I remember Moore’s play very well; he was an outstanding defensive outfielder, a good defensive catcher, and a very good contact hitter when he was on. He is by far my favorite Brewers player because he maximized his ability every time he went out onto the field; he was the type of guy who had no “quit” in him, and I greatly respected that.
Now, Chad Moeller is another story; while Moeller is an excellent defensive catcher, no one could ever say that Moeller’s added much with his bat except for one evening in 2004 — April 27, 2004 to be exact.
Here’s what the same Bleacher Report article has to say about Moeller:
Moeller reached the accomplishment by going 4-for-5, with four RBI and one run scored.
A bit later, the B/R article states:
Moeller spent three seasons in Milwaukee (2004-06), splitting time at catcher with Gary Bennett and Damian Miller. The year Moeller hit for the cycle, he played in 101 games, the most by far in his career.
Moeller is a career .226 average hitter, while Moore, over fifteen seasons, hit for a career .261 batting average — very solid hitter, Moore. But as the B/R article says, the “stars aligned for Moeller” and he did, indeed, hit for the cycle.
Now, as for Kottaras . . . to date, he’s a career .219 hitter with some power in his bat and has greatly improved, defensively, in the past year or two since he came to the Brewers. Kottaras, entering tonight’s game, was hitting .241; because he’s played sparingly, his excellent game tonight raised his average to .273 with 4 HRs and 14 RBI in 88 official at-bats in only 38 games. (Kottaras plays once a week or so, mostly because he is Randy Wolf’s “personal catcher.”)
In tonight’s game, Kottaras started instead of Jonathan Lucroy perhaps so Lucroy could rest a bit, as Lucroy has caught a great many games this year (116 to date). His start obviously paid off for Brewers manager Ron Roenicke, and for the Brewers as a whole.
I like Kottaras; he’s a scrappy hitter with some power and speed to him, and he fights for every at-bat he gets. I wouldn’t have said, before tonight, that it would be likely that Kottaras would hit for the cycle as he’s received very little playing time; for example, Charlie Moore played in 111 games in 1980, batting .291 with 2 HRs (one of ’em being in that “cycle” game), 30 RBI, 10 SBs and 42 runs scored, so Moore had more opportunities to get his cycle in during the 1980 season than Kottaras has had this year.
That being said, Kottaras is now in rarefied company, as among the seven people who’ve hit for the cycle are Brewers Hall of Fame players Robin Yount (SS-CF) and Paul Molitor (3B-DH) along with Moore, Moeller, Mike Hegan (who hit the very first cycle in Brewers history) and Jody Gerut (who hit for the cycle last year).
Congratulations!
Just reviewed Jennifer Haymore’s “A Season of Seduction” for SBR
Folks, I wanted a great deal more than I got out of Jennifer Haymore’s “A Season of Seduction.” Maybe it’s that there are a great many more writers who’ve worked this sort of premise better, including Sherry Thomas and Rosemary Edghill — I know better writing exists, and better books, and this one just did not measure up.
Anyway, here’s the link to tonight’s review at SBR:
What to do when a Publishing Relationship Ends
Why is it that most writers plan for the beginning of a publishing relationship, but never plan for the end?
I know, I know. The end of any relationship, in or out of publishing, is not what most people prefer to dwell upon because it’s depressing. The end of any relationship means the end of any current possibilities, and that’s sad and extremely difficult for most human beings to contemplate.
That being said, in the current world we live in, we need to plan how to deal with failure graciously. (Not that every end to every publishing relationship means you’ve failed, mind you; just that it’s going to feel like failure, especially when you know you’ve tried everything in your power to make a publishing enterprise work.) We need to learn how to come to terms with setbacks, be they minor or major, and learn to deal with them as graciously as possible.
See, I look at the publishing business as a long-term thing that, in its own way, is a microcosm of life. We’re going to have good days and bad. The good days are usually easy to handle; it’s the tough ones we must learn from as best we can.
What I do when a publishing relationship has ended is to acknowledge it, make some sort of announcement to those who need to know about it, and am otherwise as polite as humanly possible. My thoughts, which are greatly influenced by those of my late husband Michael in this regard, are these: who knows if I’ll be working with this person/these people in the future? So why be obnoxious now when there’s really no need for it?
Yes, we need to acknowledge when we’re upset or frustrated. I’ve never advocated “sitting on” any emotion, as in my experience that tends to fester and make things worse later on. But we don’t need to go out of our way burning bridges this way and that, either . . . in fact, if we can avoid burning bridges, that’s probably the best way to handle things.
All that being said, it’s sad when anything you’ve spent a great deal of time and effort on goes for naught; I’ve had this happen a few times this past year, and the only thing that can be done is this: chalk it up to experience, be as polite as possible, and move on.
This is very hard to do, granted. But if you can do it, others will notice and appreciate the professionalism of your attitude, which may lead you to further and better work in the future.
So, to sum up, here’s the three things you need to do when a publishing relationship of any sort ends:
1) Come to terms with it and write a brief, polite, professional note saying you’re sorry things have come to this pass (whatever it is), and that you’ve appreciated working with whomever. Also, if you can bring yourself to it, wish the person (or people) well in the future as this costs you nothing.
2) Acknowledge it to those who need to know in a brief, polite and professional note. (Keep your feelings about it, as much as possible, to yourself.)
3) Allow yourself to grieve the loss, because it is a loss — give yourself an hour, or even half a day if you must, to be upset over it. Then, do your best to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on.
Most importantly, do your best not to bear a grudge. Remember that we’re all human, we’re all fallible, and there’s no need to spread nastiness. You don’t need to put up with bad treatment, mind you; far from it. Just try to rise above it if you can while knowing that it’s possible that someday you might work with this person (or these people) again. And if that opportunity arises, you want to be able to work with whomever without undue rancor if at all possible.
You need to think long-term at a time when your inner self is screaming, “No!” at the top of its lungs. This isn’t easy, but if you can do it, it’ll help you in the long run.**
——–
** Michael’s name for this was the “better in sorrow than in anger” method. Try it. It works.
Chris Capuano, now a Met, pitches a 2-hit shutout
Former Milwaukee Brewers pitcher Chris Capuano, now 33 years of age, pitched a 2-hit shutout in New York for his new team, the New York Mets, last night. Capuano did this knowing full well that Hurricane Irene was on its way and won easily, 6-0, against the Atlanta Braves.
As the story from the New York Times said:
While the storm commanded headlines, Capuano’s superb performance got attention at Citi Field. He threw a two-hit shutout, striking out a career-high 13 and walking none.
“I was able to get ahead and just finish some guys off,” Capuano said. “It just felt really good.”
The Times story also pointed out that Capuano did not fret about the weather before Friday evening’s game as many of his teammates (quite understandably) did. Capuano’s serenity paid off, as he took a no-hit bid into the 5th inning before Dan Uggla got the first hit off Capuano, a single.
Here’s a bit more from the story:
Capuano threw at least 65 percent of his pitches for strikes in all but three innings, according to data from the Web site pitch f/x. He effectively used his changeup, which generated swinging strikes more than 25 percent of the time.
Capuano said his trust in catcher Josh Thole was an important element of his outing.
“I took a little different mental approach tonight,” said Capuano, who improved to 10-11. “I really tried not to shake off too much and just stayed in a good rhythm. I let Josh call the game back there, and it worked out.”
This was by far the best game Capuano has pitched since his return to the big leagues last year for the Brewers.
As I said last year when “Cappy” returned to the Brewers after rehabilitation from a second “Tommy John” surgery, I knew it was only a matter of time before he’d regain his complete pitching form. But now, it looks like he’s done so, and the Mets are the beneficiaries of taking a chance on him.
“Cappy,” when he’s on, pitches lights-out in the same way future Hall of Fame pitcher Greg Maddux used to (Maddux, like “Cappy,” never had blazing speed; he instead had pinpoint control). He’s also one of the most professional, put-together ballplayers around, as shown by going out the night before he knew a huge hurricane was on the way that was about to postpone the rest of the baseball series and pitch a two-hit, complete game shutout.
Note that ESPN.com called Capuano’s performance last night “one of the best games in (Mets) franchise history.” And on that article page is a link to last night’s “Baseball Tonight” show on ESPN where the commentators talk about how good it is when a veteran like Capuano can “persevere” through two major arm surgeries, which just goes to show you how important persistence — along with faith and belief in yourself — can be in overcoming nearly any obstacle.
The only odd thing about Capuano’s game last night from my perspective (being a long-time observer of his pitching style) is that “Cappy” struck out thirteen guys. (Not walking anyone, well, that’s part of “Cappy’s” game.) Normally, “Cappy” is a pitcher who induces a lot of ground-ball outs and might strike out one or two guys, not thirteen. Even in “Cappy’s” best season, 2005, where he was 18-12 for the Brewers, he didn’t come close to doing anything like this.
As Chris Capuano’s USA Today fantasy baseball page put it (emphasis added):
Chris Capuano had the start of a lifetime on Friday, striking out a career-high 13 in a two-hit shutout of the Braves in New York.
The outing was one of the best by any pitcher in baseball this season.
Well done, “Cappy!”
Just reviewed Anjali Banerjee’s “Haunting Jasmine” for SBR — Plus More Book Review Stuff
Before I forget, here’s the link to today’s review:
Now, as to the rest of the “book review stuff” I promised.
I started following author Victoria Strauss on Twitter and one of the articles she Tweeted (or possibly re-Tweeted as I now can’t find it) talked about how some places are paying people a fee, per review, in order to give a place a five star review. An undeserved five star review, at that — the highest possible rating for many rating scales — which skews the curve and makes a business that employs this practice seem to be a little better than they really are until people catch on that many of the highest reviews are out-and-out frauds.
I quickly did a Web search and put in “pay for reviews.” I saw many links at Craigslist and other places (including Jobs.com) promoting this despicable practice. Which is why I wanted to discuss it tonight.
I review books because I enjoy reading and I enjoy reviewing what I read. I do my best to give the fairest review I possibly can. I don’t give a ton of negative reviews, but I have been known to give two star reviews and have even given a one star review to a major author (Mercedes Lackey) once because I felt she could do much better and that she also should’ve known better because by that time she’d published at least fifteen solo novels and certainly knew her art and craft. (Mind you, this is where the highest review possible is a five-star review.)
I also, occasionally, have re-reviewed something when I felt I didn’t give someone a fair shake; I’ve discussed that here on my blog before. I don’t do this often, but if I feel I’ve made a mistake, or that there were other things that I should’ve known but somehow didn’t that clearly would’ve changed my review, I’m glad to correct the record as best I’m able.
But I do that because I’m honest, and because I like books, not because anyone is paying me to give ’em a better review.
Look. The only thing a reviewer should accept from a place like Baen Books or Tor Books or whatever publisher is a free copy of the book (in dead-tree or e-book form). That’s it — that’s the only gratuity any reviewer worth his or her salt should accept — because if reviewers start accepting money from a publisher (or from a travel company, which is one of the places hiring for the fraudulent reviews) in order to review something, that throws the entirety of their reviews into question. And by extension, it makes every reviewer — including the poor but honest ones, like me — look bad.
I love books, and I don’t enjoy giving bad reviews to anyone. But I’ll do it — I’ve done it with Debbie Macomber, one of my favorite romance authors, in my review for “Hannah’s List” at SBR. I’ve done it at Amazon.com in a review for one of Ursula K. LeGuin’s books (two stars). I’ve done it at Amazon.com in a review for one of Misty Lackey’s books as previously mentioned, and Lackey is one of the few authors I’ll go out of my way to buy in hardcover.
The reason I do it is because if I don’t like a book, I had better say so, and say why I don’t like it. This is the right thing to do, and it’s the only fair thing to do, even if you occasionally tick off one of your favorite authors in the process.
So if you’re thinking about selling your skills to write a fake review, please take another look at this and realize it’s a scam. Yes, you’ll get paid something to do it. But you’ll also be selling something that’s far more worthy than any amount of money — your good name and reputation.
———-
Additional note — there are still some places out there, like the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Washington Post, who pay book reviewers for their time and trouble. I am all in favor of paying reviewers when it’s done by an independent newspaper or online source. But that in no way, shape or form allows for people to sell fraudulent reviews to Web sites.
Periodic State of the Elfyverse
Folks, it’s been a while, so it’s time for another “state of the Elfyverse” blog.
What’s going on with the Elfyverse right now is that I’m stalled in part 47 of AN ELFY ABROAD (the sequel to ELFY, which still hasn’t found a home). I have figured out an alternate beginning to ELFY which may help me find an agent who’ll understand it and help me find a publisher, but I haven’t yet managed to get it down in a way that makes any more sense than what I already have. (“May” being the operative word, of course.) And I managed to get a few thousand words into the ELFY prequel, KEISHA’S VOW . . . mind you, KEISHA’S is a big-time prequel as it’s set in 1954 and ELFY is present-day. (The dead characters in ELFY are alive and well in KEISHA’S, and it explains in part — or should, once completed — why one of the ELFY characters is such a mucked-up mess.)
Things get a bit more problematic when I start trying to fix an Elfyverse short story “Boys Night In,” as so far I’ve had comments like, “The dialogue makes no sense.” “They get into this way too easily.” “What’s the point of this again?” and so on. (I did get high marks for humor from one test reader. So I’m still doing something right.) So that story is in need of extensive revision, perhaps to the degree Carolyn See recommends in her book MAKING A LITERARY LIFE, complete with the wine, the red pen, and more wine.
The good news is that I’m still hard after it; the bad news is that when I get stalled in a chapter (as I am in part 47 of EA) I just sit there until I figure out whatever’s bothering me. This is a far different process than what I had while Michael was alive, as we were both writing the story then and talking things out with him — always an interested audience, even when I wasn’t writing an Elfyverse story of any kind — made big messes like this one get solved a little faster. Or in this case, a lot faster as I’ve been stuck in the same place for at least three weeks.
Some of my friends who are authors write different things — say, a romance instead of a Western, or a hard SF story instead of a mystery — to break a hard block like this one. I’ve tried that in the past and for whatever reason, unless I have a really good idea in a different genre that takes off, it just doesn’t work for me. Whatever it is in my backbrain has to take its own, sweet time toward resolving itself, and then and only then can I get on with the business of writing.
While I’m doing all that, I continue to edit. And, of course, I comment, I blog when the mood strikes me (or a really big story hits that I know I can’t pass on no matter how blocked I feel at the time), and I just let things play out as they will.
See, the best thing we can do when we’re stalled on a project is to continue to have faith in ourselves. We’ve already written X words (in my case, probably well over 600,000 in the past seven years, and who knows how many before then? Many, many, many.), and we’re going to write more, so why fret it?
Or, as Michael used to tell me, “If you can’t write today, you will write tomorrow. And if you’re too ill to write tomorrow, you’ll write three times as much the next day.” (He knew me very well, and he was always right about such things.)
The upshot is, it’s pointless to fret, even though it’s very human that we do so . . . and sometimes, the best “medicine” with a story is to completely get away from it (perhaps by what my other writer-friends have suggested by writing something completely different, or perhaps a change of scenery or a vacation away from the MSS) so you can come back at it afresh.
I’m doing my best to listen to Michael’s advice, as it was always good, and try to be patient with myself. I’ve got a better shot that way at breaking the block in part 47, and then, once that’s gone, working on part 48 and winding up the first draft of EA, however many more chapters that’s going to be. (I estimate seven. But who really knows?) Once I’ve done that — completely managed to get the whole EA story out of my head and onto the page — then I have a better shot at fixing “Boys Night In” and perhaps writing an alternate opening to ELFY that might increase its chances of finding an agent or publisher who’ll love it and can’t live without it.
Tonight’s SBR review: Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Bright-Sided”
Folks, you need to read Barbara Ehrenreich’s BRIGHT-SIDED. You need to read it right now, then come back and talk with me — because this is the most honest take on what Ehrenreich calls “the cult of positive thinking” I’ve ever seen.
Here’s my review, which I finished about fifteen minutes ago at SBR:
I hope to have more thoughts about this astonishingly relevant book tomorrow, but for now, all I can say is, “Brava, Ms. Ehrenreich!”
Recalls, part 3 (the end, for now) — Wirch and Holperin Retain their Seats
Folks, the Wisconsin “recall summer” came to an end last night, with incumbent Democratic Senators Bob Wirch and Jim Holperin** retaining their seats, both in comfortable fashion. These two recall elections were the last of nine recalls that were scheduled between July and August, and the final standings were that seven incumbents won — three Democratic incumbents (all three of them; the third was Dave Hansen, who crushed his opponent on July 19) and four Republican incumbents — and two challengers won, Democratic Assemblywoman Jennifer Shilling in Lacrosse and Oshkosh’s former deputy mayor Jessica King, also a Democrat.
That means that none of the “Wisconsin 14” Democrats lost their seats over their actions of leaving the state in February in order to protest Governor Scott Walker’s “budget repair bill” which attempted to strip public employee union members of their rights. Two of the six Republicans who were recalled for voting in lockstep with Scott Walker and the Fitzgerald Brothers (Jeff, the Speaker of the Assembly, and his brother Scott, Senate Majority leader) regarding the “budget repair bill” and many other controversial issues, including taking $800 million out of Wisconsin’s public education budget, ended up losing their seats (the ousted Republicans being Dan Kapanke of LaCrosse and Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac).
Overall, what the recall season proved is that an incumbent Senator on either side, in general, has a serious edge over a challenger regardless of the nature of the dispute that has brought him (or her) to be recalled and have to stand for election once again. The recall summer has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Wisconsin remains a 50/50 state — a state that neither Democrats nor Republicans can say solidly is behind their policies — which you’d think would make Wisconsin stronger rather than weaker in the days and weeks to come.
However, the reason I say that the recalls have ended “for now” is because I’ll be really astonished if we don’t see more recalls at the first of the year. The freshmen Republican Senators are eligible to be recalled as of January 3, 2012, as is Governor Scott Walker, and it looks more likely than not that Walker, and several Republican Senators who followed the party line, including my own Van Wanggaard of Racine, will be recalled. Further, there are some members of the Democratic “Wisconsin 14” who can be recalled, including the high-profile Senators Chris Larson of Milwaukee and Jon Erpenbach of Middleton — neither one of these Senators would be likely to get voted out, but the Republicans may well be able to get the signatures needed to force a recall election for all I know. (Note that the two newest members of the Wisconsin state Senate, King and Shilling, are not eligible to be recalled. They must, however, defend their seats in November of 2012, so they’ll have just over a year to prove their worth to their constituents.)
What adds fuel to the fire here is the new, gerrymandered map of political districts, which will make three Senate seats — including Alberta Darling’s district 8 and Wanggaard’s district 21 — much more safely “Republican.” Those new boundaries are expected to kick in for the November ’12 elections, which is why getting Wanggaard out is likely to happen sooner rather than later as his current constituents want him out, partly because he voted for that horrible map which will make his district part rural Racine county and part rural Kenosha county, excluding much of the city of Racine. Note that the “new” boundaries of district 21 would include Senator Bob Wirch’s house — yes, Wirch was “drawn out” of his own, home district 22 (which right now is the city of Kenosha, Kenosha County, and a little bit of Racine County) — so it’s possible Wanggaard might get recalled anyway no matter who his constituents are, as Wirch is extremely popular in Kenosha (city and county, both) and would be as likely to knock Wanggaard out of office as anyone, should he choose to do so. (Note that Wirch’s term of office also ends in November ’12; the only way he could hold his seat and keep his home is to have Wanggaard recalled, then challenge him for the seat. But it’s more likely Wirch will move to the “new boundaries” of district 22 than do that, providing the law holds up in court.)
The map is currently being litigated in Federal court by several former Democratic legislators, and may end up getting overturned. There’s a lot of stupid, petty political crap in there like chopping up the city of Milwaukee and putting it with four different districts (rather than the two it, mostly, has now) in order to weaken the urban influence, which is just as bad as putting the cities of Kenosha and Racine in one district (district 22) while putting the counties of Kenosha and Racine in another (district 21), but all of that may not actually violate any federal laws — as I’m not a lawyer, I cannot judge the merits of the lawsuit.
Because I can’t plan on the lawsuit overturning the gerrymandering — nor can any other political activist — my current plan is to keep working with the folks I know who want Wanggaard out, and get him recalled ASAP right along with Walker. That way, the people who voted Wanggaard in will still have a chance to get him out if they indeed wish to do so rather than many of them being forced into the “new” version of district 22 as the current, revamped map has it.
So as I said, the recalls are over — for now. But there’s still much to be done.
As Ed Schultz says on his MSNBC show, “Let’s get to work.”
——-
** Jim Holperin is the only legislator in Wisconsin history to survive two recall elections. He was recalled in 1993 as an Assemblyman, then won his race and was retained. This year, Holperin was recalled as a Senator, and was once again retained. So he’s either really good at what he does, really lucky — or, perhaps, both.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 