Skip to main content
A brief note on baseball if I may: With apologies to Jim Palmer or whomever (wrong? AKR, get on the grammar case, stat) who noted with appropriate snark that the minimum qualification for a "quality start" in baseball (6 innings pitched, with no more than 3 earned runs allowed) still means a 4.50 ERA, (not particularly effective overall) I would say that today showed us that the stat isn't completely worthless. Chris Carpenter, a prototypical pitching "ace" if there was one, showed it again. He wasn't terribly sharp today; he couldn't locate, or place, any of his various pitches in the preferred location; he surrendered 2 runs in the first inning, 1 in the second. Yes, the Cardinals still lost; yes, Carpenter would surely entirely blame himself; yes, I am a homer...BUT, anyone who watches a baseball game knows: if your pitcher finishes 6 innings, surrendering 3 runs or less, you're definitely still in the game. Two bad innings...and 4 zeros following. The final score was 3-2. The Cardinals hitters loaded the bases in the bottom half of the sixth, pinch-hitting for Carpenter but failing to score. I remember saying, "Get us through 6, give 'em no more, I'll take it." And you're darn skippy we'll take it. I'd say about half the time, you win a game like that, at least. Admission: Chris Carpenter is one of the maybe 5 pitchers on this planet I will use 3-4 hours of my life to watch pitch. The current five (in no particular order):

5. Roy Halladay

4. Greg Maddux (retired)

3. Tom Glavine (retired)

2. Chris Carpenter

1. Adam Wainwright

Honorable Mention: Brad Radke (retired)

Note that the American League pitchers (Halladay, formerly, and Radke) deserve special honor, because I generally despise American League baseball. (The designated hitter rule.) The retired guys mean this: If any one of those kats unretired tomorrow, I'd be at the ballpark/in front of my TV, stat. Done and done. Radke should have won many more games; ask anyone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un