Last night’s game

Top 1st leadoff Single and a Walk.  Single, Bases Loaded, No Outs.  RBI sacrifice.  Astros 1 – 0.  RBI sacrifice.  Astros 2 – 0.

Top 2nd 2 Out Double.  RBI Single. Astros 3 – 0

Bottom 2nd leadoff Solo Shot.  Astros 3 – 1.

49 minute Rain Delay.  Royals pulled Ventura for Young, Astros stuck with McHugh

Bottom 4th 2 Out Solo Shot.  Astros 3 – 2.

Top 5th leadoff Single, Caught Stealing.  Solo Shot.  Astros 4 – 2.

Top 8th leadoff Solo Shot.  Astros 5 – 2 Final.

Astros lead Series 1 – 0.

Analysis and Setup

Frankly the Royals (95 – 68) looked terrible even before the Rain Delay so I don’t think it’s as significant as some people do.  The good news is they say they’ll start Ventura again in the 4th game but they will have to get there first which, on the basis of their performance last night, is not a sure thing at all.  As for the Astros (88 – 76) McHugh did not disappoint and 2 Solo Shots against the Royals’ potent lineup is not a bad outing at all.

Today we have the Battle of the Losers.  The Royals will send out Johnny Cueto (R, 11 – 13, 3.44 ERA) and the Astros Scott Kazmir (L, 7 – 11, 3.10 ERA).  Pick ’em.

Game time is 3:30 on Fox Sports 1

Today’s Meta (because what good is a day without Meta?).  It is indeed Big Friday with 4 games to play.  The Junior League will be playing in the afternoon.  They have a travel day tomorrow and want to get an early start.  TMC and I have an early afternoon meeting so there will be NO liveblogging of those games.

The Senior League plays tonight, Cubs @ Cardinals at 6:30, Mets @ Dodgers at 9:30.  If you think I’m going to miss either of those, think again.  In fact I have dug out and dusted off my official Blue and Orange Metropolitans Cap (wool of course) because it’s been a looong time since I’ve had anything to celebrate in the Playoffs.

What this means for you, my readers, is that coverage of The Late Show is going to depend on when the game ends and, in another genius move by the same folks that instituted the abomination that is the Designated Hitter, MLB has relaxed the game pace rules.  Honestly I expect it will last to 1 am and that’s without extra Innings.  I will post because I want to set up next week’s guest lists for you.

Now onto today’s starting game.

Last night’s game

Top of the 3rd the leadoff Batter was HBP.  Runner advanced on a sacrifice and scored on a Single.  Rangers 1 – 0.  Runner advanced on a sacrifice and scored on a Single.  Rangers 2 – 0.

Bottom of the 4th a leadoff Single and a Walk.  Fielder’s choice, runners at the Corners.  RBI Single, 2 On 1 Out.  Rangers 2 – 1.  That was it.

Top of the 5th leadoff Batter HBP.  2 RBI HR.  Rangers 4 – 1.

Bottom of the 5th leadoff Double.  Sacrifice, runner advanced.  RBI Double.  Rangers 4 – 2.

Bottom of the 6th leadoff Solo Shot.  Rangers 4 – 3.

Top of the 7th Solo Shot.  Rangers 5 – 3 Final.

Rangers lead Series 1 – 0.

Analysis and Setup

I certainly expected the Blue Jays (93 – 90) to start much better than they did.  Basically Price did not pitch as well as his record indicated he should and what I didn’t know was that he has a record of choking in the Playoffs. The Rangers (89 – 74) also had better production from the bottom of the order (2 HR) than expected.

Both teams suffered potentially lineup changing injuries.  The Rangers lost Adrian Beltre to back spasms and the Blue Jays lost both Josh Donaldson (potential concussion) and Jose Bautista (hamstring spasms).  All will be evaluated this morning to see if the can play.  While Beltran is a good player the losses to the Blue Jays are possibly more serious since they are the number 2 & 3 hitters in the order.

The Blue Jays will be starting Marcus Stroman (R, 4 – 0, 1.67 ERA).  Stroman was benched after his first game of the Season with a torn ACL in his left knee and was expected to be lost for the year.  Cole Hamels (l, 13 – 8, 3.65 ERA) will be on the mound for the Rangers.  This would be no contest at all except for the injury.

Game time is 12:30 on MLB (which it turns out I get, but I won’t be around).

The New Kid

Ronny Chieng

Well tonight is the one we’ve been waiting for Rachel Maddow.  Hopefully she’ll talk some about her hosting duties for the upcoming Democratic Forum (shhh, don’t call it a debate, you’ll upset the evil or incompetent Debbie Wasserman Shultz).

The New Continuity

Pro-Life

Tonightly the panel is Bobcat Goldthwait and Shannon DeVido.

The Dancing Man

Ben Bernanke was another in a string of too cozy interviews with reprehensible people.

Stephen will be very late after the Throwball game.  He will be having Cate Blanchett and Brian Chesky on.

This Week’s guests-

• Friday 10/9: James Corden, Shane Smith, and Halsey

The Royals (95 – 67) have the best record in the Junior League and you’d think they’d have a clear edge on the Astros (86 – 76).  Well, not so fast.  The Royals are reigning Champions and have the fewest strikeouts (Astros led the League), but they have the second to last number of Home Runs while the Astros have the second most.  The Royals do have Wade Davis, a devastating Reliever with a 0.94 ERA.

Starting for the Royals tonight is Yordano Ventura (R, 13 – 8, 4.08 ERA) while the Astros will be sending out Collin McHugh (R, 19 – 7, 3.89 ERA).  Tonight’s game is a tough call, on paper McHugh is a much better pitcher but, you know, Davis.

My prediction?  Royals in 4.

Game time is 7:30 on Fox Sports 1.

First some Meta.  Today we have two games, tomorrow, Friday, and potentially also Monday we will have four.  This is a lot of Baseball to cover and while we will put up Open Threads it will probably not be possible to live blog all the action.  Also TMC and I will be in meetings all weekend related to the impending transition of our sites to Wordpress.  In addition to that next weekend I have an out of state business appointment and it’s my understanding TMC does too.  It’s a very busy time and we’re doing the best we can.

Secondly, more Meta.  Major League Baseball, with the same genius instinct that led to the abomination that is the Designated Hitter, is showing some games on fairly obscure cable networks that many people do not subscribe to.

Today’s games are all on Fox Sports 1.  I may get that, I’d have to check.  Tomorrow’s 12:30 game between the Rangers and Blue Jays will be on MLB’s own network as will Sunday’s 4 pm game between the Royals and Astros.  Pretty sure I don’t get that.

If I can’t watch it I can’t live blog it so there will probably be some gaps due to that.  Also (see above) I will be out of state at least the 15th through the 17th and I have no clue what channels I’ll be able to get there, possibly not even TBS.

Now onto today’s first game.

The Blue Jays (93 – 89) are about the best team in baseball that isn’t playing in the Senior League.  Among their achievments they outscored opponents by 221 runs (that includes losses).  The Rangers (88 – 74) on the other hand are still somewhat scarred from their memorable 2 game fold against the Cardinals in 2011.

David Price (L, 18 – 5, 2.45 ERA) will be starting for the Blue Jays and Yovani Gallardo (R, 13 – 11, 3.42 ERA) will take the hill for the Rangers.

My prediction?  Jays in 4 (remember it’s a 5 game series and first team to 3 moves on).

Game time is 3:30 on Fox Sports 1.

The New Kid

Well, the Aaron Sorkin interview went just about as badly as I expected except, of course, it was worse.

During Noah’s debut week, the interviews were consistently weak, even as the opening monologues and correspondent pieces noticeably improved. Noah’s not much for spur-of-the-moment humor-it seems to destabilize him, as I wrote last week-and it makes him a stilted interviewer. It does not help that finessing a promotional interview to be somewhat interesting to the audience is not an easy task. Watching the screenwriter of a film and someone who really liked the film discuss it would be fun if you’d seen and liked the film already, but it’s weirdly pointless when literally no one in the audience has seen it. Talk show hosts earn their keep by making small talk with celebrities that make their projects, and those celebrities themselves, sound somewhat interesting. Trevor Noah is still learning the ropes.

It made for an interview where no one came off too well. I believe Sorkin to be a certain kind of genius, but even his biggest fans are forced to contend with his massive ego, one that takes up all the available air in any confined space. Without Noah challenging him at all, Sorkin’s arrogance was its own separate entity, lumbering around the “Daily Show” studio.

I find myself forced to agree.  The writers and correspondants are carrying Noah.  Others are slightly more impressed.

He will be having Evgeny Afineevsky on tonight.  Afineevsky’s latest project is Divorce: Journey through the kids’ eyes.

This week’s guests-

• Thursday 10/8: Rachel Maddow

The New Continuity

Larry on the other hand has really upped his game since Colbert’s debut on The Late Show.

Noah’s disappointing debut may have a surprising upside, though:  Viewers now can stay tuned after his show to catch “The Nightly Show” with Larry Wilmore, which follows in the slot directly after.  Watching the two shows back-to-back – or, as Wilmore puts it, “black to black” – offers viewers a chance to compare two different approaches to political comedy.

Noah’s brand of silly, toothless comedy has served to highlight the fact that Larry Wilmore’s show is offering viewers not just a sharp edge, but also a much-needed “underdog” angle on the pressing issues of the day.  While this was the case during the time that Stewart was the lead in to Wilmore-now that he follows Noah, it is actually much easier to appreciate the specific comic genius of Wilmore and his team.

…

This is why the comedy of Wilmore on “The Nightly Show” is so refreshing.  Wilmore’s show focuses on offering the view of the underdog on current political issues.  That means he is unafraid to confront moments when racial bias is at stake -but it also means that race is not the only diverse comedic edge to the show. The show debuted at the start of this year as a replacement for “The Colbert Report” and it has become more polished and more provocative as the months have gone by. According to an August 18 piece in “The Hollywood Reporter,” “The Nightly Show’s brand of smart, focused comedy mixed with more serious-minded commentary has really found its stride in recent months, with Wilmore’s desk bits getting sharper and panel discussions becoming more consistently engaging.”

More Bern

More Cray

Tonightly we have Jay Leno whoring his CNBC gig showing off his 1%er car collection.  I think he’s a no talent asshole and evidently some people agree.

He says he doesn’t like you–

The trotting out of the show’s former host was a promotion stunt for Leno’s new CNBC show, “Jay Leno’s Garage,” which debuted Tuesday. It is literally about the cars in Jay Leno’s garage. And if that’s not proof the Peacock Network’s infatuation with Leno, nearly two years after he stepped down from the “Tonight Show” – well, two years after he stepped down for the second time – is bottomless, I don’t know what is. You may recall that Leno first retired in 2009, five full years after Conan O’Brien was picked to be his successor – and you may also recall how disastrously that all went down. Since then, Leno – who also famously burned more than a few bridges with David Letterman over the years – has still managed to hang on to his position as the most smug person to ever grace late night. Last spring, he cropped up on James Corden’s brand new show to ominously crack, “In three months, this show will be mine.” And in a Tuesday interview with Adweek, he explained his absence from Letterman’s last episode, saying, “Well, I asked Dave to do a 10-second tape for us [when I left]. Anything, just, ‘Leno who?’ They said no, they didn’t want to do it. Well, why am I going to run all the way to New York? I mean, quid pro quo. I just said, ‘No, that’s kind of silly.'” Classy!

See, when you’ve been privileged to have hosted the “Tonight Show” – twice! – and you’re pretty well-known as the guy who drove off two of late night’s biggest hosts and you’re doing a new show about your collection of expensive cars, acting petulant and resentful is not a good look. You’re 65 years old, man. Act like a grownup. Stop hanging around the old playground.

I don’t like you either–

There were some other interesting tidbits in the interview, including a rather callous anecdote about booting a guest off “The Tonight show” when her publicist tried to limit the scope of the interview. As he put it, when asked what he missed about doing the show each night:

…’Why don’t you take your client and go home. She’s only here because she took her clothes off in a magazine after winning gold.’ I mean, I’m not going to insult her. I’m not going to make her feel cheap. But if you don’t want to discuss it, I can get a comic here in six minutes.

The other panelists are Michelle Collins and Bobby Gaylor.

The Dancing Man

Not much joy in Mudville tonight.  Stephen’s interview with Clinton was horrible–

It was also hard to imagine that Colbert was an interviewer who delivered segments that went down as legend. The host had a few questions he tried to hit, and he got there, but they were largely softballs; the order of the day was not incision but flattery. Colbert, on “The Colbert Report,” was short on time, pull, and influence; having ascended to “The Late Show,” the host’s drive is a little sidelined by the unrestrained glee of having David Letterman’s old job-and, perhaps, the calm made possible by not having to be in boorish, ultra-conservative character every day of the week.

But where Colbert, the persona, could pose the toughest questions without flinching, Colbert, the person, is having a bit more trouble. To a degree, “The Late Show” is just a different kind of comedy show.

Yeah, actually worse than that–

So far, the most quoted lines from the interview come from its conclusion, where Clinton gave a kind of backhanded description of Bernie Sanders’ appeal (liberals are “hacked off,” want to move to the left the way the GOP has moved to the right), denied having encouraged Donald Trump to run, and called the blustery mogul “the most interesting character out there.” (Trump’s candidacy, Clinton said, “may have a short half-life,” but turns on the “macho appeal” of saying, “I’m just sick of things not happening, I make things happening, I make things happen, vote for me.” Well said, if hardly ground-breaking.)

But the conversation was noteworthy for other reasons. Colbert did not invent the interviewer’s method of putting his subject at ease with softball early questions and then coming to tougher ones later on. But he’s used this familiar structure effectively in most of his other meetings with pols.

With Clinton, he got a bit starstruck and let the ex-president coast too much. He’s also smart and perceptive enough that he brought up the key issue of post-Reagan politics: politicians who don’t believe in governing and an electorate that has picked up the message.

Colbert touched on the issue twice.

…

The second time, Colbert drilled into the issue more directly. “There’s so little trust of our government now,” he said. “Some people actually go [to Washington] with the intent of getting nothing done because they believe government is the problem.”

After several years in which the Tea Party has made this very notion the center of its appeal, and in a GOP race in which three major candidates for president – Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina – have zero experience with governing, this idea is absolutely central. But it didn’t really go anywhere. And since Bill Clinton blended traditional liberalism with skepticism about “big government,” this would have been an excellent time and place to spend a few minutes on the subject. Well, we’ll have to wait ’til next time. Part of Clinton’s appeal has always been his hangdog, small-town folksiness, and Colbert let him trade on that for much of their conversation.

Tonight we have Ben Bernanke who is whoring his new book.  I expect it to be just as bad as last night’s waste of time with Clinton.  Stephen’s other guests are Gina Rodriguez and Tame Impala

This Week’s guests-

• Thursday 10/8: Cate Blanchett and Brian Chesky
• Friday 10/9: James Corden, Shane Smith, and Halsey

Pity the poor Cubs.  They have never won a World Series since 1908, a 106 year drought that is the longest of any North American professional sports club, though they did make an appearance as recently as 1945(!).

That does somewhat understate their ability as they have made the playoffs 5 times in the last 10 years.

They are one of the oldest franchises and until 1908 were called the White Stockings, a name they abandoned that was taken over by the White Sox, Chicago’s Junior League team.  We won’t get to see historic Wrigley Field (yes, the gum guy and 1916) unless they happen to win.

The Pirates are another very old team that’s been somewhat more successful than the Cubs.  They have 5 Championships but are a long way away from their glory days of the 70s.  Their recent record only boasts 3 Wild Card games in the last 10 years.  We’ll be playing in the much, much newer PNC Park tonight because of their superior record (98 – 64 v. 97 – 65).

The Pirates will be sending Gerrit Cole (R, 19 – 8, 2.60 ERA) to the hill.  The Cubs will counter with Jake Arrieta (R, 22 – 6, 1.77 ERA).

Game starts at 8 pm on TBS.

Umm… what about that do we not understand?

The New Kid

Aaron Sorkin– actually a neolib shill.  Deal.

This week’s guests-

• Wednesday 10/7: Evgeny Afineevsky
• Thursday 10/8: Rachel Maddow

The New Continuity

John Avalon, Jessica Kirson, and Joey Badass.

The Dancing Man

Baseball, even if it is Junior League Rounders, is infinitely more interesting than Bill Clinton.  Also Billy Eichner, and Florence and the Machine.

This Week’s guests-

• Wednesday 10/7: Gina Rodriguez, Ben Bernanke, and Tame Impala
• Thursday 10/8: Cate Blanchett and Brian Chesky
• Friday 10/9: James Corden, Shane Smith, and Halsey

Look, just because Broadway tells you the Yankees have a blood signed pact with the Devil doesn’t make it true.  I assure you it’s simply an informed rumor.

Oh, I have most of the roster sure, but there are always one or two hold outs.  Honest.  Mostly I take care they get dumped on nowhere organizations like the Mariners and the Phillies, even under George my knuckle ball (which is flat out unhittable) would occasionally miss the zone, but that’s why you tip the Umpires well.

What I liked about George is he wasn’t a cheapskate.  He wanted a winning club and paid until he got them.  The only one that compares is the Cardinals (who are actually better since they play real baseball in the Senior League).

I know they’ve been a heart attack all season, their aging ace is in rehab and out of the playoffs, A-Rod is a Choke King arrogant asshole, and they’ve benched Ellsbury for right hander Young, but they’re playing the Astros for goodness sake.  I think they can win this one.  The ‘Stros have been self destructing all September and lost their Division (with a 4 game lead no less) to the ex-Washington Senators.

Not a recipe for success.

Of course they’ll never make it through a real series, even a 5 game one, so get your Yankees rocks off now.  Four games and they can go golfing.

Astros will be starting Dallas Keuchel (L, 20 – 8, 2.48 ERA).  Damn Yankees Masahiro Tanaka (R, 12 – 7, 3.51 ERA).  Game in the Bronx (87 – 75 v. 86 – 76) at 8 pm on ESPN

If you’re a careful reader you know that I don’t exactly worship at the altar of Krugthulu.  He has good ideas about economic stimulus but willfully misses the point of Modern Monetary Theory, until you can demonstrate inflation the amount of fiat currency you circulate is meaningless, even though his research and analysis point to exactly that conclusion.

Still it’s useful and handy in some cases to appeal to the authority of his Nobel Prize.  Yes it’s a fallacy but arguments are won by rhetoric, not logic.  I quote him when I agree and mostly ignore him when I don’t.

One thing I’ve never gotten is his infatuation with Benjamin Bernanke (or for that matter Larry Summers).  They all went to the same schools and graduate seminars and had the same teachers so there is familiarity and a collegial aspect I suppose counts for a lot in the halls of Academe and, to be fair, much of what they are saying now that they’re out of the Beltway Bubble of Madness is perfectly sound Samuelson Economics (not that he was particularly Keynesian mind you, just that he had the intellectual integrity not to argue with the proven results of fiscal stimulus).

But I can’t help but remember that when these two cowards (Bernanke and Summers) had a chance in power to put into action the policies that they now say they favored all along they cravenly failed to do so.

Thanks for nothing assholes.

Ben has a new volume of preening mental masturbation out that prompted this assessment from Yves Smith (who is likewise wrong on some things, I only quote her when she’s right, meaning of course that she agrees with me).

Bernanke’s Cockroaches

by Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism

Posted on October 6, 2015

The idea that Bernanke did a praiseworthy job has been widely debunked. Bernanke continued the “Greenspan put” that stoked speculation all across the credit markets, to the point that anyone who was paying attention had heard of the “wall of liquidity” and massively compressed credit spreads by mid 2006. The Fed did even less to enforce the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act meant to curb subprime lending than the bank-cronyistic OCC did.

As the crisis unfolded, the Fed failed to take the risk posed by the credit default swaps market seriously, even though CDS contagion risk was the most important reason for bailing out Bear Stearns, otherwise too small to be deemed worthy of a rescue. Instead, the Fed went into “mission accomplished” mode after Bear’s bailout.

Worse, after the crisis, the Fed consistently pursued policies to save banks, in particular the bank executive incumbents, and let the cost of the crisis fall on Main Street, particularly workers and homeowners in the bottom 90%. Did Bernanke say a peep when the big financial firms that had just been saved from certain death went to pay their executives and staffs record bonuses in 2009 and 2010 rather than rebuild their equity bases? The Fed was so deeply complicit that it didn’t even attempt a private scolding.

And the central bank was fully on board with the Treasury’s treatment of the mortgage-backed securities market as too big to fail, which amounted to a second, stealth bailout. The refusal to pressure banks to do principal modifications resulted in unnecessary foreclosures, and a massive loss of wealth, not just to homeowners but also to investors in mortgage backed securities. The Fed joined the Treasury and OCC in all of the various bank “get out of liability for almost free” mortgage and servicer settlements. It was thus a full, albeit quiet, partner with the Geithner “foam the runway” program of wrecking borrowers’ lives for the dubious purpose of preserving bank profits.

Bernanke apparently feels compelled to up his game in self-hagiography a bit, since at least some of the public recognizes that he’s an arsonist trying to take credit for putting out a fire, except the fire-fighting wasn’t all that well done, since the rubble is still smoldering years later.

…

Bernanke conveniently conflates bailing out institutions (which was necessary) with the issue of responsibility, as in holding individuals accountable. The refusal to replace boards and top executives, particularly at institutions with obviously weak leadership (Citigroup and Bank of America were top of the list) was indefensible. Even if there was not enough readily locatable recently retired bank executives to fill the ranks of all the wobbly banks, forcing changes upon Citi and Bank of America would have sent a very powerful message to the rest. And we’ve argued at length, for years, that there was no dearth of legal theories that were simply not even attempted as far as prosecuting bank executives was concerned, starting with the one designed for the task, Sarbanes Oxley.

But what pathetic new line do we get from Bernanke? His feelers were hurt when he read a bumper sticker? People lost their businesses, their jobs, their homes as a result of the crisis, and we are supposed to feel sorry for his wounded feelings when he is called out in the tamest terms possible?

This illustrates how insulated and preening our ruling classes have become, that they are unable even to take mild criticism, let alone a remotely accurate assessment of the job they’ve done. By contrast, as Jim Collins found in his book on true top performers, Good to Great, the heads of those companies did the opposite of the diseased norms exhibited by Bernanke: they gave credit for success to their teams, and took full blame for failure.

The time is past to deal with these intellignce-insulting efforts at revisionist history. When I read a new, improved set of excuses from people like Bernanke, I feel like I’ve walked into my kitchen and turned on the lights after the exterminator paid a visit, only to find cockroaches scuttling all over my counter yet again.