A's name new bench coach
by OaklandA23 on Oct 23, 2007 2:17 PM PDT
Email
PrintA’s Name Don Wakamatsu Bench Coach
OAKLAND, Calif. - The Oakland Athletics today named Don Wakamatsu as their bench coach for the 2008 season. Wakamatsu agreed to terms on a two-year contract through the 2009 season.
Wakamatsu, 44, has spent the last five seasons on the coaching staff of the Texas Rangers. He served as the Rangers bench coach for four seasons (2003-06) before taking over the third base coaching duties last season. He also assisted with the organization of spring training and worked closely with the Rangers catchers.
Prior to joining the Rangers staff, Wakamatsu spent three seasons in the Los Angeles Angels organization, serving as the Angels minor league coordinator and roving catching instructor in 2000 and 2001. He also has managerial experience on the minor league level, heading up the Double-A Erie (2000), Double-A El Paso (1999), Single-A High Desert (1998) and Peoria of the Arizona League (1997). Wakamatsu’s managerial record stands at 215-248.
A former catcher, Wakamatsu’s professional playing career spanned 12 seasons (1985-96) with seven organizations. He played in 18 major league games with the Chicago White Sox in 1991 and batted .226.
A native of Hayward, Calif., Wakamatsu graduated from Hayward High School in 1981, where he lettered in baseball, basketball and football. He lettered four seasons at Arizona State and earned All-Pacific 10 Conference honors in each of his final three seasons.
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
no surprise here
from all accounts Wakamatsu is very well thought of. I'm glad the A's were able to hire him.
There is always 3rd base coach, he does that in
Sacramento anyway.
by theblackpearl on Oct 23, 2007 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I would love to see Tony
manage from the 3rd base line in the big leagues someday... That would be retro coolness!
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Oct 23, 2007 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Based on the name Wakamatsu alone...
I hope that Lew Wolff can understand him.
LOL
When Don first tells Lew he's from Hayward, I hope Lew doesn't say, "But where are you REALLY from?"
by Englishmajor on Oct 23, 2007 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
DUDE I TOLD YOU HAYWARD
by ConditionOakland on Oct 23, 2007 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Wakamatsu's family owns a restaurant in Hayward
The restaurant is appropriately called "Wakamatsu" and it's on Foothill and D Street. I don't know if they still own it or not, but they did in the 1980s.
I remember going there when I was a kid in the early 1990s. It looks like a typical downtown Hayward hole in the wall. However, it's quite good and authentic.
by uci anteater on Oct 23, 2007 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Quit giving Matsushita.
He'll get pissed.
oh
and thank you AGAIN for the breaking news, OaklandA23! it's 45 mins later and the press release is still not on the A's official page!
Which begs the question
Why does the role even exist? It does seem entirely superfluous. Yet all teams have them.
Of course, as I type that, I'm reminded of numerous "project managers" whose usefulness was similarly dubious, but who managed to convince their superiors that striding purposefully to meetings, yammering rapid-fire jargon-laden inanities into a bluetooth headset, repeating PowerPoint slides word for word (but confidently!), and dressing smartly qualified them for six figure incomes. So who knows.
I think it's just that
there's stuff that needs doing, and someone needs to do it. Equipment managers don't have any impact on winning, but you need an equipment manager.
That said, that link is sort of an exaggeration. There's probably one team each year that gets an extra win from a good bench coach and one team that loses a win.
Also, as noted before, you've rapidly reached top ten poster status in my book, and to stay there you should write "raises the question", which is a pointless but nevertheless real pet peeve of mine.
An exaggeration
but really, really funny.
I don't know, though. I'm sure you're right, but I wonder what the "stuff that needs doing" is; it's not chart compiling, at least not on the A's (Lache did that last year, right?).
"descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists"
I think I might be both of those things.
"Excessively loquacious" and "occasionally less than thoughtful" also fit the bill.
Which means that whatever your other grammatical pet peeves, I'll surely violate them at some point. I should probably apologize in advance.
I am a descriptivist and a laissez faire linguist
also, and at this point "beg the question" does mean "raise the question," but my response to this can be found in the above faq:
But language is constantly evolving.
That's great to know! Descriptivist linguists, whom we do not fault for their stand, are quite free to watch as we bring about an evolution in the vernacular understanding of "begging the question."
Eh
That site failed to make much of a point for its own position. A, there's already a word for that logical fallacy ("She is unattractive because she's ugly" is a tautology). B, the common usage makes far more sense given the meaning of the words "beg" and "question." The "correct" usage is essentially a jargon term.
Which begs the question: why get into a tizzy about it? :p
No good reason for the tizzy,
but it is still there.
Tautologies are not the same at all. Begging the question means "assuming what you are trying to prove." The problem is that what you are trying to prove might not be true. Tautologies are trivial truths, and are always true (which is tautological), whereas question-begging statements are not necessarily true.
(I care about this because I was a philosophy major, and still do a lot of reading in that area. I don't see any reason why anyone else should care.)
I think you're getting confused here
It's correct to say that a tautology is always true. But remember, the statement "A implies B" is true even if both A and B are false (this being an offshoot of the notion that a false proposition implies any proposition). "A implies B" is only false if A is true and B is false.
A tautology is essentially "A implies A." The only way this could be false is if A was true and A was false, which is obviously impossible. Whether A is true or false, "A implies A" is always true.
If a + b + c = 12,
then "a" has to equal 7, right? I hope so, 'cause that's what I put on my "Braids & Algebra" test this morning.
<crosses fingers ... in cool twisty braid pattern!!!!!!!>
-Cindi
The difference is deduction vs. induction
Tautologies apply to deduction and question begging and circularity (also subtly different) apply to induction. The terms apply to the same thing in some sense, but at a different level.
If A, then A=tautology
A, therefore A (masquerading as B) as an argument is question begging. "If A, then A" is always true, whereas "A, therefore A" is false if A is false.
Question begging does not have a place in formal deductive logic, whereas tautologies are a definitional component of formal logic.
An example:
The efficacy of station-to-station ball vs. Angels-style ball is determined by which team scored more runs in 2007. The Angels scored more runs in 2007, so Angels-style ball is more effective.
That argument relies on a tautology, which is just a feature of logic, but it is not a tautology itself, whereas it is definitely question-begging.
Wait, what?
That's a valid argument. (Assuming you aren't lying. I would dispute the notion that the question of efficacy is determined by which team scored more runs in 2007, but if you take that as a postulate, the conclusion is a correct derivation.)
The point is just the difference in
what the words mean, though they refer to (mostly) the same concept.
Saying that an argument is question begging is a response to an argument that purports to add new information/insight, but really doesn't. The above is a valid argument, but it is not a tautology.
i got into a "begs the question" debate
i agree with mikeA.
but i really don't care about such things.
hell, i don't even capitalize letters on here...
Except the letters "A" and "N" sometimes...
Well
This exchange between PaulThomas and mikeA has taught me many things:
1] I'm way less intelligent than I thought I was.
2] In retrospect, flunking out of college was an ill-considered move.
3] The fact that I was terrified (in the fetal position, thumb in mouth) of a possible digression into syllogism deconstruction proves #'s 1 and 2.
4] The fact that I have no idea whether #3 is tautology, question-begging, sound logic, or none of the above proves #'s 1, 2, and 3.
5] It is, indeed, possible to seamlessly integrate the words "tautology", "circularity", "deductive", "efficacy", "definitional", "deduction", and "induction" into a single 150 word blog post.
6] Semantics matter.
You mean you forgot with WHOM
:-)
i noticed that
which is why i posted the second comment: "i really don't care about such things"
Fire Geren Now!!!
The role of bench coach has been used to groom the last two A's managers. Both Macha and Geren were promoted to manager from bench coach. This must mean the A's are getting ready to fire Geren... in 2-4 years.
by panchopunch on Oct 23, 2007 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Lieutenants are always important ...
much more so than their job description would indicate ...
Welcome home, Don!
[crossing posts]Is Hayward equidistant to both Oakland and Fremont?[/crossing posts]
by PositionPlayerProd on Oct 23, 2007 3:36 PM PDT reply actions
THE NEXT COACHING POSITION...
BELONGS TO TONY D. THERE SHOULD'NT BE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
Gezundheit.
It's Loaiza.
His press releases hit this blog at 135mph.
Waka Waka!
by franks a lot on Oct 24, 2007 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't hold your breath.
Hold mine...sailor.
Oh, sorry.
Didn't realize you'd stood up.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
