On Russell Branyan
Back when Branyan first signed with the Mariners, the fan response was positive. He was to be a left-handed power bat in a lineup that needed a left-handed power bat, and his ability to draw some walks was projected to provide a welcome break from the rest of the team's dependable hackability. People were happy about that. People were happy to have Branyan in the mix, and the only thing that kept us from doubling over with uncontrollable glee was that Branyan also came with well-known drawbacks, notably his low average and tendency to strike out. But he was nevertheless a cheap, productive player, and the move was welcomed as a good way to kick off the Zduriencik winter.
If we liked Branyan at the time, though, we love him now. Through nearly a third of the season, he's been the best hitter on the team and one of the best hitters in the league, destroying the ball with regularity and standing as a source of triumphant power in an otherwise flaccid lineup. His strength has been exactly as advertised, and where once there were fears that he might strike out too often to be a solid everyday player, he's hit the ball with such force that his team-leading 46 strikeouts have been completely overlooked. If you were to stop any given Mariner fan on the street and ask for his thoughts on Branyan, I imagine he'd have nothing but good things to say.
So what's the deal? How has Branyan gone from being a slugging bench bat to a hugely productive regular at the age of 33?
There are two things at work, here. I might as well start with the negative one. Through 172 plate appearances, Branyan is currently running a .385 BABIP. Against his career average of .312, it's easy to see that he's been overachieving on balls in play, and over the rest of the year we can expect his BA to be somewhere closer to .260. A .260-hitting Russell Branyan is still highly productive, but it's not as productive as the version of Branyan hitting .311.
But there's more. Why would we regress this version of Branyan to ~.260 instead of his career BA of .236? Because he's not striking out as often. Players who reduce their strikeouts increase their balls in play, and players who increase their balls in play increase their average.
Branyan has struck out 46 times in 172 PAs so far, for a K% of 27%. That's incredibly high, but it's not as high as his career mark of 34%. In fact, applying the two percentages to his 172 trips to the plate shows a difference of 12 strikeouts - that is, were Branyan whiffing at his career mark in 2009, he'd have struck out 58 times by now, rather than 46. Considering he's only played in 41 games, that's huge.
And in case you were wondering if Branyan was just lucking into the timing of his swinging strikes, the answer is no - he's not just striking out less, but he's also making more contact. For years, he was a guy who'd run a contact rate around 60%, hitting ~70% of pitches in the zone and ~30-35% of pitches out of it. This year, though, he's running a contact rate of 71%; 82% in zone, and 49% out of it. Russell Branyan, who was forever known for swinging a power bat with a million holes, is now making contact like Jim Thome.
This is a big development, and what's interesting is that it isn't entirely new. He was actually flashing these improvements a year ago, with the Brewers and the AAA Nashville Sounds. Branyan ran a 70% contact rate in the minors before getting called up and running 68% in the NL, posting a combined OPS over 1.000. That didn't look anything like the Branyan of before, but based on the ease with which the Mariners were able to sign him to a contract, nobody really bought into it as a sign that this was no longer your pappy's Russell Branyan.
And we get to reap the benefits. This could all just be one big statistical fluke, but contact rate is one of those statistics that stabilizes quickly, and over the past two years we have a sample of 996 Branyan swings and 302 Branyan misses, instead of something more like 400 Branyan misses. Labeling it as an anomaly, then, doesn't seem like the most sensible approach. Surprising? Absolutely. But not a fluke.
I don't know what's responsible for Branyan's improvement, but last spring he started doing some intense regular eye exercises, and that seems like a pretty good answer. It's not real hard to understand how eye performance could have a significant effect on things like making contact, and the whole story fits the timeline of Branyan seemingly improving overnight sometime in early 2008. While I'm usually skeptical of these sorts of retroactive explanations, this one feels more legitimate, because the data fits it so well.
Whatever the case, something's working. The eye exercises may not be the least bit responsible for Branyan's improvement, but by this point we have enough of a sample to show that he really has improved, and an improved version of the old Russell Branyan is a Russell Branyan who deserves a regular job. While Branyan's a 33 year old with a double heaping of old player skills, what matters is that, in the here and now, he's an excellent bat and a good overall value. If giving Branyan an everyday job was an experiment, then Jack Zduriencik has arrived at a groundbreaking conclusion.
0 recs |
108 comments
|
Comments
Let the record show that this is a slightly different article from the one Dave posted at Fangraphs
by Jeff on May 28, 2009 6:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So of course the question is to trade or not to trade
I’m leaning trade, because I’m not convinced he can keep this up for very long, I don’t want to offer him more than two years (which, if he keeps this up all season he will rightfully demand), and we have guys in Tacoma who, given the opportunity, can imitate .260-batting-Branyan’s production.
I don’t know what Branyan can bring in. Not at all. But if, for instance, he can go to Atlanta for K Johnson (Lopez can go too) then great. Kotchman’s not really working out for them is he?
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on May 28, 2009 7:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We have guys who might be able to emulate .260 BA Branyan
but to assume we can fill two holes (1B and DH) and expect such production seems a bit of a stretch. LaHair is bad, Shelton is right handed and no world beater, Clement is probably trade bait and if he sticks around might not stick at 1B and Carp had never played above AA until this year. I’m not at all opposed to trading Branyan, but I don’t think you do it just because some offers a prospect. If he asks for two years at a reasonable amount this off-season I see little problem with giving it to him.
by acblue on May 28, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offering him a contract, provided it's reasonable, is a fantastic idea.
As great as it is to turn the keys over to the young guys, SOMEONE has to be hitting. I can’t see Carp or Clement hitting like this (or some slightly worse version of this) right away, and it’s not like the farm system is bursting with patient left-handed power. Also, he’s the fucking man.
by abender20 on May 28, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to agree with you. Besides being the man...
he’s a left-handed bat that doesn’t hack, he’s not 23, but we don’t have a 23 year old who can do what he can. If we can get him for a reasonable amount of $ without commiting to more than a couple of years, he could be worth it.
by Sinking Away on May 28, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see Clement doing it, but I'm still skeptical about Carp.
I think he can be productive, but I think asking him to be a league average 1B next year is a tall order.
by acblue on May 28, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clement could possibily do it
but for some reason, I don’t think he’s going to be with the M’s. I don’t know the full story here, but it seems like there have been numerous times that he could have been called up, but wasn’t for “whatever reason” I don’t know. I know he can’t catch and is currently working at DH because of his knees, but, I guess I don’t see him in the bigs with the M’s.
by Sinking Away on May 28, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know Carp can give you the homers
but he’s had a consistently great eye and as of this posting 50% of his hits have gone for extra bases while playing in Cheney. And rumor has it he’s a net positive with the glove. Based on stats alone, if he gets an extended look this Summer I think it is not unreasonable to expect average production from him next year.
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on May 29, 2009 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It depends on the offer
But the “not to trade” argument hinges upon no one giving up much for him. If someone gives you a decent prospect, you have to say yes.
He’s a free agent at the end of the year. There’s a 0% chance he’ll be a Type A. If you want him back for 2010, there’s nothing to prevent you from signing him again this winter. The team has a plethora of Triple-A first baseman who could create some value by finishing the year with a strong major league performance.
by davidcameron on May 28, 2009 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The first sentence is what I was trying to say but smarter.
I’m against moving him for a “give me what you’ve got and get him off the books” type player, but not for something of actual value beyond org. player/longshot high risk/low reward prospect/what have you.
by acblue on May 28, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine if Branyan keeps this up through June there will be offers for him
there are four divisions in MLB which remain very close (not including ours) and at least four teams I can think of that would benefit from a LH power bat like his.
His availability at the end of the season makes trading easier but I’d always thought that players like him, who have played on a new team virtually every year, would have a preference to whatever team offered an extension. This is not based on anything other than personal sentimentality though.
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on May 29, 2009 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I loved him because I love guys who can do almost nothing beside hit HRs, walk, and strike out.
You got slurved!
Free Tommy Hanson! Free Jeff Clement! Free Michael Saunders!
by Slurvey on May 28, 2009 7:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's his expected OPS and wOBA if his batting average is .260? I'd think I'd be around .900 OPS, .375 wOBA, but that's just a guess.
by Decatur on May 28, 2009 7:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There's going to be a 28 in 29 chance that I will be really sad when we trade him.
I’ve wanted Branyan to get a job for the last 8 years, and never did I dream it would be with Seattle.
by Poochie on May 28, 2009 8:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is the part of the whole giving up on the season thing I hate.
It’s definitely melancholy; I don’t give a shit about Washburn but I love Bedard, Beltre and Branyan. It’s exciting and it may very well be in the best interest of the organization but it still sucks just a tiny bit.
by acblue on May 28, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This also is a factor of who comes back in potential trades.
It wouldn’t be hard to get excited about a handful of players that are nearly MLB ready with some good ceilings (the Brett Wallaces of the world), but it would be difficult to swallow losing all three of those for all sorts of Eric Pattersons.
by abender20 on May 28, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but it doesn't matter really.
I’ll be excited for the prospects but bummed because I like watching those guys.
by acblue on May 28, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The team is only 4 games under .500
Last year they were 14 games under. I realize they are six games back, but as this season has already shown, that can change pretty quickly. This team by itself may not be true contenders, but all shouldn’t be lost just yet.
On the other hand, if they are swept in LAA, then my attitude will probably change.
by Fin on May 28, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if we're still going to try to contend I think we need to make a few roster moves as soon as possible
Something needs to happen soon, whether that be starting the firesale while Bedard/Branyan/Washburn all have inflated value and getting the best return we can for them (which is the right move at this point, in my opinion) or patching up this awful lineup with some call-ups and trying to win now. Standing pat for another month with the product that’s on the field now isn’t going to do us any good.
by OlSalty on May 28, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I figured.
And I was kind of curious of why it seemed that Z stayed mostly inactive while watching this team fade from contention. It seems that maybe he is more focused on building the team for long term, looking towards 2010 and beyond, rather than trying to half ass a contender this year while mortgaging the farm, like Bavasi did.
by Fin on May 28, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps he knew the fade was inevitable
And that waiting for it to occur would diminish any possible backlash from fans screaming about breaking up a “first-place” team. Or, maybe, he is just doing his due diligence and making sure he targets exactly what he wants and gets back the best deal possible. I have faith that by waiting he will have accomplished both.
by jimmylauderdale on May 28, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate it also. It's not over till it's over, but thankfully, the FO can't think that way.
As a fan, I don’t want to give up on the season, and I sure don’t want the players to give up. Not on an at bat, a game, or a season (especially not in early June). On the other hand, the FO knows it can get better value for both Washburn and Bedard if it can get a deal now, rather than waiting until the deadline, when they might not get anything, because of injuries or three weeks of so-so performance. It sucks buckets to be a fan sometimes, but the Z has a job that I couldn’t even stomach. Fortunately, I trust him.
by Sinking Away on May 28, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is worth bringing up again.
Geoff Baker did a piece on Branyan using Vizual Edge program a few weeks ago. It’s basically the same gist as the MLB.com article but with more juicy bits:
There are two components to Vizual Edge: the training program and an evaluation process that identifies visual strengths and weaknesses.
Zduriencik and the Brewers used both. Zduriencik has introduced Seiller’s evaluation program into Mariners scouting, and the team has begun 15-minute eye tests on most amateur prospects being considered for the June draft.
“It helps you identify which players may have gifted vision,” Zduriencik said. “And also, if any red flags pop up, you can look into it further to make sure it’s not a serious issue that can come back to bite you later.”
The Mariners are exploring whether to use the training part of Seiller’s program.
“I don’t want to say it’s all because of this,” Branyan said of his new success after 11 big-league seasons. “You never know what the future holds. But, I mean, I was a .230 hitter.”
If this is legit then the process behind our offensive development in the system will be really interesting to follow.
by ThundaPC on May 28, 2009 8:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Legal eye 'roids. Works for me.
Any legal advantage you can take that isn’t harmful to the user definitely works for me. It reminds of when Edgar Martinez used to practice batting ping pong balls to keep his eyes sharp.
by Sinking Away on May 28, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure Edgar was best known for trying to hit tennis balls with numbers on them and recite the number.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on May 28, 2009 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right, it was tennis balls.
The fourth or fifth thing to go is the memory. Generally speaking, that’s not always a bad thing.
by Sinking Away on May 28, 2009 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And, for what it's worth--
it was partly to keep his eyes sharp, and partly to keep them exercised to prevent his amblyopia from taking over.
by msb on May 29, 2009 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hilarious ...
7 years ago if you asked me, “Who would still be a productive player in the MLB, Sexson or Branyan?” I would have bet my house on Sexson.
by Toxicadam on May 29, 2009 6:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the lesson here is don't bet your house on long term ML careers
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on May 29, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to his chat on the radio yesterday
Branyan also thinks that other things factor in to it… regular playing time, and the coaching staff. He said that going into spring training, it seemed that they (“Wak, AC, Ty, Junior Hines”) had more confidence in his abilities than he did…
by msb on May 29, 2009 6:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For another reason to love Branyan
Check out this anecdote from a commenter at Razzball who works for a Minor League team.
It’s nice to root for someone who’s a genuinely nice guy.
by Nadingo on May 29, 2009 7:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Pardo me for being out of the loop...
…but has there been much discussion about making Branyan the 3B next year (or later this season) if Adrian Beltre goes elsewhere? One, he can definitely play the position adequately. Two, it’s a lot easier to find cheap, competent 1Bs than 3Bs, so locking up a 1B isn’t always a good move.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on May 29, 2009 8:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"Definitely"?
As I recall, as a 3B he’s always been a pretty good 1B (an amateur evaluation, to be sure, but one which the metrics seem to me to support), and I don’t imagine he’s improved with age. I was happy to see us sign him, and I hope he’s with us next year, too, but I don’t think counting on him to play the hot corner is wise.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 29, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been thinking about this possibility for this season
in a ‘trade Beltre while still trying to stay close in a bad division’ scenario. But Beltre doesn’t look very tradeable at the moment and Branyan does. Anyhow, the plusses are having a serious lefty power bat in the hot corner and an easy way to add balance to the lineup. The minus is they’ll be losing about a win and a half on defense alone at best, and there’s no telling how well the hitting will hold up with the added stress of fielding at third. At least the idea merits some discussion.
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on May 29, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be more interested in the idea if he wasn't a free agent at the end of the season.
by Matthew on May 29, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we trade Beltre soon, I'd be open to giving Branyan a shot
If he looks good enough with the glove, I’d think long and hard about re-signing him. A .900 OPS lefty bat who isn’t a butcher in the field has a lot of value to this team.
by Jeff on May 29, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It occurs to me that no matter who replaces Beltre their defense is going to look like mega-ass
so it might as well be someone we already like.
by acblue on May 29, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely agreed. Especially a lefty bat at 3B.
by Matthew on May 29, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shouldn't need to be said,
but it also heavily depends on what other teams offer for him in trade and what Branyan would want contract-wise.
by Matthew on May 29, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't imagine that either would be very much
And Branyan strikes me as the sort of guy who’d sign a reasonable extension out of loyalty to the guy who gave him a full-time opportunity.
by Jeff on May 29, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope so on both fronts
because Branyan at 3B next year is the best thing I can think of post-Beltre.
by Matthew on May 29, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He seems like he could be anywhere from -20 < x < 0 UZR, judging from his 2005-2008 3B numbers.
They’re all over the place. He’s 33 and not getting any younger, so if I were to guess, I’d say he’s probably -10 as a 3B, but that’s something only scouting could hope to get a decent read on.
by Decatur on May 29, 2009 9:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, good call on those numbers. I remembered them differently, but he's actually averaged -7 UZR/150 since 2002 at 3B
Yeah, probably not an option I’d go with.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on May 29, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-7 UZR/150 at 3B
Is the exact same thing as +8 at 1B. I don’t know, if a guy can hit like Branyan can, I’m fine with -7 at a premium position.
---
http://www.balkingtraditionalism.blogspot.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on May 29, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not killer, sure. Definitely an option.
But with fielding still so underrated, finding guys who are league-average hitters and plus fielders for their position is easier than it should be.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on May 30, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My question is: Why the heck isn't Branyan hitting 3rd?
Ichiro is getting on base but scoring very few runs thanks to Mr. Beltre-Vidro sitting in the 3rd spot.
It’s also due to the two other members of the Three Stooges (Yuni and Jose) batting in the 2 hole, but Beltre is really killing us this year.
C’mon Wak!!! Bat awesome Russell in the 3 hole for gosh sakes! And Griffey at cleanup, NOT Beltre for gosh sakes. Beltre will do well hitting lower in the lineup.
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
3rd is th least important spot in the top half of the order.
by acblue on May 29, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you gotta be kidding. Then why is Beltre killing us so much?
The Ichiro leading off, Ibanez at 3rd -combo racked up a ton of RBIs (runs scored).
This difference tells me that 3rd is important at least in our case with prolific and speedy Ichiro leading off.
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I've seen Branyan lead off too many innings.
I’d sure like to see Russell batting with Ichiro on base at 2nd or 3rd. Would surely be better than Beltre.
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AC is right
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by
In the future you may want to avoid countering arguments with anecdotes, too.
by Graham on May 29, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow geez, sorry Graham, I wandered into USSM simply by mistake. The anecdote, my bad.
(thanks for the link. But I still can’t understand how batting Beltre at 3rd or 4th is better than burying him lower like 6th or 7th. And anecdote or not, surely Branyan would convert more of our chances and bring Ichiro home more often).
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes how dare we prefer people to make reasonable arguments
by Graham on May 29, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I get your point.
I wrote i below to ac, but can’t our team thought to be an outlier, because our (usually) highest OBP guy is at leadoff? On other teams you have big bashers at 3 or 4 who have high OBP. We have guys like Beltre.
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry if the bold line above came off nasty in any way (it was a joke)
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, a better hitter in the 3rd spot would convert more chances.
But he’d be given fewer chances to convert.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on May 30, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beltre would be killing us no matter where he hit in the order.
There’s a whole chapter in lineup construction in the Book. Third is the least important slot in the top five because of the fact that it comes around with runners on less often than any other slot.
by acblue on May 29, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks I get your point.
But compared to other teams, I think we are an outlier because our (usually) highest OBP guy is at leadoff.
On other teams you have big bashers at 3 or 4 who have high OBP. We have guys like Beltre.
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beltre should not be batting third
But Branyan should also not be batting third. Wakamatsu is in a bind because normal-Beltre should be batting second on this team.
by Graham on May 29, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beltre is a terrible OBP guy, I'd never hit him second
by Poochie on May 29, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be inclined to bat Griffey there actually but then we get into the problem of LLRL at the top of the lineup
Not that Ichiro really counts but whatever
by Graham on May 29, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd have the same problem at 3/4
so I’d just err on the side of putting those walks in the 2 spot, plus DH is the easiest position to pinch hit for.
by Poochie on May 29, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I was a pitcher
the Mariner lineup I’d least like to face:
1. Ichiro
2. Gutierrez
3. Branyan
4. Griffey
by Sam Regens on May 29, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you want a left-handed batter in the 2 slot?
With Ichiro! aboard a lefty at the plate has a huge hole to pull the ball through. Either that or a really good opposite hitting right hander?
by d0nkey on May 29, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't stand people calling him Russell
It makes me think of another Seattle player named Russell, and I hate the comparison.
R. Branyan is a fantastic player. B. Russell is a whatever-the-opposite-of-fantastic-is player.
Call him Branyan, please. For my brain’s sake.
by torx on May 29, 2009 11:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sexbandit and Sexwagon.... do you have some wild west thing going?
Will Mike Saunders become the Pony Sexpress? Gutierrez/Chavez/Ichiro OF = The Sex Rustlers? Beltre = Transcontinental Fuckroad?
by marc w on May 29, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don't even want to know about the Golden Spike
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on May 29, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think "Transcontinental Railroad" works on its own without modification
by Jeff on May 29, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea who you are talking about, and his name is Russell so it seems like a silly request.
by Poochie on May 29, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I need a laugh today
so I imagine that Russell is Bill Cosby’s brother and remember some of those great old Cosby stand-up bits.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on May 29, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, Brian Russell
According to Field Gulls, he’s quite possibly the worst starting NFL safety.
Since I’m a die-hard Mariners and Seahawks fan, I hate equating one of the teams’ best players with the others worst.
It’s of course a silly request, but it’s still half-serious.
by torx on May 29, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You joined just to make this request?
by Matthew on May 29, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Already SBN Member...
But in these comments every time I read “Russell” my mind thought “Brian Russell” and it made me fill with self-righteous fury.
I thought I’d at least ask.
by torx on May 29, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just pointing out that it's a bit presumptuous for your first post at LL to be asking us to stop calling him Russell
even if it is tongue-in-cheek, that’s going to be difficult to read given the lack of user context.
by Matthew on May 29, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My apologies
Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek. I know it’s the man’s first name and it’s perfectly valid to call him that.
I’ve spent the last two years railing against a Seattle player named Russell. It’s now hard to like one with the same name.
I’ll check my presumptions at the door next time I make a first post.
by torx on May 29, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 













