World Series Worlds Collide

If you've been following baseball, little has been made of two particular off-season moves in the midst of a winter of spending. But if you keep a close eye on Arlington, Texas this season, we could be seeing a metaphysical phenomenon, the level of which only Steven Hawking can fathom. I'll explain.
See, Texas GM Jon Daniels made a smart move by hiring all-around nice guy Ron Washington to manage the Rangers this year. Washington had been well respected as a coach in Oakland, and is expected by many to lead the Rangers out from under a string of underwhelmingly mediocre seasons.
Not completely lost in this transaction was manager emeritus Buck Showalter, a micro-managing but effective skipper who had spent time in New York and Arizona. You might remember Showalter as the manager who left the Yankees the year before their World Series victory in '96, only to turn around and duplicate the same exact feat in Arizona in 2000.
To a casual observer, you might take this information and pencil Texas in to win it all this year. You'd be right to do so-- throw superstition and coincidence out the window, this is baseball we're talking about.
But not so fast. One of the lesser-publicized moves that Jon Daniels made was acquiring journeyman outfielder Kenny Lofton-- now playing for his 9th team since 2001 (yes, you read that right). Lofton was the speedy centerfielder in Cleveland who reminded many Indians fans of Willie Mays Hayes in Major League, and since then has been bouncing around the league like Anna Nicole Smith at an AARP convention (what? too soon?). But what people should remember him best for was his career in the postseason. Thanks to baseball-reference.com, we can take a closer look.
Lofton has made the playoffs with no less than 6 different teams in 10 different trips there over a 15 year career (1995, 96, 98, 99, 2001 with Cleveland, 97 with Atlanta, 2002 with SF, 2003 with the Cubs, 2004 with the Yankees, and 2006 with the Dodgers). To the astute fan, a trend becomes recognizable with all of those teams-- none of them actually won the World Series.
Lofton's numbers in the postseason reflect that as well. His career batting average in the playoffs is 54 points less than in the regular season, while his on base percentage dips by 58 (down to .244 and .314, respectively-- and as a leadoff hitter, mind you).
It seems Lofton's money shot comes in September, so when October rolls around, if you don't mind me extending this analogy, he's all out of juice.
It's somewhat unfortunate, as Lofton seems to be generally well-liked by teammates and managers. But you have to start wondering, when you're mired in an 0-10 streak, exactly what's going wrong? You can put him up there with like-tortured athletes such as Ted Williams, Charles Barkley, Dan Marino, Peyton Ma-- oops, right. But you get the idea.
So what can Texas fans expect this year, Showalter's exit curse or Lofton's Limpness? Is Jon Daniels going to be the unwitting catalyst for the largest astrological catastrophe since the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs?
Which curse has more power, more gravity? Will somebody explode? Will it be like two black holes colliding, exhibiting some cosmic phenomenon on a grand scale? Will far-off civilizations in other galaxies be watching the aftermath light years away? And it doesn't even end there. This is only one season. It can't end there. What happens if Kenny Lofton ever becomes a manager and follows Buck Showalter? Or if Kenny actually does win the World Series, does he cease to exist? Trippy, huh?
See, these are the things that have been keeping me up at night, pacing around the apartment like an expectant father. So, I guess to wrap all this up, let's just say I'm excited about the season. It's the one story I'm going to be following more closely than any other-- forget about A-Rod, forget about Bonds, forget about Gary Matthews Jr (oh, you did already?). This is a once-in-a-lifetime event, and there isn't a fan on this earth who should miss it.
Good luck and Godspeed, Jon Daniels.

Dollars and Sense

(Author's note: Mea culpa for that incredibly cheesy post title... but I had to)

The US Mint has announced recently that they’re giving the dollar coin another go. You probably already know the dollar coin as “that annoying quarter you get from the post office.” It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody, seeing how it’s been tried twice before--- once as Susan B. in 1979, and more recently as Sacagawea at the beginning of the decade.

Americans have historically been loath to switch to metal dollars for various reasons (most prominently their desire to be unlike Canadians--- as we see from our lukewarm reception to both professional hockey and socialized health care). Yet the Mint is remaining upbeat about the latest incarnation of the US Looney. Its reason, it states, is due to the design on the obverse (face) of the coin. It plans to put pictures of each of the presidents, in order, on the coins to the pace of four per year. This thinking is based on the principle behind the runaway success of the 50 States quarters, which has turned many innocent bystanders into closet amateur coin collectors (admit it, you've got a collection too).

Of course, the presidents don't have the same resonation with the American people as the States do. I live in New York, therefore the New York quarter (year 2000, thank you very much) is one that stands out in my mind. Likewise, people from Kansas probably get excited by the Kansas state quarter, featuring a buffalo. And let's not forget North Dakota citizens, who undoubtedly get excited about their state's unique design-- one that features two buffalo (big hand for North Dakota).

I just don't see the same reaction to the presidential dollars. I mean, how many illegitimate relatives can Thomas Jefferson possibly have?

(I should say here, however, that there is GREAT news for Grover Cleveland fans. That's right, he gets two separate coins for serving two nonconsecutive terms. Amazing)

Now, the addition of the coins into circulation is bound to have benefits aside from general geekiness. One aspect that is bound to be overlooked is its effect on the stripping industry. Now, one might argue that stripper revenue would decrease-- after all, if dollar bills weren't around, you can't just go shoving 5's into g-strings. And, take it from me, strippers hate lose change.

Of course, that argument only works if you believe that stripping is an elastic consumer expense (elasticity is an economics term that measures the effect of changing price on demand-- inelastic goods are goods that don't rise and fall as easily with price, such as milk and gasoline; elastic goods tend to be luxury items, like pomegranate juice or diamond grillz). In reality, I believe fairly strongly that stripping tends to be an inelastic service, much the same as public transportation. It's not as if people are going to stop going to strip clubs, they're just going to gripe about the price more vocally, like when gas prices rose so heavily.

This could present a real boom for the stripping industry, with profits rising to record levels. Before you know it, with all the increased cash distribution, strippers could be buying houses in Beverly Hills and leasing their private jets to the relatively poverty-stricken executives of Exxon. We could be seeing a huge turnaround here. If paper dollars ever become completely phased out, invest your mortgage in nipple tassels and Chanel #5. Don't think twice about it. Just trust me on this one.

Will the paper dollar ever become phased out completely? Doubtful. Americans have been as excited to embrace the dollar coin as they were to embrace Clear Pepsi. If it's not a change that directly benefits everybody, then good luck, US Mint. I mean, we're not Europe.

But if it does, and through some fluke choice by the government it certainly could, count me first in line to collect. After all, somebody's going to have to find out how those Chester Arthurs bounce.

The Stock on Bonds

I'm taking the time to weigh in on a pertinent baseball issue right now-- which, if you notice the posting dates on this dusty thing, is probably just an exercise in futility since the next time somebody hits this page will be sometime in January.

Much talk has been generated regarding the future residence of one Barry Bonds. And rightly so. He is arguably the most prominent figure in the game still to this day, whether that be positive or negative, and as such he's going to generate a lot of buzz for an aging veteran who can no longer use his legs (reports from the Bay Area indicate that he has installed a lawnmower engine in his clubhouse recliner to get from place to place).

Most experts agree that Oakland seems a likely candidate, mostly because of GM Billy Beane's affinity for On Base Percentage, one of the key areas in which Bonds has not declined much. It also seems natural since San Francisco fans seem to have built a thick layer of cement in their skulls that prohibits them from believing Barry's Shrek-like appearance has nothing to do with banned substances (despite the fact that his personal trainer has just been sent to jail for the second time for not admitting he gave Bonds said substances. I ask myself sometimes how far I'd go not to get a buddy thrown under the bus, and two jail terms is just not in that conversation. Could just be me, who knows).

But there's a problem with that logic-- Billy Beane is smart. Smart enough to sign high-risk veteran Frank Thomas to an incentive-laden one year deal last winter. Seemed odd at the time, but remember Frank had just won the comeback player of the year award a few years back, so clearly the potential for a breakout season was simply waiting for him, assuming he stayed healthy, which he did. But Bonds isn't a player just waiting to crash through his glass ceiling. Bonds is well on his way out. He can no longer play in the field, his decreased skills in left far outweighing any offense he can provide. His power numbers have slowed while his injury total has quickened-- perhaps another sign that his slight frame (remember Pittsburgh?) wasn't naturally built for that massive bulk.

If Bonds stays healthy and out of the media spotlight (keeping in mind that the Bay is the 3rd largest television market in the country), we might assume that he'd sing the tune of 25 HR, .260 AVG and about 100 walks. And we expect Beane to pay, what, $9 million for this? I don't see it.

However there is another option just up the coast. Flying under the radar in this pursuit is Seattle, a team who needs a power bat after a disastrous pair of free-agent signings several years ago (Sexson and Beltre). They have the money (thanks to a very solid fan base, plus the overseas income that Ichiro brings in), they have the market (how often do you hear controversy out of Seattle?). You might expect a deal slightly lower than in Oakland, as without them in the race, it seems that the services for Mr. Bonds are not in high demand.

Sure, teams would love to have skinny 3-time MVP Bonds on their team, stealing a base or two and playing an adequate outfield position. What they don't want is the bloated, egotistical 7-time MVP Bonds (aka post-juice Bonds) who creates clubhouse headaches.

Seattle has nothing to lose from the signing, except perhaps one more year out of contention in the AL West. They don't have pitching, which means that any sort of run for the playoffs next year is going to have to come from the bats. They can easily afford to swallow a one year deal (the increased revenue from a draw like Barry is worth the investment). It just seems like a logical choice.

Of course, logical choices aren't usually the norm in baseball these days (read: the Matsuzaka signing, whoever signs JD Drew, etc.), so I wouldn't expect that this idea would gain any sort of credibility. But it at least gives people something to think about, although that also seems to be too much to ask in this sport.

Alice In Chains - Great, and Certainly not Late

Alice In Chains, 10/29, Armory Center, Albany, NY

I decided to catch this show with my brother. He'd been listening to my AIC records almost as much as I had over the past 15 years. Their second album, Dirt, was the first compact disc I ever owned. I have their 4 full-length albums, the EP (Sap), the Unplugged album, the live album, the box set, and about 56 lost dates that happened as my teenage self tried to convince girls how cool they were (somehow it got lost in translation, probably on account of acne, but we'll never know for sure).

This is also the band that I had played for 2 straight hours on my college radio station back in 2002, when the news broke that their lead singer, Layne Staley, had passed away. So when I heard that they were touring again on the West coast, I got pretty excited. When I heard they were coming to Albany, I lost it. It's 3 of the originals, Jerry Cantrell, Sean Kinney and Mike Inez, with a new vocalist.

So what was the set going to be like? Acoustic? Electric? Were they going to play a bunch of stuff from their last studio record (which I didn't like that much)? So many questions. I was particularly looking forward to hearing some tracks off Facelift (their first album, which I still own on cassette).

I was also naturally skeptical of the new lead singer, William Duvall, as I'm sure any fan would be. I've never seen the band live before, and although I'm fairly certain Jerry Cantrell (guitarist / vocals) is some kind of genius, I'm wondering how this new guy's going to cut it.

Visually, he's not a Staley look-alike (he's black, for one). He dresses in a tight leather jacket with tight-fitting red pants, some whispy facial hair and a fluffy afro on top. Also, no sunglasses. They came out to some technical difficulties while Whale & Wasp was playing in the background as they launched into Again. After about 20 seconds this was fixed, and nobody was the wiser for it. Great, I thought to myself, they're playing off the last record, and they only sound mediocre. Ugh.

I was soon to be proven wrong though. They launched into Bleed the Freak, nicely done, followed by Grind (a Cantrell-heavy song). I'm wondering at this point whether they're trying to hide the new singer for some reason. Can he really hack it up there? What did Cantrell do?

Then the fun really started. Another Facelift track, It Ain't Like That, followed by Junkhead. And if you know AIC, you know Junkhead was not only Staley's cry for help, but one of the more public and celebrated heroin admissions ever recorded. And Duvall nails it. Just nails it. And to make it even better, the crowd is behind him 100% after every line. I realize, at this point, that this is going to be a great fucking show. Duvall is not only pulling off Staley's lines, he's also alternating between rhythm and lead guitar-- where did Cantrell find this guy?

We're followed by a slow one, Nutshell, and then we get 3 tracks off Dirt. The crowd is into it, I'm into it, the band is into it. It's a great show-- and then they throw you a curve. They break for a video montage of Layne as the roadies reconfigure the stage. After a few minutes, the band comes out with a stripped down set, a few intimate mood lights, and acoustic guitars. Don't Follow is first (no harmonica, unfortunately), mixed with No Excuses, Killer Is Me, Got Me Wrong and a few others, capped off with Down In A Hole. The band has the crowd in a trance at this point, there is no way they can do any wrong. This is like having two Christmases.

Finally, another video montage brings us to the final run of the evening, another full electric set that includes Sludge Factory, We Die Young and concludes with, yep, Man In the Box, which may have been Duvall's best performance of the evening. I've never heard an encore cheer so loud in my life. The band comes out to play Rooster and Would, and after 2 hours, they're finally done. Cantrell comes out to shake hands with some fans in the front rows, and the entire place is still going nuts.

So was the band worth seeing? Hell yeah. Did the new lead guy impress? Absolutely. And will I now start digging out my flannel shirts and faded jeans from Mom's basement? Well... let's wait on that one.

Colorful Commentary

In a late-breaking news story earlier today, it was reported that the FOX broadcasting company decided to fire Steve Lyons, one of its MLB playoff commentators, over some supposedly racially-charged remarks against hispanics. Now, I have no problem with this move, but I believe it should have been on different grounds. And far sooner.

Steve Lyons should have been fired because he sucks as a commentator. This, actually, should have been done a long time ago. If you read the news articles about the story, you'll notice his remarks aren't really that bad in the sense that they're racist, they're just annoying in the fact that he's a moron. He's not a moron because he says these things, it's that he says these things because he's a moron. Get the difference?

FOX has a pretty interesting history with its painfully vanilla baseball coverage. They try to showcase their 'dynamic duo' of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver as often as possible, to the extent that those two are the only voices you'll hear announcing the World Series (with the occasional studio guest that either includes A) Former or vacationing players that don't get enough air time (e.g. Al Leiter) B) former or vacationing players that aren't at all interesting (e.g. Lou Piniella) or C) Celebrities promoting their upcoming FOX shows or movies).

Buck is about as interesting as an entymologist at a dental convention (not to mention the personality of a Filene's mannequin), and McCarver seems to like to point out aspects of baseball that only Khazakstani hermits would find educational ("he really needs to throw more strikes if he wants to stop walking people" or "the game's all about getting hits"). Frankly, Bert & Ernie would attract a larger audience, and would at least keep it interesting with some witty banter about cookies in bed.

I hate FOX baseball even more than I hate FOX football (and let's face it, that's pretty bad, especially considering the NFL graphics are shown to you by members of the autobots). What they need to do, in my humble opinion, is go one of two ways.

1. Hire an old radio play-by-play guy to do the entire game. No color commentary, no nothing. Just an old-school play-by-play guy to bring you the action. It's the World Series for crying out loud, if the games aren't enough to keep you interested, a 5th inning commentary from Tim Robbins isn't going to either.

2. Have two knowledgable guys in the booth-- one who will make poignant observations, and one who has the wherewithall to explain those observations to the audience. And by poignant, I don't mean picking out obscure statistics ("Jones has performed well in these situations this year, he's hitting .386 with a runner on 2nd and a 2-2 count in the 4th inning when trailing by at least 3 runs"). Real fans know those stats are BS, and newcomer fans have no idea what they mean.
By poignant I'm talking about pointing out baserunning mistakes, fielder's position, tipping pitches, etc. Things that fans should know, things that announcers in the booth need to point out because most of the people in the audience wouldn't already be thinking them. In other words, if I have to roll my eyes one more fucking time at McCarver's ramblings, I'm ripping out the speakers in my TV.

I hate those guys.

You know, OLN (the random cable sports network that features the NHL, along with professional lumberjacking) does sports coverage better than FOX. Most regional sports networks have better sports coverage than FOX. Why is this backwards?

Where was I going with this?

Oh, right. The Steve Lyons thing.

Bottom line is that FOX shouldn't have had to fire Steve Lyons for being borderline offensive (no pun intended). It never should have been said-- not only because it was dumb, but because dumb people shouldn't be heard on sports telecasts. You shouldn't have to wait around for a guy like that to screw up, you have to avoid screwing up by not hiring him in the first place.

An Economic Conundrum, Part I

Since (obviously) I'm a little late to put in my NFL picks for this week, I'll have to bore you with a completely different subject. Economics.

I know, you roll your eyes or click off the page, but try to bear with me here. After reading Stephen Levitt's Freakonomics last week I finally realized that not every topic pertaining to my college major (that's right, I was an Econ major) has to function as a mild sedative.

Imagine for a moment a major automobile firm hires a new CEO. The CEO is tasked with making the company profitable once again, and doing it quickly. So the CEO does what CEOs are paid to do-- he lays off thousands of employees and shifts his manufacturing plant to South America, where labor is cheaper. Cheaper labor equals higher revenue which, when all other factors are held constant, produces higher profits. On a limb, I'm going to guess that you won't have a difficult time believing this hypothetical scenario.

So is this CEO a good businessman or is he a ruthless jerk? He's made the company profitable with essentially the only quick-fix option available (you could argue for marketing or improved product line, but those are long-term solutions in a highly competitive market where small gains in market share come at a substantial price-- if you don't believe that, just look at Hyundai, who has taken decades to recover from a poor image... and most people still think they suck).

Realistically, he is both. He has at once made himself and his company richer while potentially ruining the lives of thousands of semi-skilled workers. Hard working Americans who hadn't deserved maltreatment by some white-collar shmuck (and whose options for retalitation are essentially zero).

So this is our basis of economic reality. There are, more often than not, two truths to every situation, and those truths will vary drastically depending on your viewpoint. One could hardly fault a board of directors for providing that CEO with a nice bonus package, at the same time as one could hardly blame a now-unemployed Joe Smith for urinating in that CEO's gas tank.

We'll take this as our starting off point and build from here. I'd hate to post more than a few hundred words per article since I know that, generally speaking, the blogging community at large rarely has much free time...

And don't worry, I am going somewhere with this. Seriously.

A Day at the Ballpark, Part II

I realized yesterday that there was a ton of material I left out of the last post. This may have been due to the sheer volume of data posted, or it might have been the fact that I was temporarily stoned... I'll let you decide... but either way:

* I wanted to take a minute to recognize the Yankees' dubious feat of signing the baseball player who most resembles an animitronic robot from Chuck E Cheese. I'm talking, of course, about journeyman Sal Fasano. A cult hit in Philly during his brief tenure there, Fasano is now the backup to Jorge Posada. Unfortunately, the fu manchu you see below didn't last in New York (facial hair regulations-- more on that later).

Anyway, here's the photo comparison of Sal and Pasqually, otherwise known as "the Italian guy" or "the chef" or "the fat guinea" from Chuck E Cheese's band (I threw the term 'guinea' in there because, let's face it, Pasqually is at best a poorly conceived stereotype).

(Author's aside: Isn't it about time the Yankees rethought their facial hair rules? I'm not talking about allowing mohawks or anything crazy like that, but shouldn't the fu manchu be legal? Giambi started to grow one a few weeks ago and almost looked like a tough guy again. It made New Yorkers collectively realize, "Oh right, we did sign a shaggy slugger from Oakland five years ago," immediately followed by anger over the metrosexual, juiced-up Right Guard spokesperson they actually got. Personally, I think Giambi would have been much better off in the big apple with a huge 'stache and long hair. Maybe that's just me)

* More on the "wrong jersey" phenomenon. I had forgotten about the Mets game, where a kid in the next row was wearing a Terrell Owens jersey (with the Eagles, no less). Next to him was another individual wearing a New Jersey Nets jersey. This was only slightly less defensible than the fan in the deck below us wearing a Jeremy Shockey jersey (I suppose the thought being that at least it was the right city-- although keep in mind that NFL jerseys don't display the city name).

But the TO jersey? Shockey... well... no. No, I still can't see it. Wouldn't do it. Wearing a Yankees cap to a Giants game is one thing (quite common, actually), since at least both logos are "NY." But the TO jersey? I'm at a loss. What exactly are you saying? At least if you wore, let's say, a Tigers cap to a Mets-Dodgers game, you're at least in the right sport. Then you're saying, "You know, regardless of the outcome I'm just a baseball fan at heart." But the TO jersey? That's sending a message of, "Yes, well, I am not routing exactly for any particular team, but I want it to be known that, generally speaking, I am a fan of sports... in general."

Was it an East-coast West-coast thing? Are we still on that? (Please forgive me if I haven't listened to a rap album that's been released in the last 10 or so years, I'm still catching up to Dr. Dre's "The Chronic" at this point). Somebody help me out here.

* Of course, the absolute worst offender of the two games I attended last weekend was the gentelman in the photo to the right.

Notice two things here, if you haven't already. First, notice the fan seated at the bottom right of the image. Now, if you can make it out, look at the logo painted on the field at the top left of the image (if you're missing your binoculars, it's a Yankees logo). That's right, he wore a Red Sox Johnny Damon jersey to a Yankees - Red Sox game.

Now I'm really at a loss. To me, this is worse than the TO jersey at the Mets game, because at least that can be chalked up to general confusion. This is far more deliberate. I mean, who are you supporting? The Yanks' leadoff hitter? Or the Red Sox? Or are you still hung up on 2004? Can fans of either team support that? Shouldn't you be thrown out of the park for that? Or at least be forced to turn it inside out?

(Now, if you're curious, this young fellow was supporting the Sox, as evidenced by his hat, which was a Red Sox '04 World Series cap. Looks like we solved that one after all.)

* Finally, I'll leave you with a quote taken from the fans in the seats behind me, during a pinch-hit by Bernie Williams (a lifelong Yankee, since 1991).
Fan 1: "Who's that? Who's Williams?"
Fan 2: "Yeah. Bernie Williams."
Fan 1: "Didn't he used to play for the Sox?"
Me: (spraying beer through my nose in disbelief)

Now, was that taken out of context? Sure. Is it representative of the broader Red Sox fan base in general? No. But does it support my personal opinion that Sox fans are dumber than rocks? You bet.

And isn't that what having a blog is all about?

A Day at the Ballpark

I found myself in the Bronx today, slightly north of Manhattan, although I'll give you that it was planned.

Yes, today was a day to spend indulging in our country's favorite pastime. Er, well, baseball. Coincidentally enough, this happened last Saturday as well. See, being in Albany, NY makes me just a quick trip down Interstate 87 to the city (about 150 miles, if you're counting). There, I can experience all the riches it has to offer, as well as many of the poors.

To make a long story short, I caught a Mets-Dodgers game at Shea Stadium last Saturday, and the first game of a Yankees-Red Sox doubleheader at Yankee Stadium a week later. The following unassorted ramblings are what emerged from those experiences.

(Author's aside: And let me just clear up something for the audience at this point, since apparently liking both the Mets and Yankees is the sports equivalent of gay incest [and let's see the google search hits I get out of that phrase], as other New York sports fans will tell you. I grew up and am currently a Yanks fan. Period. My brother-in-law is a huge Dodgers fan, hence the Mets trip. Although, when I think about it, I don't root against the Mets [except in the 2000 World Series]... and you could say I generally enjoy when they're doing well... but then I rarely follow the National League, so I really don't care what people think at this point... I think I'm done with this argument)

* First off, most of this is going to focus on the Yankees leg of this trip, since I'm not as big of a Mets fan (see above) and Shea is kind of a dump.

And when I say 'kind of a dump,' I mean the area behind the outfield fence looks like a construction site (although I should point out here that the area beyond that is a construction site). The nicer stadiums will have fountains or grass back there (KC and Anaheim come to mind), or in many cases have bleachers for seating (Wrigley, Arlington), but Shea has a bunch of pavement, assorted scaffolding, and a shoddy-looking homerun apple (that comes out of a top hat each time a home run is hit, making it one of the more obnoxious tangible metaphors in all of sports). Seating is nice, concession area fine, but to have all that out there in plain view of most of the crowd is bush league.

* Do you think Johnny Damon would be less controversial if he were called John? John Damon just doesn't have the same ring to it (and, as a public service, I will explain here that his given name is Johnny-- it's not a nickname). I don't know why I think that is pertinent in any way (or interesting or amusing, for that matter), I just felt the need to share.

* Somebody a few rows ahead of me loudly called David Ortiz "Donkey Kong" during his first at-bat. It got a mild laugh from the crowd initially (I mean, Ortiz chucking barrels is a pretty amusing thought), until everybody slowly realized that it was probably a racial epithet... at which point things became quiet for a few moments. Pretty awkward.
Pretty awkward.

* To truly appreciate Yankees and Red Sox fans, you really need to be present during one of their head-to-head matchups. It's really at a point where the fans scream louder and louder not to cheer on their own team, but to rampantly annoy the fans from the other team. It's gone beyond the players. It's personal.

(And, if I may point out, none of the cheering was creative in any sense. Not that this should be surprising. Mostly, save for the aforementioned ethnic slur, it consisted of "Yankees suck" or "Red Sox suck," the only real difference being the accent in which it was yelled)

* I have a problem, not limited to baseball events but really any sporting event, of people not wearing the right jerseys to the game. I'm not talking about wearing an away jersey to a home game or anything like that, but.. well, let's give my example here. In Yankee stadium yesterday, a gentleman was wearing a Julius Peppers jersey. Which would have been fine with me... except for the fact that Mr Peppers is employed by the Carolina Panthers of the NFL. So at a NY-Boston baseball game, you're reprezentin' Raleigh. In football.
Keepin it real.

* Speaking of apparel, I've also noticed a growing trend of fitted baseball caps with the stickers still on them (particularly the size sticker on the top of the brim). Seems to be a hip-hop thing, but a palebottom like me wouldn't know much about that (I don't get out much). See, I sit there and try to figure out the logic in that. I obsess about these things I don't understand. Do they compare sizes? Is that it? Is it a dominance thing?

If I see another young male on the street and he's sporting a size 7, but I'm rocking my 7 3/8, do I now get to be cooler? And conversely, if I'm in the presence of a 7 5/8, do I curtsey or something? These are things I need to understand.

* And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, on my way back up I passed a Red Carpet Inn.

Let that sit for a second.

Now do you see where I'm going with this? The sheer potential of sexual puns for guys dating redheaded girls? Why has nobody brought this to my attention sooner? Is it so obvious to the public consciousness that we all just simply missed it in front of our noses? Or am I the only one juvenille enough to make a pubic hair joke about an economy hotel?

I'll let you think about that one. Until next time...

Back to the Gridiron

Back from hibernation, at least temporarily. But without further ado, here's Week 2's NFL picks.

Buffalo at Miami (-7)
Apparently, this spread is an indication that football scouts around the corner haven't given up on Daunte Culpepper yet. That's pretty funny, because for a player to get run out of Minnesota of all places, no less than a year after a near-MVP season, it's telling. We'll just leave it at that.
On the other hand, who's throwing for Buffalo these days? Losman still? Jesus Christ.
Game: Miami
Spread: Buffalo

Carolina at Minnesota (+1)
Toughest game to call this week. On the one hand, you have Carolina, a good team last year expected to do big things this year... and they get beat last week by a (supposedly) lousy team. Of course, this same thing happened last year too, and they made the playoffs (after that inspiring week 1 loss to New Orleans).
Minnesota... well... last year they went on a late run with Brad Johnson at QB, but that was against mostly crappy teams and their defense helped out too (not to mention Lady Luck). But then they go out and surprise Washington (another trendy playoff pick this year), in Washington, in front of a Monday Night audience.
I'm overthinking this, aren't I?
Game: Carolina
Spread: Carolina

(Author's aside: Anybody else catch the new trio in the Monday Night booth? Are there any other conclusions other than Tony Kornheiser should be doing color without Joe Theisman? Any doubt that Kornheiser couldn't carry that? Does Theisman add anything to that booth other than another few gallons of carbon dioxide?)

Cleveland at Cincinnatti (-10)
Let's see, so Carson Palmer is back at full strength, and the Browns let a Saints rookie pile up 120 yards of offense in week 1. What exactly is the question again?
Game: Cincy
Spread: Cincy

Detroit at Chicago (-7)
Detroit's defense only let up 3 measly field goals to the Superbowl runner-up in week 1. That's surprising (more on that later). Chicago's D shut out an (incredibly aged) Brett Farvruh. The edge goes to Chicago, obviously, but you have to wonder.
Well, not for very long... but still.
Game: Chicago
Spread: Chicago

Houston at Indy (-13.5)
I'd just like to take this time to congratulate Houston's front office. Now, I know this subject has been beaten to death since April, but come on. I'll give you that they also had incredibly bad luck. But come on. You pass on the next Marshall Faulk (let's not go overboard yet on Bush) to draft a defensive lineman. Really? And then, to make matters worse, your "star" tailback gets injured... but instead of giving up some actual talent for an NFL running back, you go out and get Ron Dayne and Samkon Gado. Wow. Now that is building for the future.
Game: Indy
Spread: Indy

New Orleans at Green Bay (+2.5)
Nice win for New Orleans last week against Cleveland. Green Bay, well, wow. Just wow. Can't quite find the words for that one.
And yet, Brett Farvrvruh's last season, home game, playing a bad road team... they can't lose, right? That can't happen. It's not supposed to happen.
Game: Green Bay
Spread: Green Bay

New York Giants at Philly (-3)
I was a little surprised at this spread (essentially means the teams are dead even except for home field advantage), given that the Giants hung tough against Indy. They've improved their defense while Philly has remained somewhat stagnant on offense.
Game: Giants
Spread: Giants

Oakland at Baltimore (-12)
Spread seemed high here too. I wouldn't go getting all hard for Baltimore yet, McNair's bound to break down (over/under is week 6), and their defense can't be that much better (over/under on Ray Lewis' injury is week 9). But then, their defense pitched a shut out last week. Meanwhile, Oakland's impotent attack was shut out. Almost looks like the makings of a huge upset. Almost.
Game: Baltimore
Spread: Baltimore

Tampa Bay at Atlanta (-5.5)
Woooo! Go Chris Simms! Wooooo!
Game: Atlanta
Spread: Atlanta

Arizona at Seattle (-7)
Are we done yet? How many teams are playing this week? Did we expand again? Geez.
OK, right. Arizona is another trendy playoff pick this year, but I wouldn't bet on the defending NFC champions at home. Just, call it a hunch.
Always call Kurt Warner a hunch.
I don't even know what that means.
Either way, Seattle should be taken to task for only putting up 3 field goals against Detroit's defense. We're talking about Detroit here. They've got one of the worst General Managers of all time! For God's sake, he could actually get advice from Dan Duquette and Isiah Thomas. The guy makes Vince Young look like Ken Jennings!
And you just went to the Super Bowl!!
Ugh.
Game: Seattle
Spread: Seattle

St Louis at San Francisco (+3)
Would be an impressive feat if the Rams really beat up on San Francisco here. They might have an impressive team this year, what with Marc Bulger healthy again and Steven Jackson not going anywhere (not to mention Torry Holt).
Then, Antonio Bryant looked good at wideout for the Niners last week, and Vernon Davis was also a pleasant surprise (although I'm still pissed at him for getting drafted one pick before me in my fantasy league this year... I'm sure it's his fault somehow). I just don't think Alex Smith is ready yet-- although he has his moments.
Whatever.
Game: St Louis
Spread: St Louis

KC at Denver (-11)
Pretty sucky loss for Denver last week. I doubt they'll have trouble bouncing back at home against a depleted KC offense (and let's just wait and see what effect Trent Green's head injury will do to Larry Johnson's "Second Coming of Christ" fantasy season).
Game: Denver
Spread: Denver

New England at New York Jets (+6)
You know what, screw it, I'm going for it. I'm taking the Jets as the upset game this week.
Game: NYJ
Spread: NYJ

Tennessee at San Diego (-12)
Yep... so we got Kerry Collins against a defense coming off a week in which it shut out an offense that includes Randy Moss. Yep... that's what we got.
Game: San Diego
Spread: San Diego


Washington at Dallas (-6)
I swore I wasn't going to fall into the "Redskins are good" trap this year. But then 20 bucks later after a loss to the Vikings, I knew I had done it again. WHY??? WHY DO I ALWAYS DO THIS?!?!??
Game: Dallas
Spread: Dallas

Pittsburgh at Jacksonville (+2)
Yeah, so apparently Pittsburgh could've won with any quarterback last year. I mean, if Charlie Batch can lead them to victory... you can literally stick any quarterback there. Anybody call Ryan Leaf for this?
Game: Pittsburgh
Spread: Pittsburgh

NERD CORNER
Decided to start a new feature this year, dealing with Fantasy sports. The rumor mill is telling me that it's becoming quite popular with the children.
OK, fine, you got me. I've been obsessed for years. Happy now?
Up the slope:
Heath Miller (TE PIT). Expect bigger things with Randle-El out of the picture. They lose some creativity (losing the Harlem Globetrotter of the NFL will do that) but they'll make up for it with their TE.

Down the slope:
Frank Gore (RB SF). Don't expect 160 total yards and 2 scores every week (duh). His week 1 stats were more likely a factor more of the fact that the defense had Cardinals jerseys on. Don't drop him, just don't get the tattoo yet.

Over the hill:
Darrell Jackson (WR SEA). I know, another 'duh' with the signing of Branch. But people really need to know to drop him, now that he has 3 other NFL starters to compete with for catches... on a team that features Shawn Alexander at tailback (which was an odd signing, especially for a team that needed another receiver like Baywatch needed another boob job).

NBC Really Blowing this Olympics

You don't usually have to look far to see a story about NBC's failed Olympic coverage. Most sportswriters have already tackled the subject to some degree. But I felt the need to make this painfully apparent to the network execs up there at the peacock.

Yesterday, as most everybody knows, Visa's sweetheard Lindsey Jacobellis lost herself the gold medal by grabbing her board-- and falling-- near the end of an uncontested run, touching off "showboat" arguments from here to Kingston, Jamaica, where presumably they're still riled about their bobsled falling apart at the end of Cool Runnings. Personally, I don't care, let the chick grab her board. Nine times out of ten, she lands the jump and everybody's happy. It's not like she won't be back at it in Vancouver for the 2010 games. But that's not why I'm here.

I'm here because as I was reading that article (on SI.com, in case you were really interested), NBC ran an advertisement in the article pimping their prime time coverage with the following line: "Watch Lindsey Jacobellis go for the gold in Snowboardcross."

If anything, this little parable highlights just how obtuse the network heads are at NBC, thinking that we're going to keep to the "see no Olympics, hear no Olympics" mantra until 8PM that evening, despite the fact that the entire universe already knows what's happening. I ask you, is there any reason to tape delay these events? At all? You'd think they'd actually be losing ratings because of it.

Think of it this way-- would you ever watch an entire Super Bowl if you'd already read the entire game recap ahead of time? What, maybe 3% of your audience who only likes a happy ending, or for hardcore fans of the winners. Maybe there's an in-game brawl that you just can't miss, or an aging pop star bares her nipple, or whatever, but most of the time it's just not going to happen.

And this is the Olympics for God's sake. This is the one time that (literally) the entire country is cheering for one team. This is where we can show the Soviets who's boss, where speed skaters can fake being blocked by those pesky Koreans, where innocent Canadians can fall victim to the crooked French, where we can stick it to Iran and their nukes by whipping them in the Curling competition.

Well, I'm not so sure that last one's happened yet. I haven't really been watching. Have somebody at NBC drop me a line when it's on.

You've reached the bottom of the glass.
Check out the archives on the right side of the page for more.

All material Copyright © 2005 Brad C., sole publisher of this blog