There are plenty of things wrong with Major League Baseball. The DH, the lack of some sort of salary cap, the lack of a rookie pay scale, the fact that teams can't trade draft picks, the fact that regular season awards are voted on after the playoffs. I could probably go on.
But certainly the easiest of all major problems to fix (except for that awards voting one) would be the issue of instant replay. Replay is currently used on disputable home runs. Why not use it for every close play (excluding balls and strikes)? Well maybe not every close play. Give each manager two challenges. That's enough such that a manager would not be afraid to challenge a call at first base early in the game (after all, how often do multiple bad calls go against you in a game?), but not so much that he would be throwing the red flag all over the place (I wouldn't want to be without any challenges left late in the game). If you are concerned about the time replay would add to the game, consider the time it would save by eliminating manager arguments and tantrums (although now that I think about it, maybe we don't want to get rid of those). Maybe you make it so there is a penalty if a manager challenges and loses. Maybe 2 automatic balls to the next hitter. I don't know. That's just off the top of my head. A replay system would be easy to devise, and easy to implement.
And don't try to tell me about the "human" element that the umpires add to the game. A catcher having an arm just strong enough to throw out a runner trying to steal second--or the runner being just fast enough to beat that throw--that is the human element. The "human" element comes from the players. Not the umpires. When you try and justify bad calls by saying it's the "human" element, what you are really justifying is the "unfair" element.
Also don't try to tell me that adding replay would be embarrassing to the umps. No. What's embarrassing to the umps is a bad call getting replayed over and over, with the umpire's name attached to it forever. Replay will save umpires embarrassment. Loads of it. Because embarrassment stems from bad calls. And replay would basically eliminate bad calls. Think about that.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
On Glee
You know that show, "Glee", on FOX? I've watched it. Not regularly. But I just caught up watching it online. It's not very good. But I keep watching it because I want it to be good. It has potential. At times it is quite funny. Especially Sue Sylvester, the arrogant and blunt cheerleading coach played by Jane Lynch. And I find myself rooting for the lead character, Mr. Shuester (Matthew Morrison), and Emma Pillsbury (Jayma Mays) to finally get together, similar to the way we all wanted Jim and Pam to make it happen in The Office.
But there is too much that goes on that just does not make sense. Even in the context of the show being a musical. I'm talking about some of the dialogue and actions of the characters. I get that the show takes place in a world where people can (almost) spontaneously and flawlessly break into song and dance. I get that. But not even in that world would Emma get engaged to someone she doesn't love, go to great lengths to hide it from most people including planning a brief and tiny ceremony thousands of miles away, yet still want to wear an extravagant dress. It just doesn't make sense. Things like that. They happen too often, and they ruin the show.
While I'm criticizing, I'll go ahead and criticize the musical aspect of it. First let me say that I really like the idea. A TV show that is a musical. For those of us that like music, singing, and dancing, there's no reason it shouldn't work. And let me also say that for the most part I enjoy the musical numbers. What I often don't like is how obviously they are pre-recorded and dubbed. I'm pretty sure movies and TV shows do this all the time, but for whatever reason, it is painfully obvious that I am not watching these cast members actually singing. I also don't like how for most of the show, you feel like you are watching a regular comedy/drama about high school (not a musical), so when the songs come, it's often unbearably awkward and cheesy. For example, most of the numbers are sung during Glee practice. This makes sense. What I don't like is how Shuester will bring some new song in one day, and the kids will just bust it out without more than a glance at the sheet music. At least prep me with something like Shuester saying "okay guys we've been working on this one for a while now. Let's do it really good this time". Or, if the kids are in fact that good at spontaneously singing and dancing, why only do it in Glee club? Why not all the time? (There have been a few songs sung outside of practice or performance, but I argue not enough).
I suppose the reason I watch is Diana Agron, who plays Quinn Fabray, the beautiful, bratty, popular but unsecure, pregnant (now ex-) cheerleader. I went to high school with Diana. I believe she's two years below me. She's good friends with the younger sister of one of my good friends. [Aside: I remember a few years ago when she was in a few episodes of Heroes (playing a staggeringly similar character), I watched and thought "where have I seen this girl? what else has she been in?" And then when someone from home said to me "do you know diana agron is on Heroes?" I was all "OOhhh, that's what she's been in--my high school!"] So it's kind of intriguing to watch the show because someone that I kind of know is in it.
Anyway, the whole reason I wrote this is to mention how I thought this was funny: in the most recent episode, Puck is telling the audience the story of how he hooked up with Rachel, saying he had a dream that "was a message from god. Rachel was a hot Jew, and the good lord wanted me to get in her pants." (Puck's mom had wanted him to date a Jewish girl.) This is ironic because Puck is in fact the father of Quinn's baby. And Diana Agron, if I recall correctly, is Jewish. See, I get enjoyment out of that scene that the average viewer was not even supposed to get. Because I kinda-sorta know Diana Agron. That's why I watch the show.
But there is too much that goes on that just does not make sense. Even in the context of the show being a musical. I'm talking about some of the dialogue and actions of the characters. I get that the show takes place in a world where people can (almost) spontaneously and flawlessly break into song and dance. I get that. But not even in that world would Emma get engaged to someone she doesn't love, go to great lengths to hide it from most people including planning a brief and tiny ceremony thousands of miles away, yet still want to wear an extravagant dress. It just doesn't make sense. Things like that. They happen too often, and they ruin the show.
While I'm criticizing, I'll go ahead and criticize the musical aspect of it. First let me say that I really like the idea. A TV show that is a musical. For those of us that like music, singing, and dancing, there's no reason it shouldn't work. And let me also say that for the most part I enjoy the musical numbers. What I often don't like is how obviously they are pre-recorded and dubbed. I'm pretty sure movies and TV shows do this all the time, but for whatever reason, it is painfully obvious that I am not watching these cast members actually singing. I also don't like how for most of the show, you feel like you are watching a regular comedy/drama about high school (not a musical), so when the songs come, it's often unbearably awkward and cheesy. For example, most of the numbers are sung during Glee practice. This makes sense. What I don't like is how Shuester will bring some new song in one day, and the kids will just bust it out without more than a glance at the sheet music. At least prep me with something like Shuester saying "okay guys we've been working on this one for a while now. Let's do it really good this time". Or, if the kids are in fact that good at spontaneously singing and dancing, why only do it in Glee club? Why not all the time? (There have been a few songs sung outside of practice or performance, but I argue not enough).
I suppose the reason I watch is Diana Agron, who plays Quinn Fabray, the beautiful, bratty, popular but unsecure, pregnant (now ex-) cheerleader. I went to high school with Diana. I believe she's two years below me. She's good friends with the younger sister of one of my good friends. [Aside: I remember a few years ago when she was in a few episodes of Heroes (playing a staggeringly similar character), I watched and thought "where have I seen this girl? what else has she been in?" And then when someone from home said to me "do you know diana agron is on Heroes?" I was all "OOhhh, that's what she's been in--my high school!"] So it's kind of intriguing to watch the show because someone that I kind of know is in it.
Anyway, the whole reason I wrote this is to mention how I thought this was funny: in the most recent episode, Puck is telling the audience the story of how he hooked up with Rachel, saying he had a dream that "was a message from god. Rachel was a hot Jew, and the good lord wanted me to get in her pants." (Puck's mom had wanted him to date a Jewish girl.) This is ironic because Puck is in fact the father of Quinn's baby. And Diana Agron, if I recall correctly, is Jewish. See, I get enjoyment out of that scene that the average viewer was not even supposed to get. Because I kinda-sorta know Diana Agron. That's why I watch the show.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
On the "Simpsons" Episode I Just Watched
I just watched an old episode of The Simpsons. Of interest was the ending. Bart finds out that Major League Baseball is using satelites to spy on everyone. Mark McGwire shows up, and when asked why MLB is spying, he responds "Do you want to know the terrifying truth? Or do you want to see me sock a few dingers!" The crowd erupts into a "Dingers!" chant.
I thought that was interesting. Forshadowing of what was to come, and completely accurate in that ultimately the fans don't care. Chicks dig the long ball.
I thought that was interesting. Forshadowing of what was to come, and completely accurate in that ultimately the fans don't care. Chicks dig the long ball.
Monday, March 16, 2009
On the Economy, and Barry Zito
I need someone to educate me here. I pray to whoever that I'm not about to sound like the biggest asshole on the planet--but this financial crisis we're in - shouldn't some of the blame go to the people who failed to pay back their loans? I mean, in brief and simple terms, a big reason for this awful economy is that banks gave out a ton of loans that didn't get paid back, and that is why they went to hell, right? Did these people not sign a contract promising to pay X amount of dollars back in Y amount of time? Don't get me wrong--the banks are responsible for their own fuck-ups. And these bad loans were fuck-ups. Huge ones, obviously. And they are the ones who are supposed to know what's up. It's like, even though I was happy when the Giants signed Barry Zito for $126 million and I thought it was the right move, it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be mad at Brian Sabean for doing it now. He's the one getting paid to evaluate talent and build a team. Just like the banks should be able to evaluate whether someone is gonna be able to pay their bills. So they get most of the blame. But does Barry Zito not get a lot of the blame too? Should I not be mad at Barry Zito along with Brian Sabean? Do those that defaulted on loans deserve some of the blame for this shitty economy? This is my question to you. Feel free to educate me.
My guess is that the banks were all "oh dont worry. You'll be able to pay this loan. You're house will only get more valuable". That seems like a logical explaination, and also shifts pretty much all the blame to the banks. So maybe I don't need to get educated.
BTW, I say "banks" as an encompassing term for all of the "fat cats on wall street" that people love to bitch about.
My guess is that the banks were all "oh dont worry. You'll be able to pay this loan. You're house will only get more valuable". That seems like a logical explaination, and also shifts pretty much all the blame to the banks. So maybe I don't need to get educated.
BTW, I say "banks" as an encompassing term for all of the "fat cats on wall street" that people love to bitch about.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
On the Presidents
I wonder what George W. Bush was feeling as he was exiting the White House for the final time. That would have to be about the best feeling in the world. Knowing you don't have that job anymore. I've always said the President of the US must be the most difficult job in the world. So if you've been doing it for 8 years (albeit poorly), I have to think that not having the job anymore would be quite a relief. Like, right after Obama was sworn in, that must have been such a feeling of weight off the shoulders. There could be another 9/11, and it would not be his problem. And what about when you first get home? Just flop down on the recliner and be like "AAahhhh..." I almost envy that.
Anyway, Obama's term is going about as expected, I suppose. There does seem to be a bit of a normalness to the hole thing, which is a bit disappointing. But not too surprising. Democrats and Republicans argue. That's business as usual. I really don't many people thought all that much would change overnight, but it was still fun to daydream. But I've never thought the biggest change would be in policy, really. I've always thought that the biggest, most observable and quantifiable change would be in our image throughout the world. Both in how other world leaders view our leader and how other citizens view US citizens.
There's another thing, though, that I hadn't thought about during the election, that I think could be the biggest or most important change, as least in the area of race. There's been a lot of talk about what Obama can do on race-related issues. Again, I think there's general consensus that he does not and cannot just make things perfect over night. There's no one policy he can just flip a switch on, and everything will be good. But just by being president alone, he changes things. If you think about what a huge role model he is. And not just for struggling teenagers. Think about all the kids who are around 4 years old right now. Right when they are first starting to make lasting memories. When they are 12 (if all goes according to plan), the only president they will have known will have been a black president. Or how about 10 year olds? In another 8 years they will be voting for the first time, and in their world, a black president is literally commonplace. So that, I think, is the most important thing Obama can do for race issues--just be president. That alone will have effects on people of all races, even if we wont see them for years, even decades down the line.
On another note, assuming Obama does a reasonalby good job, you would think they would have to put his face on some piece of currency, right? The first black president? I think that merits a face on some cash. What do you think they'll give him? Here's my idea: a 5 dollar coin. All the bills that anyone would use commonly are taken. And we've made at least a couple 1 dollar coins that never got used that much--I'm thinking it's because no one cares about a dollar if it's change. But if it was 5 dollars, people would care about their change, and they would use it. Plus Lincoln is on the 5 dollar bill, so you could make another Lincoln/Obama connection that people love doing.
Anyway, Obama's term is going about as expected, I suppose. There does seem to be a bit of a normalness to the hole thing, which is a bit disappointing. But not too surprising. Democrats and Republicans argue. That's business as usual. I really don't many people thought all that much would change overnight, but it was still fun to daydream. But I've never thought the biggest change would be in policy, really. I've always thought that the biggest, most observable and quantifiable change would be in our image throughout the world. Both in how other world leaders view our leader and how other citizens view US citizens.
There's another thing, though, that I hadn't thought about during the election, that I think could be the biggest or most important change, as least in the area of race. There's been a lot of talk about what Obama can do on race-related issues. Again, I think there's general consensus that he does not and cannot just make things perfect over night. There's no one policy he can just flip a switch on, and everything will be good. But just by being president alone, he changes things. If you think about what a huge role model he is. And not just for struggling teenagers. Think about all the kids who are around 4 years old right now. Right when they are first starting to make lasting memories. When they are 12 (if all goes according to plan), the only president they will have known will have been a black president. Or how about 10 year olds? In another 8 years they will be voting for the first time, and in their world, a black president is literally commonplace. So that, I think, is the most important thing Obama can do for race issues--just be president. That alone will have effects on people of all races, even if we wont see them for years, even decades down the line.
On another note, assuming Obama does a reasonalby good job, you would think they would have to put his face on some piece of currency, right? The first black president? I think that merits a face on some cash. What do you think they'll give him? Here's my idea: a 5 dollar coin. All the bills that anyone would use commonly are taken. And we've made at least a couple 1 dollar coins that never got used that much--I'm thinking it's because no one cares about a dollar if it's change. But if it was 5 dollars, people would care about their change, and they would use it. Plus Lincoln is on the 5 dollar bill, so you could make another Lincoln/Obama connection that people love doing.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
On the Dunk Contest
So I know probably nobody cares about the NBA Dunk Contest that happened last weekend, but I have a few thoughts that I need to get out there, just to vent.
- First of all, the format is weak. You get 2 minutes to do your dunk, and you can miss as many times as time will allow. Then even after time expires, you get 2 more attempts. You should get maybe 3 attempts, and you should get judged on how your dunk looks in those 3. If you make it on your first attempt, great. If your dunk is so difficult that you can't make it, well then maybe the judges will give you some points for effort. Or maybe you'll switch to something easier on your 2nd or 3rd attempt.
- Speaking of judges, they are always idiots. There's never a judge who throws up a score of less than an 8. So dunks might as well be judged on a scale of 1 to 3. And the panel of 5 gives out 50s like it's going out of style. Ideally, there should be around 1 perfect score every year. This year, no dunk deserved a 50, yet Dwight Howard got at least 2 because he's tall and charismatic.
- The announcers suck as well.
- There needs to be more competitiveness and less gimicks. I'm talking to you, Dwight Howard and Nate Robinson--your stupid Superman theme was hella lame. This is why LeBron James needs to enter the Contest. Cuz once he was signed up, you know he would not want to lose, and he would probably come with some sweet ass shit. We need to get back to the days of Jordan vs Wilkins, and in today's game, one of those players has to be LeBron.
- I am waiting for someone to do a flip dunk. That will be awesome. Another one someone should try (maybe try - it might be too easy or too hard or not even that cool - it just popped into my head) is this: since one of your dunks requires you to be assisted by a teammate (e.g. they throw you an alley-oop), someone should get an alley-oop, but the pass should actually fall through the hoop, then you grab it, and dunk it. I think that would be cool.
- First of all, the format is weak. You get 2 minutes to do your dunk, and you can miss as many times as time will allow. Then even after time expires, you get 2 more attempts. You should get maybe 3 attempts, and you should get judged on how your dunk looks in those 3. If you make it on your first attempt, great. If your dunk is so difficult that you can't make it, well then maybe the judges will give you some points for effort. Or maybe you'll switch to something easier on your 2nd or 3rd attempt.
- Speaking of judges, they are always idiots. There's never a judge who throws up a score of less than an 8. So dunks might as well be judged on a scale of 1 to 3. And the panel of 5 gives out 50s like it's going out of style. Ideally, there should be around 1 perfect score every year. This year, no dunk deserved a 50, yet Dwight Howard got at least 2 because he's tall and charismatic.
- The announcers suck as well.
- There needs to be more competitiveness and less gimicks. I'm talking to you, Dwight Howard and Nate Robinson--your stupid Superman theme was hella lame. This is why LeBron James needs to enter the Contest. Cuz once he was signed up, you know he would not want to lose, and he would probably come with some sweet ass shit. We need to get back to the days of Jordan vs Wilkins, and in today's game, one of those players has to be LeBron.
- I am waiting for someone to do a flip dunk. That will be awesome. Another one someone should try (maybe try - it might be too easy or too hard or not even that cool - it just popped into my head) is this: since one of your dunks requires you to be assisted by a teammate (e.g. they throw you an alley-oop), someone should get an alley-oop, but the pass should actually fall through the hoop, then you grab it, and dunk it. I think that would be cool.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
More On Baseball
Okay. Let's agree on one thing: Bud Selig is a total jackass. Here are a couple quotes of his when he talked about the A-Roid issue:
"It was against the law, so I would have to think about that," on whether he might discipline Rodruiguez, possibly by suspension.
I would like to see him try and suspend A-Rod, or even punish him at all. The Players Union would go apeshit. The Union would be Nasty Nate, and Selig would be Kenny without Squirrel Master to protect him. Simple as that. What's that legal term about how you can't be punished for a crime that was not a crime yet when you committed it? Same thing here.
"This is breaking my heart, I don't mind telling you that."
Ha! This is as insulting as it is lame. Bud Selig, and pretty much Bud Selig alone, presided over the Steroid Era. Don't try and tell me he didn't know what was going on. Players, managers, GMs, owners, and MLB officials all knew about it. The reason they didn't do anything about it was because they were all making tons of money for it. Selig often reminds us about how attendace and revenue are up during his tenure as Commissioner. What he doesn't remind us of is that that is a result of all the home runs being hit due to steroids (see 1998, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa saved/ruined baseball). So yes, everyone shares the responsibility. But ultimately, most of it has to fall on Selig. It has been his league. Should have we expected some righteous owners to tell their fans "Well, folks, as a result of having a the scrawniest team in baseball, we finished fourth in our division again. But you can be sure that we've got the cleanest guys around!" No. It's Selig's leauge. He is in charge. He is responsible for what will be looked at as a dark time in baseball.
The one other thing he likes to mention is how he brought Wild Card baseball to the League. Like that wasn't gonna happen otherwise. He also is responsible for an All-Star game that ended in a tie, and a World Series game that was suspened for over 24 hours, both resulting in a ton of people freaking out, and both the result of lack of preparation. Again - his League, his responsibility.
And I am also reading that he is considering reinstating Hank Aaron as baseball's official home run king! I would also like to see him try this one. Seriously I hope he does, just because of the fit I would get to throw. So maybe the record book will read:
1. Hank Aaron - 755
2. Barry Bonds - 762
Or maybe he'll just claim that steroids were responsible for exactly 8 Barry Bonds home runs, and he'll put Bonds at 754. I mean, he can't really think he could do something like this, right? I love it how he freaks out now that A-Rod is tainted. Because A-Rod was going to be his savior. Once A-Rod broke Barry's record, it--along with his hands presumably--would be clean. And now that A-Rod is no good, NOW he decides that Aaron (his close personal friend by the way) should be back on top.
So we are agreed then: Bud Selig is a total jackass. Moving on.
Will someone please explain to me why Manny Ramirez has not signed with anyone? At the beginning of the offseason, when he wanted a 4 or 5 year deal, I get why you wouldn't want that. He's 37 and already a defensive liability. But now it seems pretty clear that he's not gonna get 4 or 5 years. He's only gonna get 1 or 2. And seemingly at a reasonable price as well. If you are a team trying to win a World Series, I cannot understand why you would not bid on him at this point. Shit even 3 years, especially in the AL. How are the Yankees not going after him? Right now, they have to be considered strong contenders, but with Manny, would they not be a crystal clear favorite? Think about that lineup with A-Rod Manny and Texiera. Plus Red Sox fans would be crying themselves to sleep. But other teams as well. Mets, Angels, or anyone who wants to win a championship. He's going to help your team immensly. And he's at a pretty good bargain. The more I think about it, the more I want the Giants to go for him. They would shoot to the favorites in the NL West, and with him, World Series contention is not unreasonable in 2 or 3 years. Plus to snatch him from the Dodgers would just feel so right.
Plus, I think baseball is gonna be hit by the economy more that most people realize. Of the major sports, baseball is the first to have its season start after the collapse. And what I keep reading is that things are not going to get better in 2009; maybe worse. So considering that Manny is the biggest draw of any player (with the possibe exception of A-Rod), that's another reason to sign him right there. This is insane. Spring Training has started, and one of the best hitters in the game who is still in his prime does not have a team to play for. It's insane.
Also, I hate Hate HATE when people refer to Ken Griffey Jr. as "Junior Griffey". That is not his name.
"It was against the law, so I would have to think about that," on whether he might discipline Rodruiguez, possibly by suspension.
I would like to see him try and suspend A-Rod, or even punish him at all. The Players Union would go apeshit. The Union would be Nasty Nate, and Selig would be Kenny without Squirrel Master to protect him. Simple as that. What's that legal term about how you can't be punished for a crime that was not a crime yet when you committed it? Same thing here.
"This is breaking my heart, I don't mind telling you that."
Ha! This is as insulting as it is lame. Bud Selig, and pretty much Bud Selig alone, presided over the Steroid Era. Don't try and tell me he didn't know what was going on. Players, managers, GMs, owners, and MLB officials all knew about it. The reason they didn't do anything about it was because they were all making tons of money for it. Selig often reminds us about how attendace and revenue are up during his tenure as Commissioner. What he doesn't remind us of is that that is a result of all the home runs being hit due to steroids (see 1998, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa saved/ruined baseball). So yes, everyone shares the responsibility. But ultimately, most of it has to fall on Selig. It has been his league. Should have we expected some righteous owners to tell their fans "Well, folks, as a result of having a the scrawniest team in baseball, we finished fourth in our division again. But you can be sure that we've got the cleanest guys around!" No. It's Selig's leauge. He is in charge. He is responsible for what will be looked at as a dark time in baseball.
The one other thing he likes to mention is how he brought Wild Card baseball to the League. Like that wasn't gonna happen otherwise. He also is responsible for an All-Star game that ended in a tie, and a World Series game that was suspened for over 24 hours, both resulting in a ton of people freaking out, and both the result of lack of preparation. Again - his League, his responsibility.
And I am also reading that he is considering reinstating Hank Aaron as baseball's official home run king! I would also like to see him try this one. Seriously I hope he does, just because of the fit I would get to throw. So maybe the record book will read:
1. Hank Aaron - 755
2. Barry Bonds - 762
Or maybe he'll just claim that steroids were responsible for exactly 8 Barry Bonds home runs, and he'll put Bonds at 754. I mean, he can't really think he could do something like this, right? I love it how he freaks out now that A-Rod is tainted. Because A-Rod was going to be his savior. Once A-Rod broke Barry's record, it--along with his hands presumably--would be clean. And now that A-Rod is no good, NOW he decides that Aaron (his close personal friend by the way) should be back on top.
So we are agreed then: Bud Selig is a total jackass. Moving on.
Will someone please explain to me why Manny Ramirez has not signed with anyone? At the beginning of the offseason, when he wanted a 4 or 5 year deal, I get why you wouldn't want that. He's 37 and already a defensive liability. But now it seems pretty clear that he's not gonna get 4 or 5 years. He's only gonna get 1 or 2. And seemingly at a reasonable price as well. If you are a team trying to win a World Series, I cannot understand why you would not bid on him at this point. Shit even 3 years, especially in the AL. How are the Yankees not going after him? Right now, they have to be considered strong contenders, but with Manny, would they not be a crystal clear favorite? Think about that lineup with A-Rod Manny and Texiera. Plus Red Sox fans would be crying themselves to sleep. But other teams as well. Mets, Angels, or anyone who wants to win a championship. He's going to help your team immensly. And he's at a pretty good bargain. The more I think about it, the more I want the Giants to go for him. They would shoot to the favorites in the NL West, and with him, World Series contention is not unreasonable in 2 or 3 years. Plus to snatch him from the Dodgers would just feel so right.
Plus, I think baseball is gonna be hit by the economy more that most people realize. Of the major sports, baseball is the first to have its season start after the collapse. And what I keep reading is that things are not going to get better in 2009; maybe worse. So considering that Manny is the biggest draw of any player (with the possibe exception of A-Rod), that's another reason to sign him right there. This is insane. Spring Training has started, and one of the best hitters in the game who is still in his prime does not have a team to play for. It's insane.
Also, I hate Hate HATE when people refer to Ken Griffey Jr. as "Junior Griffey". That is not his name.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
On AlexandsterRoidruiguez
I wasn't terribly surprised to find out that he used Performance Enhancing Drugs, supposedly when he was with the Rangers from 2001-2003. I was excited though. Because every name that comes out as associated with PEDs lightens the load on the San Francisco Savior, Barry Bonds, who has unfairly taken the brunt of this controversy for the last near decade. And this is a huge name. Just like Clemens was. What brings me the greatest joy is thinking about all those people and writers who, during the build-up to and after Barry hit #756, said it will be so great when A-Rod breaks Barry's record, and the record will be saved and clean. And now they have nothing. They will just have to live with the fact that this era of baseball happened. People were overreacting so bad back then (in '07, when Barry was doing his thing). I remember one of their insanely stupid concerns was that the next generation of baseball fans wouldn't really know or care about Hank Aaron, because he wouldn't be on top of the list, because he would be obscurred by this "dirty" player. Right. No that's exactly right. Babe Ruth and Willie Mays were 2nd and 3rd on the HR list, and I don't think many people from my generation even know who they are.
When are people going to realize that this is simply just another era in baseball history? There was a time when the sport was not integrated. There was a time when the pitcher's mound was lower. There was a time when a lot of players used steroids. Even the best ones. Even the ones everyone thought were clean. I'd say that's one of the most interesting parts about this whole thing. Everyone thought A-rod was clean. So, now, literally anyone could be guilty. Will it be a surprise if an investigation outs the likes of Griffey or Puljos? Not to me. This brings me to the Hall of Fame. How are you not gonna put A-Rod in the Hall of Fame. How are you not gonna put Bonds in? Clemens. Etc Etc. I think you can make a case against McGwire and Sosa, because they were so 1-Dimensional, but say an association with PEDs disqualifies someone, well that is just stupid. There was no penalty for using these substances when these guys were using them! So blame baseball. Blame Bud Selig. But don't vote a guy in just because he never got caught, while keeping those who did out. Because we just can't know about everyone. All the media talked about how Ricky Henderson was a first-ballot Hall of Famer if there ever was one. And he did of course get in on his first ballot. But how do we know he wasn't on 'roids? Sure, he probably wasn't. But you have to acknowledge the possibility. Yes, I see the point about how this steroid era is different than other eras because some players gained an advantage over others (at least when baseball was segregated it was segregated for everyone). But let us remember this: Hank Aaron naver had to face pitchers on steroids. Maybe we should brand an asterisk on his record-breaking home run ball.
In short, it's not really that big of a deal that A-Rod is now A-Roid, except for the fact that it makes Barry look better. And good for A-Roid to kind of blame baseball, talking about how PEDs were just ingrained in the culture. Although it was kind of funny how he talked about 5 years ago like it was a half century ago ("Back then.....At that time....."). Also, Bonds is totally being unfairly persecuted. This is the worst misuse of taxpayer money since the War in Iraq.
When are people going to realize that this is simply just another era in baseball history? There was a time when the sport was not integrated. There was a time when the pitcher's mound was lower. There was a time when a lot of players used steroids. Even the best ones. Even the ones everyone thought were clean. I'd say that's one of the most interesting parts about this whole thing. Everyone thought A-rod was clean. So, now, literally anyone could be guilty. Will it be a surprise if an investigation outs the likes of Griffey or Puljos? Not to me. This brings me to the Hall of Fame. How are you not gonna put A-Rod in the Hall of Fame. How are you not gonna put Bonds in? Clemens. Etc Etc. I think you can make a case against McGwire and Sosa, because they were so 1-Dimensional, but say an association with PEDs disqualifies someone, well that is just stupid. There was no penalty for using these substances when these guys were using them! So blame baseball. Blame Bud Selig. But don't vote a guy in just because he never got caught, while keeping those who did out. Because we just can't know about everyone. All the media talked about how Ricky Henderson was a first-ballot Hall of Famer if there ever was one. And he did of course get in on his first ballot. But how do we know he wasn't on 'roids? Sure, he probably wasn't. But you have to acknowledge the possibility. Yes, I see the point about how this steroid era is different than other eras because some players gained an advantage over others (at least when baseball was segregated it was segregated for everyone). But let us remember this: Hank Aaron naver had to face pitchers on steroids. Maybe we should brand an asterisk on his record-breaking home run ball.
In short, it's not really that big of a deal that A-Rod is now A-Roid, except for the fact that it makes Barry look better. And good for A-Roid to kind of blame baseball, talking about how PEDs were just ingrained in the culture. Although it was kind of funny how he talked about 5 years ago like it was a half century ago ("Back then.....At that time....."). Also, Bonds is totally being unfairly persecuted. This is the worst misuse of taxpayer money since the War in Iraq.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
On Sitcoms
They sure don't make 'em like they used to. But really, were sitcoms ever that great? There's Seinfeld, which is probably the greatest show of all time (I bet if you asked every TV watcher what the best show of all time is, Seinfeld would get a plurality--not a majority, mind you--a plurality). But beyond that, what did we have? Frasier? Mad About You? I never watched these, but that's probably because they were no good. Friends was pretty good. I'm not afraid to say that. It inserted stupid drama (which by the end had gotten Dawson's Creek-esque), but there were some funny characters and jokes in that show.
But if you look at the sitcoms we have now, they are just not that funny. When I think of today's sitcoms, I think of 3 CBS comedies: Two and a Half Men, Big Bang Theory, and How I Met Your Mother. I actually watch the latter two sometimes, and they are mildly entertaining (HIMYM moreso that BBT). But what I've noticed is this: they all seem to follow the simple format of: set up joke, deliver punchline, cue studio audience to laugh, move on to next joke. That's all it is. One character says something, another delivers a line that could be somewhat funny. The jokes are not connected to each other or even the storyline (I just realized Im also describing Family Guy. But that's animation. And in Family Guy, the characters themselves are funny. Not so for the most part in these shows I'm talking about) . In a show like Seinfeld, the jokes themselves have their very own arching plotlines, weaving in and out of the storylines of other characters. Plus they've also got the one-liners, which are also much better executed, and the characters themselves are funny. Friends had these qualities, too, which it does not get that much credit for. In How I Met Your Mother, what character besides Neil Patrick Harris has a funny personality? In Big Bang Theory, they are nerds. Nerds can be funny, but these guys are uber-nerds to the point that it is ridiculous and unrelatable. Two and a Half Men is stupid and just pisses me off. Compare any of these characters to Jerry, George, and Kramer...well, there is no comparison. They are funny pretty much whatever they do or say. Like this exchange:
Jerry: I don't have to be funny, I don't care.
George: You don't?
Jerry: No way! It's completely under my control.
Elaine: No, it's not. You cannot not be funny.
Jerry: Of course I can, am I being funny now?
Elaine (smiling): A little.
Jerry (getting upset): Oh, this is funny? I'm being funny?
Elaine (now laughing): Yeah.
Jerry: George, is this funny?
George: It's funny!
See? It's funny. I think we can blame Ray Romano for this downward trend in funniness. From what I have seen, Everybody Loves Raymond may have led the transition to this new, simple and lame format. Boy was that a lame show. They probably had the lowest joke batting average of anyone. But people watched. So that opened the door for these newer CBS shows.
Maybe I'm thinking about this too narrowly though. While I can't imagine Fox has anything that deviates from this setup-punchline-setup-punchline (see The War at Home), if we go over to NBC, we find 30 Rock, which is good. And if we expand our horizons futher, we get to It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia. There are plenty of people who would put at least one of these shows very high up on the list of funniest tv comedies. While I wouldn't go too far, I will say that these are definitely funny, quality programs. And then there's Curb Your Enthusiam, a modern-day, more vulgar Seinfeld, so of course it's great. Curb is great in that it's got that "The Pledge - The Turn - The Prestige" quality to its jokes that Seinfeld has (if you don't know what I mean, watch The Prestige--great movie). And Friends, 30 Rock, and It's Always Sunny have/had this too, but not to the extent Curb and Seinfeld do.
So when I said at the beginning, "they don't make 'em like they used too", I think I was off. Because I've named 3 funny shows from the present day, and only 2 from the '90s, which is supposed to be the heyday of sitcoms, right? Plus if Arrested Development is a sitcom, that's another funny one (world's biggest understatement) from the present era. Am I missing any from the old days?
Maybe the Situational Comedy is just not that great of a genre. If you think about all the sitcoms that have ever been made, not that many of them are funny. It's like Grunge music. Other than Nirvana and Pearl Jam, what grunge bands were good? Sound Garden? Stone Temple Pilots? No. They sucked. Plus Grunge paved they way for these modern grunge bands like Creed and Puddle of Mudd, who are really totally aweful. On top of all that, I've always thought that Nirvana was overrated. They were the best band in a genre that turned out to be not that great. Kurt Cobain putting that shot gun in his mouth was the best thing that ever happened to Nirvana, and really grunge music in general.
But if you look at the sitcoms we have now, they are just not that funny. When I think of today's sitcoms, I think of 3 CBS comedies: Two and a Half Men, Big Bang Theory, and How I Met Your Mother. I actually watch the latter two sometimes, and they are mildly entertaining (HIMYM moreso that BBT). But what I've noticed is this: they all seem to follow the simple format of: set up joke, deliver punchline, cue studio audience to laugh, move on to next joke. That's all it is. One character says something, another delivers a line that could be somewhat funny. The jokes are not connected to each other or even the storyline (I just realized Im also describing Family Guy. But that's animation. And in Family Guy, the characters themselves are funny. Not so for the most part in these shows I'm talking about) . In a show like Seinfeld, the jokes themselves have their very own arching plotlines, weaving in and out of the storylines of other characters. Plus they've also got the one-liners, which are also much better executed, and the characters themselves are funny. Friends had these qualities, too, which it does not get that much credit for. In How I Met Your Mother, what character besides Neil Patrick Harris has a funny personality? In Big Bang Theory, they are nerds. Nerds can be funny, but these guys are uber-nerds to the point that it is ridiculous and unrelatable. Two and a Half Men is stupid and just pisses me off. Compare any of these characters to Jerry, George, and Kramer...well, there is no comparison. They are funny pretty much whatever they do or say. Like this exchange:
Jerry: I don't have to be funny, I don't care.
George: You don't?
Jerry: No way! It's completely under my control.
Elaine: No, it's not. You cannot not be funny.
Jerry: Of course I can, am I being funny now?
Elaine (smiling): A little.
Jerry (getting upset): Oh, this is funny? I'm being funny?
Elaine (now laughing): Yeah.
Jerry: George, is this funny?
George: It's funny!
See? It's funny. I think we can blame Ray Romano for this downward trend in funniness. From what I have seen, Everybody Loves Raymond may have led the transition to this new, simple and lame format. Boy was that a lame show. They probably had the lowest joke batting average of anyone. But people watched. So that opened the door for these newer CBS shows.
Maybe I'm thinking about this too narrowly though. While I can't imagine Fox has anything that deviates from this setup-punchline-setup-punchline (see The War at Home), if we go over to NBC, we find 30 Rock, which is good. And if we expand our horizons futher, we get to It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia. There are plenty of people who would put at least one of these shows very high up on the list of funniest tv comedies. While I wouldn't go too far, I will say that these are definitely funny, quality programs. And then there's Curb Your Enthusiam, a modern-day, more vulgar Seinfeld, so of course it's great. Curb is great in that it's got that "The Pledge - The Turn - The Prestige" quality to its jokes that Seinfeld has (if you don't know what I mean, watch The Prestige--great movie). And Friends, 30 Rock, and It's Always Sunny have/had this too, but not to the extent Curb and Seinfeld do.
So when I said at the beginning, "they don't make 'em like they used too", I think I was off. Because I've named 3 funny shows from the present day, and only 2 from the '90s, which is supposed to be the heyday of sitcoms, right? Plus if Arrested Development is a sitcom, that's another funny one (world's biggest understatement) from the present era. Am I missing any from the old days?
Maybe the Situational Comedy is just not that great of a genre. If you think about all the sitcoms that have ever been made, not that many of them are funny. It's like Grunge music. Other than Nirvana and Pearl Jam, what grunge bands were good? Sound Garden? Stone Temple Pilots? No. They sucked. Plus Grunge paved they way for these modern grunge bands like Creed and Puddle of Mudd, who are really totally aweful. On top of all that, I've always thought that Nirvana was overrated. They were the best band in a genre that turned out to be not that great. Kurt Cobain putting that shot gun in his mouth was the best thing that ever happened to Nirvana, and really grunge music in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)