Friend of the blog Lisa proved she was a superior google searcher than I by finding a phenomenal picture of the Commerce Bank pen. We won't miss you.

TNT has been promo-ing the hell out of Leverage, starrting Academy Award winner Timothy Hutton (I'm pretty sure it was for his role as the motivational guru villain in the Queen Latifah has-terminal-disease-but-really-doesn't inspirational vehicle Last Holiday(actually quote from Hutton's character: "Rule One: Life is not a popularity contest, but it is a contest. Boo-hoo, they don't like me. Rule Two: You grab that scared little loser inside you and you beat the living crap out of him. Rule Three: When is enough enough? Enough is *never* enough.")).

"Sometimes bad guys make the best good guys" claims Hutton in the commercial. And why not? This is one the perfect television or film concepts - antiheroes, who were criminals, are turned to the force of good, letting us root for them, without being boring like goody two-shoe law enforcement, and breaking all the rules regular cops and agents couldn't. In addition, each member of the team has their own speciality - say, a muscle man, a disguise artists, a computer specialist. Generally, they're all loners, used to working by themselves, but they're forced to work as a team, often by the government or some shady non-governmental or shadowy agency, and slowly over time learn to trust each other.There's honestly no reason it shouldn't make for a smash hit.

Leverage lives along these precepts. According to the information I can gather without having seen an episode, Timothy Hutton is an expert insurance investigator who goes renegade when his employer denies his son's insurance claims. He somehow assembles his rag tag team - himself, the leader, Alec, the computer man/hacker, Eliot, an expert martial artist, Parker, a thief, and Sophie a master con-artist.

Sadly, though, it's been done before, and somehow not become the success it was supposed to.


For six or so weeks in the mid-season replacement time of early 1998, WB tried out the concept with a show called Three. The three in question were Johnathan Vance (Edward Atterton), an expert jewel thief, Marcus Miller (Bumper Robinson), the expert hacker, and Amanda Webb (Julie Bowen of Ed, Boston Legal, and Jack's ex-wife on Lost fame), who according to all I can find is an expert...oh...specialist, whatever the hell that means. The Three were all criminals on their own before they were recruited by "The Man" who gave them the classic story - work for us (in this case "The Organization") or go to jail. Of course, they take the deal, and for six weeks, they righted wrongs and fixed problems.

In the same TV season, NBC tried their hand at the format with Players. Players started Ice-T, before his Law & Order days, Costas Mandylor, of Detective Mark Hoffman in later Saw movies and deputy Kenny in Picket Fences days, and Frank John Hughes, who appeared in Band of Brothers, and killed Phil Leotardo in Sopranos (sorry if you haven't seen the last season - get on it). Charlie O'Bannon (Hughes) is the hacker, Alphonse Royo (Mandylor) is the con-man, and Ice Gregory (shockingly Ice-T) is the street-smart black guy. The three are paroled early from jail in exchange for their continued cooperation with the FBI. Players lasted a whole of 18 episodes before getting the axe.


Since we're hitting the time period, we'll go with the movie version of The Mod Squad, from 1999, which has possibly the worst and least informative wikipedia page for a major studio movie from the last 20 years. The movie starred Claire Daines as Julie (Peggy Lipton in the TV show), Omar Epps as Linc (Clarence Williams III) and Giovani Ribisi as Peter (Michael Cole). They were three young people busted by the cops, though their specialties are a lot less inspiring - Peter is the rich kid, Linc, an arsonist, and Julie a former drug addict. The cops convince them to work for them in exchange for getting them off for their crimes. The TV show had of course the same premise but was a lot more successful, and thus has no place there.

We can only feel for Leverage then and hope (maybe?) that the same fate does not befall Hutton and crew.

Part 2 of the Year-of-the-Coaching Change in the Eastern Conference

Central Division, Continued:

Detroit Pistons: In the same article I linked to on the Cavs hiring Paul Silas, Detroit's more successful hire was also announced. The legendary Larry Brown who has coached a record by far 9 NBA teams (along with four college teams) was probably the most successful of the hires (it would be hard not to be, winning an NBA championship) but more than that was one of the only coaches with any success at all in the Eastern conference in the year - perhaps the height of the Western Conference's superiority which has pretty much lasted the entire decade. Brown actually replaced another fairly successful coach in Rick Carlisle who had been there two years, winning a coach of the year award in his first year, but was fired even after making the Conference finals in his last year. Brown, naturally left as quickly as he came, after two years on the job, only to be replaced by Flip Saunders, who got three years, and three straight years of conference final losses before getting sacked himself. Few teams have been as successful as the Pistons in recent years with so much coaching volatility.

Indiana Pacers: Naturally following the Pistons, the Pacers in a class below the Pistons, started up their season hiring the man the Pistons threw out, Rick Carlisle. Carlisle replaced Isiah Thomas, who as we all know too well, was hired by the Knicks later in 2003 as President, and who remarkably actually did an okay coaching job, making the playoffs every year, but losing in the first round. Carlisle did a pretty decent job as well in his four years, but advanced less far into the playoffs every year - losing in the Conference finals in '04, losing in the conference semis in '05, the first round in '06 and didn't make the playoffs in '07.

Milwaukee Bucks: George Karl, a five team veteran himself, had just finished up his fourth team, a not entirely unsuccessful four year stint as Bucks head coach, and the Bucks hired head coaching newbie Terry Porter, who himself had played under five of the top 36 head coaches of all times in terms of total wins (Pat Riley, Jack Ramsay, Rick Adelman, Gregg Popovich and Flip Saunders). Porter lost in the first round his first year, missed the playoffs in the second, and was out, only to wind up as Suns' head coach a couple of years later.

Southeast Division:

Atlanta Hawks: Finally! The coaching veteran who makes this list thirteen months rather than a clear year, Terry Stotts replaced former Illinois coach Lon Kruger (part of a later series on college coaches who filled in the pros in the late '90s and early '00s) on December 26, 2002. Stotts than lasted all the way to the end of the 2003-2004 season when he was let go and replaced by current Hawks coach Mike Woodson. Stotts got another short chance as head coach of the Bucks, before the Bucks pulled the plug after two years.

Miami Heat: This was the first year of the great Stan Van Gundy experiment - after Pat Riley, who essentially ran the Heat since 1995, decided he wanted to take a break from the strains of coaching, and led Jeff Van Gundy's older brother take the reins. Van Gundy presided over two fairly successful years, and started a third before Riley decided he wanted back in the game, and however it happened, Riley replaced Van Gundy, went on to win the NBA championship that year with the Heat, while Van Gundy ended up coaching the Magic a couple of years later. Interesting fact: You can tell what a lame basketball town Miami is by the fact that the Heat's two retired numbers are Michael Jordan, because he did so well against the Heat (who retires an opposing player's number?) which still is arguably better than their other retired number, Dan Marino, apparently such a good quarterback that his achievements transced and particular sport.

Orlando Magic: Before Van Gundy, there were several Magic head coaches, and through November 17, Doc Rivers was it, when on that day, he was fired, and the Magic hired assistant Johnny Davis took over. Davis lasted a little bit more than a full season, before himself being fired midseason and being replaced by assitant Chris Jent. After Jent, the Magic hired a retread of their first Shaq and Penny glory days in Brian Hill, who couldn't recapture his prior Magic (pun intended).

Washington Wizards: Last, and possibly least, this year saw the Wizards at the beginning of the Eddie Jordan era. Jordan endured a number of highs and lows and a ton of injuries through a relatively long for NBA standards six year tenure. Before Jordan, excellent television commentator and Michael Jordan friend, Doug Collins ran the show for a couple of years, himself replacing one year man and college transplant disaster Leonard Hamilton.

This ends our view. What a time to be a coach!

All professional, and major college sports, for that matter are coaching carousels. Owners, management and fans have no patience to wait for winning to development, and every year there are 5, 6, 7 openings in any of the leagues. Rarely are there Bobby Coxs and Jerry Sloans and Jeff Mike Shanahans that are with their team for over a decade.

It's hard however to find a time that compares with the end of January in 2004, in which no coach in the entire Eastern Conference of the NBA had been on the job for more than thirteen months (most obviously for a lot less than that). I thought I'd take a quick look through the coaching situation for all those Eastern Conference teams and what happened to cause that insane period.

(Even though the current divisional format was not in place at the time, we're going to go through it that way for purposes of avoiding unnecessary complication.)

Atlantic Division:

Boston Celtics: Along with Byron Scott of the Nets, who we'll get to shortly, Jim O'Brien's dismissal on January 27 of 2004 was the last which led to the perfect time of full thirteen month coach turnover of the entire conference. O'Brien actually resigned, when he and Danny Ainge did not see eye-to-eye on the team's philosophy. The team was struggling at 22-24, below .500, but still good enough for second place in the horrible division. John Caroll thus became the interim coach and lasted just until the end of the season, when he was replaced by Doc Rivers.

New Jersey Nets: We get to Bryon Scott so soon. Just one year ago, Scott had led the Nets, who had been hapless for many years, to the second of consecutive NBA finals apperances. But that was not enough for team president Rod Thorn who gave Scott the hook just a day before O'Brien resigned from the Celtics. The Nets led the Atlantic Division, albeit with a record just two games above .500, but the real problem may have been complaints from the team's leader, Jason Kidd; while he claimed he said nothing to management, reports said either. Replacing him was interim coach Lawrence Frank, who has been there ever since, getting a far longer leash than Scott was ever granted. No need to cry for him though - he's got his cushy gig coaching Chris Paul in New Orleans.

New York Knicks: Isiah Thomas pulled out one of the first of what would be many surprises (second, essentially, after acquiring Stephon Marbury, which really set the done for bad decisions), most of them terrible, in his tenure as General Manager and President of the Knicks. On January 14 of 2004, Thomas fired Don Chaney and hired Hall-of-Fame and all-time victories leading coach Lenny Wilkens (after Larry Brown was hired, the Knicks incredibly employed four of the top five winningest coaches in about a decade long period - Wilkens, Brown, Don Nelson and Pat Riley). Already, so early into Isiah's mercilessly far too long tenure, people didn't understand his moves. Lenny Wilkens lasted just about a season's worth of games before being fired himself, when Herb Williams finished off the year before two giant coaching debacles, Larry Brown and Isiah himself. Interesting fact: If you follow the link to the ESPN article, there are two charts - coaches who coached for the most teams, and coaches with the lowest winning percentages, who coached at least 500 games. Seventies-through-early-nineties coach Kevin Loughery is the only man on both lists.


Philadelphi Seventy-Sixers: The Sixers provide us a little bit of flexibility with this list. Depending on whether we want to move it from the end of January to the beginning of February, we can get two different acceptable head coaches. They hired assistant coach Randy Ayers to replace Larry Brown over the summer of 2003, and then when they were unsatisfied with their midseason progress, promptly fired him and hired his assistent Chris Ford as interim head coach for the rest of the season. From there, they would hire recently resigned Celtics coach (and current Pacers coach) Jim O'Brien for a season before bringing in Mo Cheeks.

Toronto Raptors: More coaching carousel fun! The same Lenny Wilkens who the Knicks hired midseason was neither fired nor resigned but somehow left the Raptors to leave with a year left on his contact after the end of the 2002-03 season. The Raptors hired Kevin O'Neill, only to fire him after less than one full season, in April, and replace him with Sam Mitchell, who would stay on as coach until earlier than season.

Central Division:

Chicago Bulls: Noted disciplinarian and hard-line coach Scott Skiles was hired by the Bulls on November 28, 2003 to replace noted useless former Bulls center Bill Cartwright after a slow start. Skiles lasted all the way until 2007 when he was deemed too strict and didn't work well the Bulls young crop of players who had first surprised, then, when expecatations rose, disappointed big time. Minorly interesting, an assistant coach by the name of Pete Myers coached two games in the interim between Cartwright and Skiles, and then one game after Skiles before Jim Boylan. Skiles, of course, landed on his feet, ending up as current coach of the Bucks.

Cleveland Cavaliers: The Cavaliers hired notable NBA player, two-time All Star Paul Silas to coach them in the summer before the 2003-04 season began. The most notable thing about Silas' coaching career was calling Carlos Boozer a cunt after he fucked the Cavs over, by reaching allegedly an implicit understanding with them that he would resign if they let him out of his contract, and then signing with the Jazz. Silas was fired after the 2004-05 season, after which, after an interim stint by original Raptors coach Brandon Malone, current coach Mike Brown took the reins. Alas, perhaps better things away Silas - he has as good as even a chance to snag another head coaching job someday.

Stay tuned, we finish off the Year-of-the-Coaching-Change tomorrow.

Goodbye Commerce Bank Pens

Have you ever had the feeling that you feel so strongly and have complained so much about an incredibly minor and meaningless thing that it seems like it's possible that you may have been, or at least contended for the person who complained the most about it anywhere? Well, that's how I feel about a constant source of my ire, the Commerce Bank pen. While friend of the blog Utz has already scribed about it, and random dude Brent Goffin has apparently commented on how strange it is that is impossible to find a picture of it online (which is both true and ridiculous...how can there not be one image of it? I turned up nothing, with a solid three minutes of creative google searching), I would feel remiss not at least briefly discussing a topic about which I complained so much.

As anyone in New York City, and probably the general tri-state area knows, there was at least a six-month or so period, in which you couldn't sign a credit card reciept without having to use a Commerce Bank pen. You know the type - blue, incredibly cheap plastic, which you could kind of see through (actually, that was the second variety - the first was thinner and had opaque rather than translucent plastic (dammit, why are there no pictures)) and a clicker that if you was so poorly constructed that it seemed to have a set number of clicks ahead of time before it fell apart. Trying to go a day using a credit card and not using a Commerce Bank pen was like trying to write a novel without using the letter 'E' - sure, it's possible, but it means you'd have to go far out of your way, and it probably wouldn't be a very good novel.

My problem was said pens was not of course that they were free - I am generally a big fan of free things, and I have stolen many a mediocre pen from hotel desks or job fairs. Commerce Bank simply had the cheapest possible pen that one could make with it still working. Taking a cue from The Joker, I think New York City deserves a better class of pens. I'm not walking around using a Mount Blanc or anything, but seriously, we can have some standards. We can aspire to use a pen that is not a total piece of crap. Alas, the day has come when there is no more, and perhaps I could shed a tear if it were not to be replaced by an equally poorly constructed TD Bank green pen (which of course it's impossible to find a picture of). We have yet to see if it will catch on like the original, the Regis and Kelly seem to want to assure me that TD is exactly the same as Commerce, but better. At least they still have the Penny Arcade (machine that counts change for free, people who don't use Commerce (now TD)).

Playmakers: ESPN takes on the NFL (or as it's known, "the league")

Ah, to be an original series on ESPN. It pretty much dooms you to a short life, especially as there are only two of them, ever, and subjects you to pressure from sports organizations, such as the NFL who essentially forced ESPN to stop Playmakers. Of course, that just tells you how “real” it is – something venerated cornerback Deion Sanders confirmed. Back in college I used to be part of a club which talked about sports. Despite the fact that none of us actually watched Playmakers, we still devoted fifteen minutes to talking about it and making fun of it every meeting.
Those fifteen minutes were pretty much right, though not in a bad way. Playmakers is pretty much the Boston Public of football shows; anything that could go wrong with a football team ever, goes wrong with one football team in one season. We’ve got nearly every controversy in the books – a closeted gay wide receiver, aging running back tries steroids, a young stud back hangs out with the wrong crowd and gets in trouble with the law, a defensive player faces psychological problems after crippling an opposing player, and the list goes on.
The main characters feature an aging running back trying to fight for playing time and a contract, a young hotshot running back, struggling with drugs and crime issues, a quarterback who is probably the most useless main character, a middle linebacker who is the soul of the defense, and a coach who has to deal with concerns about his offensive coordinator jumping at his heels for his job while fighting cancer. Side characters include the aforementioned gay wide receiver along with the conniving, old-fashioned, and pretty much evil owner, who seems curiously modeled after Jerry Jones.
Some plotlines, like a spousal abuse one, and some scenes, such as one in which the owner tells his star running back “Didn’t hear it from me, but the piss man’s coming” (by the way, if anyone could get a hold of that clip, I would be indebted forever) get played over and over again, to the point of being ridiculous. But then again, to some extent, if it wasn’t so ridiculous, it wouldn’t be nearly as enjoyable to watch. If it’s possible to enjoy something both in an ironic sense, and in a non-ironic sense, and I think it is, this is one such thing – it’s not great by any means, but it’s definitely enjoyable viewing for a sports fan.

One great thing about sports is that certain plays and games grow to have nicknames which would mean nothing if you didn't know to what they referred, but to sports fans instantly evoke specific plays. For example, "The Catch" could mean anything, but what it means instantly to sports fans if, you're talking football is the throw from Joe Montana to Dwight Clark in the 1982 NFL Championship game against the Dallas Cowboys. In baseball, "The Catch" means Willie Mays catching Vic Wertz's fly ball in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series. "The Play" indicates a kickoff return in the 1982 Cal-Stanford game (The Big Game) in which California runs backs a kick for a TD and the win as Stanford's band comes out onto the field thinking the game is over.

What I always worried is who names these plays - sure some name simply develops grass roots style, but when does it become official - when does it become big enough that I can type the play's nickname into wikipedia and have it come up. It must take a while for one name developed in one part of the country to cross over, and people may have two dualing names. For this, as discussed with friend of the blog Utz , I propose a tribunal be formed whose sole purpose is naming of important plays, games, events, and event teams or parts of teams (a la Steel Curtain, Purple People Eaters).



The particular urgency for this move is as follows - in last January's Super Bowl, a spectacular play happened. It is universally acknowledge as a spectacular play, one deserving of memorlialization with a nickname, and the play most remembered from the game. This play is the Eli Manning pass after almost being sacked and then helmet catch by David Tyree. In fact the play is so notable, it even has its own wikipedia entry under "Eli Manning pass to David Tyree." However, fans, press, whoever it takes to makes these kind of decisions have not coalesced around one nickname for the play, even 11 months later. This is simply unacceptable. How will I refer to the play when regaling future generations? In fact, wikipedia, lists 15 different nicknames, ranging from Escape and Capture to The Gasp and the Grasp. This is ridiculous. We can't have so many regionalized and individualized versions. We need one name that everyone in this country can unite upon. Eli and Tyree each apparently have their own favorites, Tyree's "Catch 42" focusing on the catch part, of course, and Eli's "The Great Escape" on the throw.

The first duty of this tribunal would be to unite a nation divided upon one nickname for this great play, and as soon as possible, so we still have time to cement the nickname in our heads before the next Super Bowl. There will be many such future occasions as well I have no doubt - we're not the same small media country we were in the '70s and early '80s before cable took off where one broadcast network could take a nickname national. I'm calling on you, NFL, press, or whoever chooses this sort of thing. Don't make me do it.

Okay, it's time to start blogging again - hopefully I will have a new computer soon. I am just about watching the one season of ESPN's original series "Playmakers" so I'll write something on that. In the meantime, a saulte to what has been one of my favorite commercials of the year.





This commercial is simply amazing. Basically the fun part all starts when the doorbell rings, and the housewife (could be unmarried or divorced I suppose (though I guess divorced people are also unmarried) opens the door, at which a man with a bouquet of flowers appears. The woman smiles, appearing surprised and happy that someone thought of her enough to bring her flowers. The delivery man than reads the card with the best line of the commercial, "Delivery from a Mr" - he hesitates - hard pressed to believe that it could be what it says "Mop." (Sidenote: why would a mop be named mop? Are all mops named mop? Or is mop just the common last name and they all have different first names?) We then see the mop poke out from behind a tree, clearly hidden, and waiting for the woman's response. I did not think it would have been possible to make a mop cute, but this commercial proved it. The mop is adorable as it vibrates left and right, eager and anxious for the woman to react. The woman rolls her eyes, sighs and turns back into her house. Another unwanted advance from her ex. Then a bunch of stuff actually talking about the product (what a waste) before one last treat in the last three seconds when a man shows up at the door again with a Candygram, and we again see the adorable mop hanging out behind a bush this time. Phenomenal.

Commercial Entry!



This is a remarkable achievement in commercial-dom. What's so novel about this commercial you ask? Like the wave of serial television which has been permeating the airwaves in the last 7 years or so (led by shows like Lost and 24), it's taken the serial aspect to commercials. What I mean is this. If someone who was locked in solitary confinement for the last five years saw this commercial it would make no sense to him. At a Cal Ripken Jr. book signing, a man faints - and a man working at the book signing asks for someone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. When a man offers to help, explaining that he is a doctor, the employee scoffs, and repeats his insistence on finding someone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Without context this makes absolutely no sense. Why would you prefer someone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express over a doctor?

Holiday Inn Express in relying on the fact that you have seen their previous commercials, which show regular people doing things they're clearly untrained to do, explaining their abilities away, with "but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." This commercial does this all without the benefit of a "previously on" that might accompany Lost or 24. I applaud this development.

Okay, so I had a post, but this computer just reset and I lost it all.

It was partly about how my computer is now broke for good, and I wrote a short eulogy which maybe I'll try again, but probably not. More posts significantly after election day but I'll try to get a couple in before. In the meantime, I got half my World Series picks right, so let's take a shot. Rays in 6.

Okay, I don't have time to write out anything much, but I better get my predictions on record. Phillies in 6 and Red Sox in 7. Yeah, I hope I'm wrong on both counts, but they're both the better teams.

Time for a new nickname.

This time it's the Raiders' running back Justin Fargas.


Fargas shall from now on be known as Huggy Cub. His father was Antonio Fargas, who played Huggy Bear, the helpful pimp informant on Starsky and Hutch in the '70s. As he is Huggy Bear's son, he is thus Huggy Cub. Start using it.

Grant Balfour and JP Howell are the Rafael Betancourt and Rafael Perez of 2008. That is all.

Time for the American League portion of seeing how bad my predictions were.

First, to show what an idiot Jon Heyman is (why I still even bother to ever look at one of his columns amazes me), he picks a closer who wasn't even among the top three in his league as his AL MVP. Scary. I'm not sure why I need constant reminders of how little this guy knows about baseball, despite his profession, but the fact that he is from Long Island and worked for a long time for my hometown paper Newsday deeply embarasses me. You should lose your MVP vote for voting for K-Rod. Simple as that. Forget the fact that he's a closer who never pitched more than an inning in an outing and threw 68.3 total. Simply look at the fact that in every category except saves - not even looking at any complicated stats, simply ERA and WHIP, he is bested by Joakim Soria, Mariano Rivera, and Joe Nathan, and I'd put money down that Jonathan Papelbon had a better season than him too. It galls me that people like this have jobs at national publications.

Let's move into the AL I suppose.

AL East:

Tampa Bay Rays - final record: 97-65 / predicted record: 79-83
Number of games off: +18
Why I was wrong: Well, I knew they'd be better, and I think I was hesitant to predict too much improvement in one year, though I thought they'd break out in 2009. However, there are some specific reasons. I knew their best pitchers would be good, specifically James Shields and Scott Kazmir, but was not expected league average performances out of Edwin Jackson and Andy Sonnastine. The bullpen also turned from worst to impressive, on the backs of almost an entirely new bullpen - Dan Wheeler and Grant Balfour were there, but played far less of a role, and were a lot worse, while JP Howell shined as well. The offensive production actually went down a slight bit from 2007 - it was the pitching that turned the team around.

Boston Red Sox - final record: 95-67 / predicted record: 97-65
Number of games off: -2
Why I was wrong: I wasn't really - two is pretty damn close, just was wrong in picking them to finish first. That said, this was pretty much (maybe along with the Angels) the safest and easiest pick. This is just the most all around solid and good team in the American League. Jon Lester emerged as the team's new ace, while Beckett underperformed last year's near Cy Young season. Still all their pitchers were solid outside of Paul Byrd, and, well, he's Paul Byrd. Not much surprising here so I'll give a shout out to the incredible and what may well end up being MVP and not unjustifiably season of Dustin Pedroia.

New York Yankees - final record: 89-73 / predicted record: 94-68
Number of games off: -5
Why I was wrong: I was more wrong in that I thought they'd make the playoffs than in my record, but the five games I was off is one of the biggest differences of five games in record (that makes sense right? I mean right in the area where five games is the difference between playoffs and no playoffs). A few big factors here were the injury to Chien-Ming Wang and the lack of anticipated production from Philip Hughes, both of which were offset a bit by Mike Mussina's unexpected comeback season. The Yankees hitting was hurt by going from a Jorge Posada career season to 268 at bats from a punchless Jose Molina, along with the even possibly worse fill ins of Pudge (yes, he's not good anymore) and Chad Moeller, along with Robinson Cano's struggles. It's almost a testament to the strength of the other guys in the lineup that they had all these struggles plus had to start Sidney Ponson for 15 games and still won 89 games.

Toronto Blue Jays - final record: 86-76 / predicted record: 82-80
Number of games off: +4
Why I was wrong: Pretty close here as well - we all knew Toronto has great pitching but I did not expect a full year out of AJ Burnett, and although it was not an outstanding full year, it was likely better than whoever would have replaced him. They amazingly won 86 games and played 7 games below their Pythagorean record. Their offense is dreadful, but they allowed 61 less runs than any other American League team, also helped by the astounding performances of nearly everyone in their bullpen led by Scott Downs, Jesse Carlson and BJ Ryan.

Baltimore Orioles - final record: 68-93 / predicted record: 63-99
Number of games off: +5
Why I was wrong: It's kind of a challenge to guess exactly how bad a bad team is going to be. I anticipated the mega year by their best player Nick Markakis, but not the one by Aubrey Huff, who gave one of the great overlooked performances of the year. Honestly, aside from that, it's really hard to measure how bad is bad - they got a nice performance out of new acquisition Luke Scott, and Jeremy Guthrie proved he was not a one year wonder. Not much else to say. A couple parts here, but still ugly.

AL Central:

Chicago White Sox - final record: 89-74 / predicted record: 72-90
Number of games off: +16.5
Why I was wrong: This is going to be by far the ugliest division for me as I get records wrong left and right. There are so many reasons I was wrong about this. The first is Carlos Quentin who lived up to his potential after disappointing big time for Arizona. A true steal for Kenny Williams. Alexei Ramirez had a stellar rookie year at 2nd (though not as good as Evan Longroia, and there shouldn't be a debate about that). John Danks and Gavin Floyd had huge years unlike anything they had done in the majors so far (To be fair, they were both young and reasonable prospects). Nick Swisher disappointed big time, and Paul Konerko turned in an off year, but those four changes above were pretty huge, along with big years from Jim Thome and Jermaine Dye.

Minnesota Twins - final record: 88-75 / predicted record: 75-87
Number of games off: +12.5
Why I was wrong: Okay, you take a team with no real hitting prospects. You get rid of their best pitcher, who is the best pitcher in baseball, Johan Santana, and one of their better hitters and center fielder, Torii Hunter, and I'm supposed to expect the team will improve? Let's be reasonable. Just from a quick glance at the players, and even their seasons, you'd never guess the team was third in runs per game. Joe Mauer and Justin Mourneau are legit stars, but there are only two other batters in their lineup with OPS+s over 100, new sensation Denard Span and Jason Kubel. They simply did it by everyone, Carlos Gomez, aside being at least decent, while their pitching was so-so and just did enough - pleasant surprises from Scott Baker, Nick Blackburn and Kevin Slowey.

Cleveland Indians - final record: 81-81 / predicted record: 93-69
Number of games off: -12
Why I was wrong: Again made a number of assumptions that simply did not happen (Yes, I made an ass out of you (I'm not writing u) and me). A healthy and productive Victor Martinez, which did not happen, though it was partially offset but an crazily productive Kelly Shoppach backing up job. I knew Travis Hafner was likely on the downfall, but not that he'd fall off a ledge and be injured all season. I didn't expect Fausto Carmona to repeat his 2007 season, but at least to come somewhat close, though again this was tempered by Cliff Lee's insane emergence. Trading CC probably also cost them a few wins, though it was still a smart movie, it hurt my prediction. Oh, and a pretty lousy bullpen - what happened Rafael Betancourt?

Kansas City Royals - final record: 75-87 / predicted record: 74-88
Number of games off: +1
Why I was wrong: A-ha! In the middle of a division where I totally blew four teams, at least I get the fifth nearly exactly right. Kansas City's a bad team, but not as bad as, say the Nationals - they've got some players. Very few of those players are good, but there's a couple - Zach Grienke has really emerged as a stud pitcher, and Alex Gordon, while posting not a great season, showed real improvement from his rookie campaign. Joakim Soria had his second straight phenomenal season as closer. David DeJesus rebounded from an off year to become again a solid contributor and three year AAA vet Mark Aviles came in to rescue shortstop from historically bad offensively Tony Pena Jr.

Detroit Tigers - final record: 74-88 / predicted record: 94-68
Number of games off: -20
Why I was wrong: I cringe every time I look at this prediction. What kills me, is that, yes the Tigers should have been better, but what made me think that Tigers pitching was actually good. Sure, I thought Verlander would continue his emergence into an ace, picking him as Cy Young (oops - though my MVP candidate Miguel Cabrera isn't going to win it, and shouldn't, but at least had a damn fine year, really picking up in the second half). The hitting really wasn't bad - Curtis Granderson had another excellent year as did Magglio (not as good as last but that was an easy decline to predict), though they were hurt by Gary Sheffield giving them nothing. Their pitching was truly wretched though, aside from the surprise rookie performance of the Little Cat, Armando Galarraga. The Gambler, Kenny Rogers, was terrible, Nate Roberson was terrible, and Jeremy Bonderman was hurt. They just have to be at least a little better next year one would think.

AL West:

Los Angels Angels of Anaheim - final record: 100-62 / predicted record: 94-68
Number of games off: +6
Why I was wrong: I'm not going to kick myself too much over this one - the Angels outplayed their Pythagorean record by a ridiculous 12 games (which still would have easily taken the West). The main reason is they can't hit, but got ridiculously lucky, and won a very high percentage of their one-run games, helping K-Rod to the single season save record, one of the dumbest records in sports - more about opportunity than anything else as K-Rod, while a fine closer, was no better than fourth best in his league this year (I know I mentioned this earlier with the Heyman article, but it infuriates me that much). Anyway, Mark Teixeira helps a lot, but they still win on their pitching, and they're still not as good a team as the Red Sox, though they may win yet.

Texas Rangers - final record: 79-83 / predicted record: 75-87
Number of games off: +4
Why I was wrong: Again, I wasn't really. Four games is not bad. This team is the Blue Jays opposite - they can hit a ton, but can't pitch a lick. Josh Hamilton was the story with a great year, but overlooked is Milton Bradley who had an even better year, although in fewer at-bats. Chris Davis and David Murphy had solid rookie campaigns, while Ian Kinsler, before he got hurt, make his claim for best AL second baseman (though Dustin Pedroia surely has something to say about that). Hard to ever pick a team with pitching this bad to go over .500 though - their only starters with over a 100 ERA+ were Sir Sidney Ponson, who was released (for being crazy) and Brandon McCarthy who started 5 games (AJ Murray also does who started 2 games). It's ugly out there.

Oakland Athletics - final record: 75-86 / predicted record: 69-93
Number of games off: +6
Why I was wrong: Did not anticipate the performances of some of Oakland's new corp of young pitchers (Someone may have made this reference before, and if they did, I apologize, but it's like Menudo out there (you can choose Logan's Run if you want) - you really get shipped out of town once you reach 27 or so for sure) - Justin Duchscherer was one of the stories of the first half of the season and Greg Smith and Dana Eveland gave decent first time efforts. That's pretty much it - the offense surprised me in no way. Also, I'd like to give a shout out to the great job of Brad Ziegler in relief.

Seattle Mariners - final record: 61-101 / predicted record: 84-78
Number of games off: -23
Why I was wrong: This was a stupid one. I knew they were not a playoff team - they overplayed their hand in 2007, and were doomed to come down. But this bad? I didn't think so - I don't think I realized the extent to which they overplayed their numbers, and I thought the addition of Erik Bedard would at least make them a .500 team, which it did not - it was largely a bust, so far. The thing is, aside from no Bedard, no one did a lot worse then you'd expect - Putz was a little disappointing, and Jarred Washburn underplayed a bit his average average but the people who you expected to be good did their parts - King Felix was solid, Raul Ibanez was solid, and Ichiro did what he does (which is overvalued, but useful). I think stupidly, I saw that people were predicting them to be a playoff team, and used that as a starting point for my analysis, deducting wins from there, rather than starting with a little below .500 team which is what they should have been in 2007.

Okay, so my computer is currently, hopefully temporarily freezing with my AL review entry and my Oz season 1 entry - in the meantime, I'll post a couple of commercials...



Honestly, Ryan Howard seems like a good guy. But nothing Ryan Howard will do in his future can redeem this ad...honestly forget everything else, but the "ought to be enshrined in the mmmmmmm hall of fame" - man that's painful to watch.

Oh, and this commercial - which I can't seem to find on youtube. It's a stupid, probably soon to be forgotten commercial which somehow engrosses me. It's both the fact that I now want to check my cell phone contract for a "no derek with mustaches" clause and the fact that the guy ends his sentence with "dude." Plus, mustache? I could see mustang - that's cool, but since when did mustaches become cool again? Boy am I behind the times.

Well it's time for playoff picks - better get them in before the games start, lest I look like I'm cheating.

I can get them all wrong without any help, thank you.

National League kicks it off.

Cubs vs. Dodgers
Cubs in four

Even with Furcal possibly back, and even with Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers offense still pales in comparison to the Cub juggernaut, who, while not having a superstar of Manny's caliber, have no regular with an OBP below .350, and most significantly above that. This is a run scoring machine. Now, the Dodgers to their credit, have the leagues best pitching, with a very solid rotation and the best bullpen in the league. That said, the Cubs have some arms themselves - Dempster and Zambrano have been great all year, while Harden has been fantastic since he's gotten to the Cubs. They say good pitching beats good hitting, but I'll say good pitching and good hitting beats good pitching.

Brewers vs. Phillies
Brewers in five

The Brewers are at an inherent disadvantage in that they don't get to start their ace until game 2, but if they can get to a game five they'll get two starts in for CC Sabathia. I'll say that each team wins two games with their ace on the mound - presumably 1 and 4 for Hamels (though I can't be sure they'll start him on three days rest, but since their rotation is so shallow, it seems wise) and 2 and 5 for CC (I have little doubt he'll be starting on three days rest). Gollardo back in a big boost for the Brewers, and it looks like Pat Burrell may have bat trouble. The Phillies are probably the slightly better team, and the big wild card could be the Brewers bullpen which will have to be sharper than it has been in the second half of the season to take this series - even CC can't pitch three complete games in a series.

American League

Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays
Rays in four

The Rays have the advantage with the pitching through the series - two of the three best White Sox starters pitched within the last two days, and John Danks will have to wait at least until Saturday to pitch, and that's on three days rest. The Rays are all rested up to trot out their top three starters in order, Scott Kazmir, James Sheilds, and Matt Garza, all who have been very good this sesaon. This all said, the White Sox offense is still better than that of the Rays, but is simply not the same with its biggest bat, and who would have been the prohibitive league MVP candidate Carlos Quentin out of the line up. It's the Rays to take. That said, it seems I've been wrong before.

Boston Red Sox vs. Anaheim Angels
Red Sox in five

This may be the most intriguing match up of the four division series. The Angels have the better record, but the Red Sox have the better pythagorean record, as they both scored more and allowed fewer runs than the Angels (allowed just three fewer to be fair, but scored eighty more). The Angels have suffered from a lack of offense all year and have gotten away with it in part at least by winning a disproportionate amount of tight games, with the help of a strong bullpen featuring K-Rod (though it's worth noting K-Rod blew his share of saves as well - it's just that because the Angels were always playing it so close, he had an extraordinary number of opportunities). Also interesting is that the Angels feasted on the Red Sox in the regular season, going 8-1 against them. That said, I still think the Red Sox offense will carry the day, even with the improved Mark Teixeira lineup for the Angels.

As the baseball season winds (or wound) down, it's time for a couple baseball posts. After we find out whether the Twins or ChiSox make it, I'll make some nearly-guaranteed-to-be-wrong playoff picks and eventually before they're announced I'll make my year award choices. But for now it's time to for the last time evaluate my predicted records for every major league team. We'll start with the National League. I made these picks here and evaluated them at the half here.

NL East:

Philadelphia Phillies - final record: 92-70 / predicted record: 87-75
Number of games off: +5 (they were five better than my prediction)
Why I was wrong: Well, first what I was right about - that Jimmy Rollins' 2007 was a fluke and would not be repeated. What I was wrong about was the bullpen. Of course, it all starts with Brad Lidge who was the best closer in the NL (although he still walked too many batters, but that's obviously a minor complaint considering) but it continues with their supporting cast of relievers, Chad Durbin, JC Romero, Ryan Madsen and Clay Condrey who all put together fine years to take a Phillies team with a predictably very good line up and okay but not great rotation with lots of trouble on the back end to a first place finish.

New York Mets - final record: 89-73 / predicted record: 92-70
Number of games off: -3
Why I was wrong: Not far off in the wins column, though that number would at least tie them for the lead. The main thing here though, like with the Phillies was the bullpen. While everyone there put together a good season at the same time, a la 2005 White Sox, everyone in the Mets bullpen shut down particularly in the second half to go along with Billy Wagner, whose peripherals were okay, but who blew 7 saves before he got hurt. Aaron Heilman, Duaner Sanchez, Pedro Feliciano and Scott Schoenweis were all culprits among others.

Florida Marlins - final record: 84-77 / predicted record: 67-95
Number of games off: +17
Why I was wrong: Boy, this was a bad one. Well to look what I got wrong is to see what was the difference between the Marlins of 2007 and the Marlins of 2008. They got a little better at hitting, but not much - it was still a very good hitting team in 2007, and though guys like Jorge Cantu and Cody Ross stepped up this year, they had to replace a MVP-caliber season by Miguel Cabrera (hitting, anyways). It's the pitching, that while still below average, was far closer to average than the previous year, plus the fact that the Fins played a couple games above their pythagorean record, though they finally scored more runs than they allowed by season's end. Chris Volstad was a huge mid-season call up, Ricky Nolasco had a breakout huge year and Josh Johnson's midseason return was critical.

Atlanta Braves - final record: 72-90 / predicted record: 89-73
Number of games off: -17
Why I was wrong: Another stinker. Couple clear things that screwed me here. First, the decimation of their aging pitching staff - losing Glavine, Smoltz, and later Hudson for the season crippled their staff and forced them to start guys who have no business starting in the major leagues (though Jair Jurrjens was a breakout). Jeff Francoeur, who many, myself included thought would have a breakout year and continue his trend of slightly increasing his walk total each year, completely fell apart with a terrible 73 OPS+ for the year. Other than that, they hit okay - it was the pitching.

Washington Nationals - final record: 59-102 / predicted record: 73-89
Number of games off: -14
Why I was wrong: Well, I know they'd be bad, I just for some misguided reason though they'd show a little improvement - I'm not sure why. They really have the least promise of any team in the majors - even KC has a couple potential stars (Grienke, Gordon). Zimmerman is supposed to be their star, but he struggled most of the year. Nick Johnson, one of their best offensive players, was out most of the year which I suppose could have been predicted, and Chad Cordero was injured all year and Jon Rauch was traded. Also Shawn Hill their best pitching prospect (in the generic, as in prospect for winning, rather than prospect as in baseball america, as he's in his fourth season by now, albeit always getting hurt) was hurt as usual and terrible when he did play. Honestly, I'm not sure why I didn't predict them to lose more.

NL Central:

Chicago Cubs - final record: 97-64 / predicted record: 87-75
Number of games off: +10.5
Why I was wrong: Well, I still had them in first, so I get points for that. I knew they were good, but it's relatively easy to see what I didn't predict here, and relatively reasonable I think for not predicting it. I didn't think that Ryan Dempster would come out of nowhere to post a 152 ERA+, that they were acquire Rich Harden who would stay pretty much healthy for them, that Jim Edmonds would come over after being waived for being terrible, to be amazing, hitting for a 138 OPS+ with the Cubbies, or that Mark DeRosa would hit 21 HRs and Ryan Theriot OBP .387.

Milwaukee Brewers - final record: 90-72 / predicted record: 84-78
Number of games off: +6
Why I was wrong: Well, I could make this easy and just say CC Sabathia, who could easily account for the difference. But I'll throw in for kicks, Ben Sheets being healthy all year, though with the sad post script, that he's done for the year before the playoffs. And we'll add as minor little factors, Russell Branyan, Ray Durham and Gabe Kapler being great off the bench and in spot starts. But yeah, that's pretty much it, and I'll note they played 3 games over their pythagorean record.

Houston Astros - final record: 86-75 / predicted record 71-91
Number of games off: +15
Why I was wrong: Oof, another bad one here. I'll first note they played 9 games over their pythagorean and allowed more runs than they scored, which means there's a lot of luck going on here. Aside from that, there's the excellent year Wandy Rodriguez turned in, along with the career year for Ty Wigginton. Also, boy, is Michael Bourne bad, and did they get fleeced in that trade. That's not really a reason for anything, just something I thought I can include. Looking over the team, I can see that they clearly overplayed their hand. Good for them.

St. Louis Cardinals - final record: 86-76 / predicted record 71-91
Number of games off: +15
Why I was wrong: Well, I was right in guessing that the Astros and Cards would have the same record. Not many little things here, but rather a couple of huge things. First, Ryan Ludwick. I had accounted him for nothing and instead he goes out and gives 150 OPS+ and 37 dingers. Damn. The other big one is the amazing job by a couple of no-name (or bad-name) starters - Kyle Lohse with a 113 OPS+ in 200 innings, higher than he's ever had, and 115 for Todd Wellemeyer who pitched more than twice the highest number of innings he's ever thrown in his career.

Cincinnati Reds - final record: 74-88 / predicted record 77-85
Number of games off: -3
Why I was wrong: Here's a good one. I wasn't really. Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey were traded, smartly, but hurt the team a little bit. Aaron Harang disappointed big time, as did Johnny Cueto, and Homer Baily never materialized at all, though this is at least partly made up for by the breakout year of Edinson Volquez. Oh, and Corey Patterson mysterously got way too many at bats. That's it.

Pittsburgh Pirates - final record: 67-95 / predicted record 65-97
Number of games off: +2
Why I was wrong: Pretty close again. The team is bad. They had some breakouts which I didn't anticipate - particularly the excellent seasons by all three outfielders (well Pirates before the all-star break) Nate McLouth, Jason Bay and Xavier Nady (well I expected Bay to come back but couldn't be sure). These were made up by the disappointing seasons from their young pitchers, particularly Ian Snell, Zach Duke and Tom Gorzelanny. These pretty much made up for each other - pretty much just a bad team.

NL West

Los Angeles Dodgers - final record: 84-78 / predicted record: 87-75
Number of games off: -3
Why I was wrong: Wrong order, but pretty good record here. Pierre played too much, and Jones was a disaster, while Kemp and Loney maybe under played what I thought by just a little. The starting pitching was very solid led by Chad Billingsley and Derek Lowe, and their bullpen was excellent - their pitching was best in the league - if they could hit any better, they'd really rack up the wins.

Arizona Diamondbacks - final record: 82-80 / predicted record: 91-71
Number of games off: -9
Why I was wrong: I mean, I knew they didn't hit in 2007. But they featured a bunch of young guys who all seemed to have the potential to get better, and none of them did. I knew Eric Byrnes had a fluke good year in 2007, but not so much that he would be both awful and hurt for most of the year in 2008. In addition, their bullpen was quite disappointing.

Colorado Rockies - final record: 74-88 / predicted record: 89-73
Number of games off: -15
Why I was wrong: As much as I underpredicted the teams in the central, I overpredicted the teams in this division. Troy Tulowitski was hurt a lot and terrible. Todd Helton was hurt a lot. Garrett Atkins was terrible disappointing - their hitting went from 2nd in the league in 2007 to 8th in the league in 2008. Their pitching fell a ton as well - Jeff Francis really fell off and whoever they threw at the back of their rotation was miserable.

San Francisco Giants - final record: 72-90 / predicted record: 69-93
Number of games off: +3
Why I was wrong: Not really wrong here. Some great pitching prospects, but can't hit at all. Their starter with the highest OPS+, 111, was Ray Durham and was traded midseason. Tim Lincecum was Cy Young worthy as the Giants abused the hell out of his young arm for no reason (I'll need at least one more rant about this at some point) and Matt Cain was good, but aside from that everyone struggled everywhere.

San Diego Padros - final record: 63-99 / predicted record: 87-75
Number of games off: -24
Why I was wrong: Nothing like ending with my worst pick. This was one of my dumbest going back as well in that there was really no reason to pick them to have so many wins. That said, there was no reason to have picked them to lose 99 either. Chris Young was injured for half the year, as was, well, pretty much every pitcher. Khalil Greene was just beyond putrid, and well, the team was just bad. Peavy was great, Adrian Gonzalez was great, Brian Giles was reliably strong and Jody Gerut was a nice suprise. Beyond that everything else was bad.

Two more quick things...

...it's amazing to be the disparity between the stat/sabermetric/reasonable thinking/whatever you want to call it baseball community and 95% of baseball writers/broadcasters...I'm so used to reading and talking to people who are, if not up to date on second and third order pitching stats, at least know that wins are meaningless, that clutch hitting doesn't exist, that runs scored and RBI are incredibly team dependent, and that baseball is a largely individual game and players shouldn't be faulted for what the other members of their teams do. So it still blows my mind when I leave that community to for some reason read an article where someone, who, regardless of whether they are into the mathematical side and regressions at whatnot, are at least are willing to think about baseball in a sensible matter. Firejoemorgan.com has made a killing out of crucifying these writers and their refusal to even give an iota of credit to a statistic that didn't exist before the 1950s. So when I read an article by Jon Heyman (who has done this thing many times before) where he specifically dedicates a section to how VORP is a worthless statistic that should come nowhere close to MVP voting I am still for some reason stunned how people who are such close-minded are allowed anywhere near the opinion pages of a major (I suppose the major) sports magazine. In just these couple of paragraphs are the same tropes we see over and over - David Wright shouldn't have been in the MVP contest last year because the Mets choked, even though, as we know, baseball players have very little (if any) influence on one other in the lineup, and Wright did about everything he damn could to make the playoffs.

Heyman of course disparages the notion that we shoudln't count clutch hitting. Now, although I'm not a big fan of it - I can live with doing it in a retrospective sense - see who had hit in the clutch in counting who was best over a past year, and the best way to do it is probably win probability added, something Heyman would surely blast if he possibly knew what it was. But just counting it retrospectively is not enough for Heyman. He must add this little footnote as an extra stab at stat guys - "oddly enough, some stat people think that's just luck, anyway" - I love the preface of "oddly enough" as if he's kind of pointing his head to his friends sitting at his cafeteria table to a bunch of nerd crazies in the corner, and adding the anyway at the end to be extra dismissive. Does he attempt evidence? Proof? Nope. Has he read any comprehensive arguments by any "stat people"? I doubt it. Even if he did, would he even open his head to the possiblity it could be true? I doubt it either.

Forget VORP. That's not what this is about. VORP is a great stat, but by no means the only stat one must use - there are plenty of tools out there which measure different things about the player, and there's plenty or room for argument. What it's about is being reasonable, and being open minded to conclusions that don't jive with what you've thought since you were a kid. That if you grew up believing in clutch, thus that's the way it is, and it will never be otherwise. And that if you still believe in it - you can show it through a well-reasoned argument rather than just acting as if everyone who doesn't agree with you is an out and out idiot. All right, done with that rant for now, but it just pisses me off. The day of reckoning will come when common sense enters the mainstream.



Now, my other item is something entirely and completely unrelated.

I recently was watching the second half the Seinfeld episode The Cigar Store Indian. You know, the one where Jerry calls his girlfriend an Indian giver, and the TV Guide.

One of the greatest cameos in Seinfeld history (perhaps sitcom history?) has got to be Al Roker and his two lines at the end of the episode.

Elaine and Jerry are on the subway at the end of the episode, Elaine holding the TV guide, when Jerry gets out to get a gyro. Jerry tries to make it back, but ends up sticking his hand with the gryo through, which Al Roker takes, and Jerry pulls his arm back and misses the train. Al Roker sits down next to Elaine, and utters his first line (copied from earlier in the episode, from Ricky, the creepy TV guide guy played by the guy who plays Ted in Scrubs, but far better when Al Roker does it):

"Guess your boyfriend's gonna have to catch the next train"

To which Elaine replies as before, "He's not my boyfriend."

Now here's where it gets amazing, Roker replies, "He's not? Interesting." - but what makes this so good is the cartoonishly sheepish grin he gives after the line, and the way he says interesting. What also makes this so great is the perfect choice of person - I can think of few others who would work well as Al Roker - someone famous enough he's recognizable, but not so famous that everyone on earth would recognize him, and someone famous as a zany weatherman, rather than as charismatic or attractive or anything like that.

Also adding to it is the reaction of Elaine as she looks at the TV guide and see Al Roker's face and makes the connection.

Brilliant television.

One problem in sports nowadays is the lack of good nicknames. There's too many lazy nicknames - A-Rod, ManRam, etc - just using people's names, and mashing them together somehow. The origins of good nicknames aren't necessarily immediately obvious - often they involve a quick story, or at the least an explanation. Good ones in today's game include Sean Casey as the Mayor and Travis Hafner as Pronk (though of course who knows Hafner will be around the way his career has turned). I think it's everyone's personal duty to rectify this problem, and good nickname developing starts in the grassroots - nicknames start small and grow in force (some, anyway). Thus, I'm making it my personal duty to push some nicknames into the lexicon, or attempt anyway. I ask that anyone reading this should start using these nicknames when they talk about the player involved, and that they explain to their friends and get them to start using them too. Hell, force a conversation involving these players just so you can get the nickname in there.

Our nickname today will be Bills' safety Donte Whitner as "The Prophet"


Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to go enforcing a nickname that had no explanation. In this offseason, Donte Whitner issued a guarentee that the Bills would make the playoffs. So far, the Bills are 3-0, their best start in 16 years. Coincidence? I'm not sure, but either way, this start surely makes Donte a (the) Prophet. Now, hopefully the Bills will keep it up, but even if they don't, the nickname stays - that's part of what it means to be a nickname, continuing to be used even if the story that made it true in the first place doesn't hold up exactly anymore.

You've got your nickname. Start using it.

A quick note on the Emmys. I may want to say later, but I'm extremely tired so I'm going to focus on two quick things. I didn't really watch the Emmys as there were sports on, and, frankly, the Emmys are pretty lame, the Academy Awards' little stepbrother who constantly underachieves and makes poor decisions. But I checked back and forth and took a look at the winners of course, so here we go.



First thing, major props for Zeljko Ivanek, one of my all time favorite TV character actors. He won best supporting actor in a drama Emmy for his role in Damages, an absurd legal thriller show that I bonded with my dad while watching last summer. He was eastern european Dennis Hopper's son as Andre Drazon, one of the membes of the villainous family in the first season of 24, and he played Juliet's husband who gets hit my a bus in an episode of Lost. He was a recurring character in Oz as the Governor, and in Homicide: Life on the Street as Ed Danvers. I also had the pleasure of seeing him in a Tony nominated performance in one of the last times I've seen a show, in The Caine Mutiny Court Martial. It's about damn time he got his due props and I'm glad to see it happen. So score one for Emmy here.



Second, a word on 30 Rock. I may talk more about it in general - I finished the second season just the other day. But I'm not sure I get why it's so popular with Emmy voters. It's a good show; I like it, and I watch it, and I will continue to. But it's not that good. In my mind, it's kind of a very poor man's Arrested Development (honestly, that's not really an insult) - Liz Lemon is Michael Bluth's straight man dealing with a zany cast of characters trying to hold them together as a show (instead of a family) while sorting out her own not so perfect life. 30 Rock doesn't make me laugh out loud nearly as much as a show like that I feel should (A comparison I make is to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which whether it's the best show or best episode or not, is always guarenteed to have a few parts that just make you laugh out loud). 30 Rock has a lot of parts where it's almost hits - parts where I think to myself "oh, that's clever" or "that's amusing" instead of actually laughing. Allow me a baseball comparison - 30 Rock is the Torii Hunter of television. A very solid player and a respectable citizen who while someone who will always contribute and help the team is nevertheless consistently overrated and paid more money than they probably deserve. 30 Rock serves as a nice compliment to Vlad Guerrero (The Office? (I need to approve this my sports-TV metaphor guy)) but is what it is a compliment - that I hope will continue to get better, maybe show more plate discipline, will probably continue to the same reliable, useful and good but not great player/show who will have a couple huge turns at bat (scenes that make you laugh a lot? I'm not sure where I'm going anymore) but more often will have a 1-5 game with a double, a productive out or two and solid defense.

I'd like to start by saying that I have improbably been up for 38 straight hours and have no idea how I am still awake. I have some general thoughts on all-nighters, but they'll be saved for a later time.

I have two new precepts which I think should be enforced.

First, you know how everybody once in a while says - "if I had a nickel for every time blank blank" in regards to whatever happens to them a lot. (For example, my name is Andrew Weber. If I had a nickel for every time people asked me if my middle name was Lloyd...you get the idea) The government should fund a program in which each person gets to pick one of these "if I had a nickel" situations and the person gets paid off a nickel for each time. There'd have to be rules, of course - you couldn't just say "if I had a nickel for every time someone knocked down a tree in the rain forest..." - the situation would have to somehow be related to you. Also, there'd have to be some sort of monitor - people can't be trusted to monitor themselves. Anyway, these are all minor details, compared to the gradiosity of this immense plan - so I say, government get on it - it has the benefit of giving people something to keep them going in proportion for the happening of something that bothers them the most.

Second - there should be some universal songwriting rules. The one I have in mind is in reference to girls names in songs. There are tons of songs with girls names, but there are tons of repeats - several Allisons for example, among many others, while some names are simply not covered as well. Any guy wanting to make a mix for a girl should have a song available to him with the girl's name in it. Thus, there should be a universal bank of songs with girls' names in them, and bands who want to write songs with girls' names in them, should be required to check the bank and use names that have not been covered, and at the very least not over covered. That's the only way we can guarentee that overlooked girls' names wind up in songs, ensuring that any mix can be designed with any girl in mind.

A few random notes...

...boy I didn't realize the outcry that actually existed over these Seinfeld - Gates commercials - I'd like to reiterate I was on the positive/completely confused side rather than the negative/completely confused side. While I found them extremely bizarre I was certainly more interested in watching them than 98% of the other commercials on TV - now after two spots it appears they're ending, whether as a planned move to the next wave of the advertising push, as Microsoft claims, or because they were pulled due to the massive negative public reaction...

...an official new feature of this blog for the next week and a half and his next one or two starts will be the Lincecum pitch count tracker...tracking how stupid Bruce Bochy/Brian Sabean are in leaving their young pitcher out for pitch counts that no other major league pitcher throws in meaningless games and more than 60 more innings than he's ever thrown (I blame Sabean most of all - it's his job to shut him down for the year and in lieu of that give a strict pitch count)...

...I need to make my pick for my Survivor league...the first week I took what I thought was the obvious pick and went with New England against the Chiefs, thinking it was the only way I could nearly guarentee not embarassingly bombing out in the first week, even if it meant giving up the Patriots for the rest of the season, and with Brady's injury, that's not such a bad thing - even though they're still good, they're not longer a guarentee against most teams. Second week, my decision came down to the Steelers versus the Browns or the Giants versus the Rams, and I went with the Giants after personally watching how putrid the Rams were against the Eagles the week before. So the third week comes, and there are even fewer good picks than last week. The Chargers are temping versus the Jets, but they've been so mediocre so far. I think Tennessee will probably beat Houston, one team that I expect to get better and always underperforms, but I'm not all that confident in it. I half wish I had saved the Giants for this week against the Bengals. Jacksonville's been pitiful so far, but the Colts haven't exactly been gangbusters either, and while the Browns have been bad, I'm still not sold on picking a Ravens team with a QB starting the second game of his young career. I'm honestly leaning towards picking the Bills, though I hesitate - I don't want my fandom to bias my choice, though with the Bills, the bias probably runs in the opposite direction (against the Bills). Still, against Oakland at home, they seem like the best pick. So that's who I stand with until I panic and freak out five minutes before the first game and try to sign into Yahoo only to find out it's too late and I'm stuck with them anyway.

Californication - or, as I call it David Duchovny having sex - Season 1



So, the day was about a week ago, and the time was, I had just finished catching up on Battlestar Galactica, and I needed to follow it with a show that went down easy, a dessert to follow the four course meal that Battlestar had been (with a 10 episode second part of the fourth course to follow in 2009). This meant a comedy, or at least something half hour long and billed as a comedy, and something relatively short. I took a look around at what I had on my computer on hand, and noted that at some point I had downloaded David Duchovny's latest opus, Californication, and that it was only 12 half hour episodes, so I figured why not, I'd been missing my last dose of Duchovny ever since Connie and Carla finished (Note: I did not actually watch Connie and Carla. Please don't quiz me on it).

My expectations were for something passable - not for something great, but for something that at least makes me want to continue watching it, and that's pretty much what I got, and if that sounds like a bad thing, it's really not - not every show can be Arrested Development.

Really, Californication is more a comedy in the way that Entourage is a comedy - there aren't really jokes, and it's not really laugh out loud funny - it's more of a light hearted drama (is that what a Dramady is? In my mind, the two foremost examples of dramady were always Ally McBeal and Sports Night, but I'm not sure why). The first episode didn't exactly draw me in - David Duchovny plays Hank Moody, kind of an asshole-with-a-heart-of-if-not-gold-then-silver who wants to live in his own idiosyncranic way. This Moody is also a writer who wrote a fantastically successful novel which was turned into a fantastically commercially successful movie adaptation which he thinks is crap, and hasn't written a word in the five years since, when he moved to LA from NY to work on the movie. Oh, and also he's separated from the woman he had been with for at least 12 years and has a daughter with, and this woman is engaged to a man who stands for everything Moody hates, and also has a teenage daughter who Moody (first episode spoiler alert) accidentally sleeps with in the first episode (well, not accidentally the sleeping with more, more accidentally in that he was unaware that she was a teen, let alone the teenage daughter of his ex's fiance). So there's your plot summary. And basically in the last sentence, we get a running theme in the show which I prefaced atop my entry - David Duchovny having sex. Though I didn't count, this pretty much happens in every episode, with different women in each episode. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but if you're into that kind of thing (David Duchovny having sex, that is) I thought I ought to make a point of it. That, and also "David Duchovny having sex" (or "Hank Moody having sex" if we want to stay in character) would be a more straightforward title.

The other main characters are his agent and friend portrayed by Evan Handler, who seems to be popping up everywhere these days and was due to land a main role sooner or later - he had recurring parts in Sex and the City and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, guest apperances in Lost and 24, and well, a starring role in the short lived and quickly forgotten "It's Like, You Know" which was once billed as LA's answer to Seinfeld. His story arcs tend to focus on his relationship with his wife and with his hot goth suicide chick secretary.

With exceptions, most shows live up to the sum of their parts and premises, and you can pretty much tell everything you need to know about the show from what I've already written. Hank Moody don't take no advice from no one and lives on his own terms - he often makes inapproriate outbursts, but at the same time has the courage to take on challenges that people living in the "normal" world wouldn't dare broach. He's kind of a jerk, but you root for him anyway, part because a lot of the other characters are just tools, including most of all his ex's fiance, who doesn't do too much in the storyline explicitly bad, but is still pretty much a tool, and partly because Moody's the main character, and well, if you didn't root for him, it would make the show pretty hard to watch.

He's pretty much the show - the other characters are fine, supporting, but couldn't stand on their own. He deals with the idiosyrancities (yeah, I know I used this word twice. Deal with it) of what a strange place to live LA is, and tries to win back his ex, all while sleeping with as many people as he can. Basically what it comes down to is the show is not a can't miss by any means - unlike The Wire (obviously about as different a genre as it can get) which I tell everyone I meet, even in the urinal next to me in bathrooms to watch, I won't be pushing Californication, but by the time I watched a few episodes, I actually wanted to watch the rest, to the conclusion of the season, and really, that's not at all a bad thing.

Time for an assorted posting of little things...

Sure, Carlos Delgado has been great in the second half but the calls for him to win the MVP are pure lunacy (okay, maybe lunacy's a little strong). Delgado's return to form is a huge boon for the Mets, and has certainly been a factor in their strong second half performance, but unfortunately for Delgado, the first half counts in MVP consideration, and he's probably the fourth best candidate on his own team. Albert Pujols has got to win. Now of course he may not because MVP voters are idiots, but it's hard not to give the award to someone who is leading the league in on base percentage and slugging, with almost .1 higher combined OPS than anyone else in the league all while playing the best first base in the league.

The Giants should be repremanded somehow for allowing their young ace Tim Lincecum to pitch 138 (I wish I could capitalize numbers somehow, but in lieu of that I'll have to bold them I suppose) pitches in a 7-0 complete game shutout against the Padres. Now, fact one is that every single Giants game at this point in the season is completely and totally meaningless. I quickly looked up the pitch count for a handful of the better pitchers on contending teams and couldn't find any count over than 130. Carlos Zambrano had 130 once and CC Sabathia, who has been used recklessly, likely in part because the Brewers only have him until the end of the season threw 130 once. In Lincecum's four last starts, he threw 138, 127, 92, and 132 pitches. He's already thrown 60 more innings than he did last year. GIANTS GAMES DO NO MATTER ANYMORE. Forgetting the idea that there was a 7 run lead by the time he took the mound in the bottom of the ninth. You know, maybe the ghost of Dusty Baker still lingers. Baseball should have like a pitcher's services division who takes away custody of pitchers from organizations which can't be entrusted with them. I don't care how solid his mechanics are and how confident they are he can pitch without injury. The GAME IS MEANINGLESS! There is no point in even taking the smallest chance. I think Lincecum should win the Cy Young as much as anyone - but is it really worth a full out drive at the award for adding a significant chance for injury or arm soreness in his promising young career which could be preserved for a time when the Giants actually matter. And by the way, how is Brian Sabaen not fired yet?

Poor Syracuse football. Once a mighty program - sure, not as big as the USCs and Oklahomas and Notre Dames, but just a tier below - a national title winner years and years ago, but an undefeated team in 1987, and a competitor in BCS bowl games as recently as the late 90s with Donovan McNabb. Forget BCS games, a competitor in bowl games of any sort. Over the last three years under for Texas defensive coordinator Greg Robinson, 'Cuse has gone 1-10, 4-8 and 2-10 with an 0-3 start this year. The program has become a total joke, and it's still unclear why exactly Robinson was brought back for a fourth year. It's time for him to go - it would not be hard to find a promising assistant or mid-major head coach to take on and rehabilitate the program for a few years. I don't think asking for a .500 record is too much.

I have a survivor league for the NFL (in case one is unfamiliar with the concept each week each person picks one team to win - if that team loses, they're out for the year, and each team can only be picked once by each person - so last year you couldn't have just picked the pats every week). Last week, only one other person and I took the obvious pick of the Patriots, and a few people got burned - picking normally reliable Indianapolis and San Diego led to early defeat. This week there are no certainties, and certainly I'm glad I used New England before Tom Brady was out for the year (not that he played all that long in the Chiefs game anyway). I narrowed by choices down the Pittsburgh (against the Browns) or the Giants (against the Rams) and finally settled on the Giants, thinking that the Browns might "get up for the game" (shouldn't every team get up for every game with a week to prepare for it) against a hated divisional opponent, and that the Browns probably aren't quite as bad as they were last week, while the Rams might be. It's risky, though, but without a Tom Brady led Patriots, what pick isn't.

Two commercial posts in a row! Fun. Okay, there's a series of ads for fantasy football at NFL.com which are NFL Fantasy Files, each with a different player. Basically, the idea of each ad is that the player says something like "check this out," after which he performs some sort of unlikely feat with the football, depending on his position, throwing, catching, running, or kicking, and then after he's finished says, "Pick Me." I've taken it upon myself as a service to the online community to rank these ads in terms of quality of feat - which both takes into account impressiveness, uniqueness and overall coolness.

We're start with the worst and work our way up to give everyone something to look forward to.

Marques Colston:



I hate to do this, as Colston is my boy as a Hofstra alum - a school less than ten minutes away from my house - but this is simply the most boring fantasy file. He catches two balls, one behind his back, and one he comes down on as it's zooming by. I mean, sure it's impressive, but it's supposed to be impressive, it's a fantasy file. Nothing wrong with what he says, but nothing so interesting that I can jump him a spot. Sorry, Marques.

Chris Simms



I'm going to have to admit - this one loses some immediate props from the fact that no one will want to pick Chris Simms - he wasn't on a team at the beginning of this season. He throws two balls into garbage cans, and then the last into a garbage can on a moving truck. I do like the fact that he comments on his throws as he's going ("Automatic") and I listened really close to try to figure out what in the world is being shouted at him (something something something smart kid).

Neil Rackers



Rackers tells us we're going to see "something [he's] been working on" - kicking the first two balls into the left upright and the second two into the right upright. Props for telling us what he's going to do before he delivers, but again, entirely boring - not an ounce of creativity there - sure it's impressive, but that's just not going to cut it. Though I do love his plea - pointing out that we need a kicker.

Marc Bulger



Bulger's feat is hitting the sign which indicates the number of down it is, and spinning it around, from 1 to 2, from 2 to 3 and from 3 to 4. It's a pretty lame feat, and I would drop it below Chris Simms if not for the fact that Bulger is at least actually starting for NFL team and has a credible argument for you to actually pick him (though the way the Rams played on Sunday who knows how credible that is for long).

Mike Nugent



I like the jenga element - Nugent aims for a pyramid of six garbage cans - first, depositing the ball in the top without knocking anything down, then in the left and right corners, leaving a diamond, which he then knocks down with his last kick. Very visually pleasing. Indeed, this is the first of the series of videos in which the participant tells us what it takes to be a great whatever position he plays - strength and accuracy to be a great kicker, Nugent tells us. I also like his "I say you pick me" at the end - it sounds a little more forceful than some others.

Andre Johnson



We've started getting into the pretty cool ones here. Johnson sets up the ball-throwing machine, then sprints over in time to catch the ball it shoots out - pretty cool. Not much theater to it, but he has a cool little speech at the beginning, ironically, about the lack of talking he does. Nifty.

David Akers



The most zen speech so far - "Life is about balance. When you achieve balance, the impossible becomes possible" - he then proceeds to kick the stationary ball up in the air a few inches from its placement between his two feet, and then kick a field goal with it. Impressive, but he'd be down a few notches if not for his speech about balance, and his "Pick me, grasshoppa" at the end.

Chris Chambers



The best part of this is the way there's a crowd of people that has been "asking [him] to do this all day." He complies, while facing the camera, catches passes thrown to his back with his left and right hands and then catches on between the two footballs, and then after telling us we should pick him, he adds in that it's our move. A good, but not the best feat, but gets a spot or two for the clamoring crowd at the beginning.

Jason Campbell



He says, "Two recievers, two footballs, one choice" - which sounds kind of cool though it took me a while to figure out what the choice was (presumably him in fantasy football?). Basically, he tosses the two footballs one after each other, as two recievers run routes, one straight out to his left, and one two his right, and the second football his the first, and they both go directly to the receivers. Not too shabby - not too much flash, but one of the more creative drills we'll seen.

Braylan Edwards



This ranking is pretty much predicated on Edwards' speech before and while he does his trick. I'd love to hear some football announcer say this (It's so good, I'm just typing the whole thing up) "You can't see it can you? (laughs) Being a reciever is not about physicality, speed - it's about zen and the art of receiving - seeing without seeing - feeling, emotion, reaching out - seeing without seeing." I mean his trick is kind of boring - he catches a bunch of balls with a blindfold on. But that speech is definitely the best of anyone in any of the ads - coupled with his "Pick me. I am your choice" at the end.

Laurence Maroney



First of all, you know he's going to get some uniqueness points right off the bat since he's the only running back, so there's not a couple other videos that look just like it. Second, what's amazing is that when he says "if there's a hole" it sounds like "if there's a ho." Yes, I know this is stupid. It's still funny. Third, there's a fantastic warning at the bottom which says "Do not attempt unless you are an NFL athlete." Fourth, it's actually a pretty cool stunt - jumping through a car with just the windows open on the front seat. Fifth, he is actively agressive in convincing us to pick him - almost yelling "In your league, you better pick me. Your move."

We're getting down to the final two here...

Chris Cooley



Not quite Braylan Edwards-like but solid beginning describing what you need to be a pass-recieving tight end - strength and instincts - but this is here mostly because this is such an awesome stunt. He caught a ball throught a piece of wood! Plus, he uses the skills he had said were necessary - the strength to push through the wood, and the instincts to realize the ball were there. It's pretty great. Also, is he just doing this in a house being constructed? Aren't the owners of the home going to pretty pissed that there's a whole in their house? Just a possibility. Also if you haven't seen this video of Chris Cooley conduction a fantasy draft with other Redskins, it's worth checking out.

And now the champion...

Mason Crosby



No, he's not just here because he has an awesome name. This is definitely the most creative stunt of them all, coupled with the idea that it's a prank - as Crosby tells us "they hate it when I do this." It's not just the fact that he's artificially making it sound like it's three which makes it great - he could do that at any time and it would be a prank - it's that for some reason he's doing this at 2:59. And yes, he kicks the three footballs to hit the bells, tricking everyone in the vicinity into thinking it's 3 instead of 2:59. For good measure, after he's done, as the screen fades out we here the actual three o'clock bells. Can't beat it.