It's been too long, but I'd have to officially take down the blog if I didn't occasionally offer up some incredibly un-prescient predictions about sports. Baseball preview time, I'll predict records for each team, write a couple of words about them, and we'll see how well they each do. (I'll add up the total games to make sure that's even at least, but not sure how many interleague games are played, and too lazy to look them up, so, we'll guesstimate(I'm aware that's not a word))

AL East:

Boston Red Sox : 2007 :96-66 2008: 97-65
New York Yankees: 2007: 94-68 2008: 94-68
Toronto Blue Jays: 2007: 83-79 2008: 82-80
Tampa Bay Rays: 2007: 66-96 2008: 79-83
Baltimore Orioles: 2007: 69-93 2008: 63-99

AL Central:

Detroit Tigers: 2007: 88-74 2008: 94-68
Cleveland Indians: 2007: 96-66 2008: 93-69
Minnesota Twins: 2007: 79-83 2008: 75-87
Kansas City Royals 2007: 69-93 2008: 74-88
Chicago White Sox 2007: 72-90 2008: 72-90

AL West:

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: 2007: 94-68 2008: 94-68
Seattle Mariners: 2007: 88-74 2008: 84-78
Texas Rangers 2007: 75-87 2008: 75-87
Oakland Athletics: 2007: 76-86 2008: 69-93

NL East:

New York Mets: 2007: 88-74 2008: 92-70
Atlanta Braves 2007: 84-78 2008: 89-73
Philadelphia Phillies: 2007: 89-73 2008: 87-75
Washington Nationals: 2007: 73-89 2008: 73-89
Florida Marlins 2007: 71-91 2008: 67-95

NL Central:

Chicago Cubs: 2007: 85-77 2008: 87-75
Milwaukee Brewers: 2007: 83-79 2008: 84-78
Cincinnati Reds: 2007: 72-90 2008: 77-85
St. Louis Cardinals: 2007: 78-84 2008: 71-91
Houston Astros: 2007: 73-89 2008: 71-91
Pittsburgh Pirates: 2007: 68-94 2008: 65-97

NL West:

Arizona Diamondbacks: 2007: 90-72 2008: 91-71
Colorado Rockies: 2007: 90-73 2008: 89-73
Los Angeles Dodgers: 2007: 82-80 2008: 87-75
San Diego Padres 2007: 89-74 2008: 87-75
San Francisco Giants: 2007: 71-91 2008: 69 -93

So, I haven't posted in a long time, as is evident, so I've combined a couple of random things here.

Baseball - so while most people have been watching football (I have of course as well) and left the baseball hall of fame discussions aside almost a month ago, I've been pooling through past Hall of Famers, and trying to determine who is in, that shouldn't be, and who isn't in, who should be, nothing along the way those who got in eventually, but had no business taking as long as they did, as well.

When I am finished, I'll write in more detail, but I'll throw out a few names, and anyone who actually know old-time baseball might have thoughts (if you don't, you should get some knowledge on old baseball - it's great! any fan now should do at least a little learning about the history of the game - I would also love to read some more old time baseball books if anyone knows good ones).

In strange #1s on the UK pop charts, how about 1982's Happy Talk by Captain Sensible - here's a readymade formula - take a '70s punk band guitarist gone solo with a nautical nom de plume - and have him a cover a 1940s Rodgers and Hammerstein tune with some new wave flourishes. Honestly, this is absolutely bizarre - I know the Brits love their covers, but a cover of a 1949 South Pacific tune? This has to be one of the odder ones - and yet I find the song now stuck in my head, though I'm not sure how much credit I owe to Raymond Burns (AKA Captain Sensible) (who is apparently known, according to wiki, for wearing "trademark headwear" a red beret, and is a member of the extremely questionable supergroup featuring the vocalist from The Alarm, the drummer from the Stray Cats, and the guitarist from spear of destiny) and how much credit I owe Rodgers and Hammerstein, and the performance of South Pacific I saw in High School (though certainly not that exact version) and their ability to write a song that somehow found renewed popularity in a musical world 180 degrees from their time. Alas, hopefully I'll find another strange #1 to capture my interest soon.

Okay, one more thing - a lot of different types of sports stories get on my nerves, and there's a particular lot of them in the two weeks before the super bowl as writers run out of stories, but the one I'll focus on right now as being a vastly overrated concern - is the old "bulletin board" motivation stories - such as, comments by Giants players, giving the Patriots some material for Bill Belichick to put up on the wall or on the players' lockers, which will spur them to try that extra bit harder to win the super bowl. Are you kidding me? This is the Super Bowl! What football player is not trying as hard as he can! Who is thinking "well, I didn't really want to win before, but now that the giants say they think they can win, I want to beat their brains out with a baseball bat, even though they don't even use one in my sport." Let alone, the New England patriots. Kevin Faulk is surely thinking, well, I came out to play for the first three, but the fourth really just doesn't mean as much to me. Maybe I'm going a little over the top, but seriously, I've got a good feeling motivation is not going to determine the outcome - probably skills of the players, and game planning will have a good deal more to do with it.

As a law student, I'm used to having to figure out who should win and lose hypothetical cases. With these skills, I figured I'd attempt to take on some TV shows and movies that seem to resemble legal battles, in name at least.

Kramer vs. Kramer:

One of the authentic legal battles on the list, everyone knows this story - neglected stay-at-home mother leaves husband and son to find herself, husband rearranges his priorities to put his son first, mother comes back with a vengeance to take back her son in what becomes a heated custody battle.

Winner: Kramer - started off with an easy one - you can figure this one out without even seeing the movie

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever:

Consistently appearing on lists of the worst movies ever, including the lowest Rotten Tomatoes ranking ever of 1.5831% fresh, the film (can it really be called a "film?") stars Antonio Banderas ("Ecks") and Lucy Liu ("Sever") as government agents who first believe they are each other's enemies, but soon learn the greater threat is megalomaniac agent Robert Grant, who is now married to Ecks' ex-wife, and who is portrayed by Gregg Henry, best known for his roles as villains in Payback and Body Double.

Winner: Nobody

G vs. E:

A USA original series that aired during the 1999-2000 season, it starred Clayton Bohner, best known as the boyfriend of the main character in Just One of the Guys, Richard Brooks, who cut his legal teeth as the first ADA on Law & Order, and Marshall Bell, best remembered as Martian resistance leader Kuato from Total Recall. The three play members of "The Corps," or part of God's police force on earth - who fight two types of enemies - "Faustians" - who are ordinary mortals who have made deals with the devil, and "Morlocks," which wikipedia describes as "ground troops for the dark side."

Winner: G, barely, in each episode, over E

The People vs. Larry Flynt:

Misleading in its title which implies it is a criminal case, part of the movie is actually based on the real first amendment case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, in which Jerry Falwell sued Hustler for libel for this fake advertisement, which Hustler successfully won on parody grounds (I have to include some real law here somewhere.) Aside for this, it goes through the trials and tribulations of Larry Flynt's outside-the-box life.

Winner: The Harrelson family - Woody got an Academy Award nomination for his work as Flynt, Brett Harrelson got to appear in a movie of quality higher than From Dusk Til Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money.

(By the way...did you know Woody Harrelson's father was a freelance hitman?)

Kenny vs. Spenny

Kenneth "Kenny" Joel Hotz and Spencer "Spenny" Nolan Rice are two Canadians who battle each other in various competitions, such as "Who can stay awake the longest?," "Who makes the most convincing woman?," and "Who can win a court case?", the winner of which gets to assign a "humiliation" to the loser in this twice Gemini-award nominated series. The series is apparently noted for the distinct methods each of the two go about when competing - Kenny looks for ways to cheat, while Spenny is commited to the ethical guidelines of the contest. The most impressive thing about it's wikipedia entry is not simply the list of what the contest is each time and who wins, but the margin of victory, the description of how Kenny cheats, and the humiliation that follows. Someone really loves this show.

Winner: Canada, for somehow getting Americans to watch their TV shows (or at least put them on American TV) for the first time since Degrassi: The Next Generation.

How I Met Your Mother

Okay, here goes - I recently watched Seasons 1 and 2, and here's my take - there's a bunch of good things about, and some not so good things, so I'll kind of start and work my way from there...

First thing, I hate the gimmick. (For those who don't yet know, the premise is that the main character Ted Moseby, is telling the story from 25 years in the future to his kids, about how he met his wife (their mother) and the zany adventures on the way). It's a stupid gimmick and any impact it has on the show is negative - in the first few episodes, though less so later on, the beginning and or end contain Ted's future kids sitting on the couch and making dumb comments, about how boring their dad's story is, and during the show Bob Sagat (future Ted's voice (not sure why he would sound all that different in the future)) makes occasionally unhelpful and unfunny comments about what will happen in the future (for example, at Marshall's law school party, two kids are making fools of themselves, and future ted comments that one is a Supreme Court Justice, and one is Attorney General, or something like that - maybe a good effort, but incredibly unfunny and unnecessary. In addition, this puts a pointless onus on the comedy show to have to work around eventually finding his mother and doesn't even allow us to think that pretty much any girl he meets will eventually be the mother, otherwise, the tenor of the show would have to change.

Second, and if you actually like the show, hold on, and eventually I will say some nice things about it, but I hate the narration and the moralizing tone - this is not a problem only with this show, it happens all the time, but this is the show I'm reviewing - the narration is constantly used to teach the audience little life lessons - which I can't stand - I'm watching a sitcom, to laugh, to be amused, and fine, I have even no problem with things that are heartwarming, but I certainly am not watching to learn little tips and hints about life from TV characters. Aside from the moralizing, the narration is just unfunny - filled with times when future Ted tries to give his kids quirky explanations about life. One example of this is a first season episode where future Ted repeats over and over ad nauseum that nothing good happens after 2 AM, which aside from being kind of stupid, just doesn't work. Another time, in a second season episode, on their way to Marshall's bachelor party, future Ted attempts to point out that there are certain types of people at every bachelor party - unlike the strict moralizing it's not as if this could never be funny - it's just not.

Even if they wanted to tell moral lessons, which I disapprove of anyway, narration is the lazy man's way of doing it - the show should display it with the actions of the characters and the story - the narration shouldn't be necessary to impart it.

This all said, it's a cute, traditional sitcom - it has funny parts, and most of all it has Barney, Neil Patrick Harris, who single-handedly makes the show watchable, and dare I saw, sometimes enjoyable - he is a quintessential "TV" character - but a good one - and his many catch phrases (various incarnations of high fives, legendary) and memorable quotes could easily become worth parts of the lexicon. I know that I've said a lot more bad about it than good, and that it sounds like I should hate it, but it's really just the bad things to me are so obviously, and really jump out, and could easily be changed to improve it. Really, overall - it's as a I said, a "cute" show - it doesn't try to be anything huge, and it's not - the characters are likable, the actors display good chemistry, and forgetting the narration - many of the jokes do work - for example, a second season episode features a slap bet between Marshall and Barney, in which the winner gets to slap the loser, with varying penalties for premature slapping (watch it if this entirely unclear) and Robin's music video from her brief time as a Canadian teen pop singer - both segments which are hilarious.

It's far from my favorite comedy, but it's good enough for me to watch, which honestly is saying something in and of itself. There are parts that are really funny and fun to watch - if they had just created this with some of the parameters of "new sitcoms" (Arrested Development, Office, among others) such as lack of laugh track, lack of moralizing, it would be just as funny and probably gain a quick point and a half on my scale.

How I Met Your Mother, Seasons 1/2 - 6.3

Okay, I'll admit it. I've been ashamed to blog for a while, as a result of my continuing inability to correctly pick MLB Division Series. All four wrong. Ouch - nobody said picking playoff series was easy, but even 1-3 has a distinctly different look than 0-4.

So, I apologize and beg for forgiveness for my horrible picks. Next year, perhaps I'll attempt to pick them, and simply pick the opposite, and hope karma won't see through it.

Aside from that, we slowly get underway in hockey, NBA, and college basketball; college football nears bowl season, and the NFL hits the halfway point - not my favorite time of the sporting year, but at least there's stuff on.

In Books, I'm almost finished with Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, very much one of the "it" books of 2006 - in which Pollan takes a look at how food makes it from its origins to your table, through the industrial food chain, two types of organic ones, and a hunting-and-foraging one. It's very depressing in that it basically tells us how terrible most of the food that most of us buy is - health-wise for us, for the environment, and for the animals we eat (obviously, they die, but how they live is not perhaps how we'd like to imagine they do before they do die).

However, what I appreciate, is it passes my basic tests for writing a muckraking non-fiction work. First, it's written with a very practical, relatable, and perhaps most importantly non-self-righteous. As silly as it seems, this book would be far less effective if it was written by a vegan or a vegetarian. Even beyond that, Pollan doesn't come off as a food and environmental snob (not too much of one anyway) - he clearly cares for both, perhaps more than many readers, but at the same time doesn't appear to judge the reader for the choices they make, and admits that it's hard for the normal supermarket entrant to know or consider much of this information.

Second, Pollan at least makes some attempt to offer an alternative. Now, the problem here, is that ultimately, in today's world, the alternatives are largely infeasible - first, pasture-fed animals, and local, organic (not in the USDA narrow definition, but in a more holistic sense) grown fruits, vegetables and food, and barring that, which is many areas is simply not possibly, especially cities, farm markets, and CSAs, or "Community Sponsored Agriculture," programs in which farmers pair with community groups who arrange for a share of the vegetables and/or fruits grown at a local farm. While these are not entirely practical for many people - because of cost, availability and other factors, I do appreciate the effort - and as you read you feel like Pollan doesn't expect you to jump off you couch and head down the local farm and inspect their chicken slaughterings; he hopes that you'll rethink about what your food, but seems to understand many of the considerations of modern life.

Okay, I'll try this number rating thing again:

The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan: 8.7

Jimmy Rollins is not the MVP

Okay, let's start with this. First of all, in probably the single most important stat, OBP, especially for someone who is most of the time a leadoff hitter - Jimmy Rollins has a .344. The average in the NL is .334. He only has 10 points higher than the average!

The other most bandied about MVP candidates - David Wright, Prince Fielder, and Matt Holliday, have .416, .395, and .405 respectively, and yes Holliday plays at Coors, but even on the road he has a .374.

Note that no MVP has an OBP that low since Andre Dawson in 1987.

But Rollins is such a slugger from that leadoff spot, right? That surely makes up for his lack of on base percentage. Well, let's look over to his slugging percentage compared with the other candidates -

Rollins - .531
Wright - .546
Fielder - .618
Holliday - .607, though .485 on the road

Rollins' OPS is .875, with what baseballreference.com calls OPS+ of 120 - basically, OPS with a park factor, but you can read more about it on their website, and in addition - it compares with league averages, so it's better at comparing players through different eras.

The last MVP with a lower OPS was Kirk Gibson in 1988 with .860.
The last MVP with a lower OPS+ was Zolio Versalles in 1965 for the Twins with 116.

And no, I don't want to hear all about his defense - yes he does play a plus position, and he should get credit for that - but no, his defense is not above-average for that position - 9th amongst NL shortstops in hardballtimes.com's Revised Zone Rating.

VORP up your alley? Jimmy Rollins is 9th in the NL, below the three other candidates discussed above, Albert Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, Miguel Cabrera Chipper Jones, and his own teammate Chase Utley - and this accounts for the positional bias.

And I don't want to hear about his RBIs or Runs scored - these are extremely lineup dependent stats, and, yes, when you're a pretty good player (and I never said Rollins wasn't) and you lead off for the most productive team, offensively, in the league, you're probably going to lead the league in runs scored.

Okay, I have more to say, and I should make my full award picks, but first before the first game starts, let me make my playoff picks.

Phillies over Rockies in 4
Dbacks over Cubs in 5

Yankees over Indians in 4
Angels over Red Sox in 5

All right, I'll make the rest of the picks, and then just make new ones, when all of mine are wrong:

Phillies over Dbacks in 6
Angels over Yankees in 7

Angels over Phillies in 5

Okay, so Mets are done. Great. Anyway, after today's wild-card playoff between Rockies and Padres, I'll make some playoff picks.

Just a couple of things first - hopefully soon, I will come up with my ideas for what the Mets should do next year, but unlike some others, I think it's not a great idea to overreact - changes need to be made, but most of the core will probably be the same - and that's okay - Cleveland overcame a huge collapse in '05 to finish with the AL's best record this year.

That said, as I like to comment on articles others have been writing, please do not sign Pudge Rodriguez, although a likely HOF-er, he is very old, six-months older in fact than LoDuca, and while his offense has declined notably over the last few years, less often noticed is the fact his defense has declined as well - on a team trying to get younger, there is no reason to spend our money on a declining catcher this old who we hasn't been part of this team.

Also, I'll do award picks, but the one thing I want to note - is if Jimmy Rollins wins MVP, he will be the worst MVP in the recent past - I'll have to look back to find out exactly when - the other big candidates are all fine, but with respect to the quality player Rollins has been, he's no MVP.