So I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that Ken Griffey, Jr. was traded today to the Chicago White Sox for that guy and that other dude. Really, its not all that surprising. I (along with every baseball fan in Cincinnati) saw this coming earlier in the year; once Griffey hit #600, he was expendable to be traded. It was just a matter of if anyone wanted him, and, for whatever reason, the White Sox did. Now, I've waxed poetic about Griffey, so a part of me is sad to see him go. But from a baseball sense, this move is probably a few years overdue. Doc's got a great column about Griffey's time in Cincinnati- he never really fit in and he was never really embraced. Odd, given that this is his hometown, but again, not really surprising. He only came here because he was from here, and it just didn't work out. I've always been a fan of Griffey, and that won't change. I hope he does well in Chicago and I hope he gets a shot at the World Series. He deserves at least one chance at winning it all.
Nine years ago, I thought that when it was all said and done, Griffey would be wearing a Reds cap on his Hall of Fame plaque. Now, not so much. I don't think they are any Mariners cap in Cooperstown; Griffey should be the first.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
What If Your Kitchen Could Smell Like Bacon All The Time?
I don't know how many times I've had the following conversation with Puddin':
You know what they need to make? Candles for guys.
Totally. With scents that guys like.
Yeah, you know, like leather, cut grass, shit like that.
Man, if I ever found something like that, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
And that's exactly what I did.
Last Friday, managed to catch a video on CNN.com about just such a product: The Manly Man Candle Company (not to be confused with Mandles; the Manly Man Candle Company is for real). I was floored. Could there really be such a product? Is this proof that there really is a God? I went to the site and immediately placed an order.
I didn't want to go overboard right off the bat, so I decided that this first order would just be a handful of "small" sizes, with the intent that if they were awesome (and I totally expect them to be), I would go back and buy the larger sizes (I should note that the "Sample Packs" were not available at the time if my order, not that I would have gone that route anyway). After reading all the candle descriptions, I placed the following order:
-Cedar Forest
-Coffee Shop
-Frozen Mountain Air
-Leather
-Wild Alaska
-Yardwork
[Note: Apparently, I was not the only person who saw this piece on CNN. After the story aired, they apparently got slammed with orders and my purchase was delayed due to them running out of supplies. Normally I'd be bothered by this, but I appreciate what they're doing so much, I can't get angry at them. They sent out an e-mail explaining the delay, and I expect my candles this weekend.]
I am ridiculously stoked for these candles, I can't even explain. I'm not certain which one I am looking forward to the most. They've added 4 new scents since I placed my order last Friday: Sports Injury, Dad's Gum, Manilla, and Bob's Eucalyptus. I'm definitely going to have to check out Manilla, seeing as vanilla is the only "normal" scent I can stand. And while there's no Bacon yet (as the title of the post would imply), they assure on their blog that one is in the works. Tell me you wouldn't buy a bacon-scented candle, I dare you.
Now, they seems to have a good range of scents available, but there's always room for more. Someone on the blog suggested Lumber, which would be awesome. One of my favorite scents in the world is that of freshly baked bread; I'd buy a candle of that any day. And taking a cue from the fake Mandles site, I'd love to see Campfire, Grill Out, or Charcoal (which, perhaps, could be merged with Grill Out). Fried Chicken would be awesome, too.
I will have a full review of all the candles I ordered once they arrive. This could honestly be the greatest product ever invented. I applaud this guys wholeheartedly for their efforts. Truly, they are "real men of genius."
You know what they need to make? Candles for guys.
Totally. With scents that guys like.
Yeah, you know, like leather, cut grass, shit like that.
Man, if I ever found something like that, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
And that's exactly what I did.
Last Friday, managed to catch a video on CNN.com about just such a product: The Manly Man Candle Company (not to be confused with Mandles; the Manly Man Candle Company is for real). I was floored. Could there really be such a product? Is this proof that there really is a God? I went to the site and immediately placed an order.
I didn't want to go overboard right off the bat, so I decided that this first order would just be a handful of "small" sizes, with the intent that if they were awesome (and I totally expect them to be), I would go back and buy the larger sizes (I should note that the "Sample Packs" were not available at the time if my order, not that I would have gone that route anyway). After reading all the candle descriptions, I placed the following order:
-Cedar Forest
-Coffee Shop
-Frozen Mountain Air
-Leather
-Wild Alaska
-Yardwork
[Note: Apparently, I was not the only person who saw this piece on CNN. After the story aired, they apparently got slammed with orders and my purchase was delayed due to them running out of supplies. Normally I'd be bothered by this, but I appreciate what they're doing so much, I can't get angry at them. They sent out an e-mail explaining the delay, and I expect my candles this weekend.]
I am ridiculously stoked for these candles, I can't even explain. I'm not certain which one I am looking forward to the most. They've added 4 new scents since I placed my order last Friday: Sports Injury, Dad's Gum, Manilla, and Bob's Eucalyptus. I'm definitely going to have to check out Manilla, seeing as vanilla is the only "normal" scent I can stand. And while there's no Bacon yet (as the title of the post would imply), they assure on their blog that one is in the works. Tell me you wouldn't buy a bacon-scented candle, I dare you.
Now, they seems to have a good range of scents available, but there's always room for more. Someone on the blog suggested Lumber, which would be awesome. One of my favorite scents in the world is that of freshly baked bread; I'd buy a candle of that any day. And taking a cue from the fake Mandles site, I'd love to see Campfire, Grill Out, or Charcoal (which, perhaps, could be merged with Grill Out). Fried Chicken would be awesome, too.
I will have a full review of all the candles I ordered once they arrive. This could honestly be the greatest product ever invented. I applaud this guys wholeheartedly for their efforts. Truly, they are "real men of genius."
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Essential Videos 1 - Confrontation
There are lots of videos out there, clogging up Internet tubes left and right. From some dude getting hit in the nuts to some other dude getting hit in the nuts, if you can think it, someone's got a video of it (probably). With this series of posts ("Essential Videos"), I'll be showcasing the videos that I enjoy and can watch over and over (and have watched over and over). Basically, these were things I felt just had to be on my blog somewhere, and instead of working them into other posts, I decided to give them their own.
First up, the only thing worthwhile to ever come from the Megan Mullally Show:
How I Met Your Mother is one of my favorite shows in television, and this is one reason why.
First up, the only thing worthwhile to ever come from the Megan Mullally Show:
How I Met Your Mother is one of my favorite shows in television, and this is one reason why.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Are You 98% Sure, Or Just 77%?
Goose Gossage was finally inducted in to the Baseball Hall of Fame over the weekend. Its hard to believe that a guy with his numbers, a guy that helped revolutionize relief pitching in baseball, was on the ballot nine times before being inducted (insert Ferris Bueller Mr. Rooney imitation here). And here lies my problem with the Hall of Fame- what makes Goose Gossage a Hall of Famer this year that didn't make him a Hall of Famer the previous 8 years? He didn't pitch anymore, so why now? If he's Hall of Fame worthy (and I think few would argue that he's not), why did it take 9 years?
I caught the most recent Costas NOW on HBO where they had a live round table discussion on the current state of baseball; their first live round table discussion was on Sports and Media and gave us the following exchange from Buzz Bissinger (writer of Friday Night Lights) and Will Leitch (founder of Deadspin.com):
The baseball round table wasn't nearly as heated, but it did have Bissinger and Leitch sitting side by side in the audience, sharing a hot dog and a beer. On the program, they had a number of Hall of Famers, such as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Bob Gibson, and they also had, via satellite, Pete Rose.
Now, I'm a big Pete Rose apologist, always have been, always will be. But this post isn't about Pete and why he should be in the Hall of Fame. No, it's about a point that Pete brought up during this round table. He asked, rhetorically, what it means to be a "first ballot" Hall of Famer and how its any different from being a "regular" Hall of Famer. Pete argued, and I whole-heartedly agree, that there's no different and that a guy is either a Hall of Famer or he's not. First ballot, second ballot, ninth ballot, it doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter. It doesn't matter to the players in the Hall (to them, a Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer), so why does it matter to the writers? I think its because a number of baseball writers are idiots.
There are two things that bother me regarding the Baseball Hall of Fame. The first is voting (or not voting) for players in their first year of eligibility.
I've read there are baseball writers that don't vote for any player in their first year of eligibility because they believe that no player should ever be elected to the Hall of Fame with 100% of the vote on the first try. I've read that it might have something to do with the fact that Babe Ruth, the greatest baseball player of all time, didn't get 100%, or that no one in that inaugural class got 100%; either way, it's ludicrous. Who cares if a player gets 100% of the vote? A Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer, you're either worthy or not. Do the writer's really think that people will look at the vote tally and decide who was the greatest player based on that? Does anyone really think that Tom Seaver (with 98.84% of the vote, the current highest) is the greatest baseball player of all time? No, that's still Babe Ruth. So what's the difference between 98.84% and 100%? Nothing.
The title of this post comes from a line of Miller Lite commercials from a few years back (2000, maybe?) featuring pairs of retired athletes discussing the merits of Miller Lite and their own careers. This line comes from the George Brett-Robin Yount commercial, where Brett alludes to the pair's Hall of Fame induction percentages (Brett at 98% of the vote, Yount 77%). Clearly, it was meant in jest for the commercial, but in the end, they're both in the Hall, so it doesn't matter.
Writer's claim that not voting for a guy in his first year is a way for them to comment on a guy's career. But if he's worthy of the Hall and is going to make it eventually, who cares? It means the same to the player if they go in on year 1 as it does on year 10, so what comment are you making? They don't make mention on your plaque that it took you 7 tries before you were voted in, so why does it matter? I think it matters to the writers because they need to say, "Look how important I think I am!!"
The second thing that bothers me about the Hall is having an unofficial "cap" on the number of inductees that writers will put in a class.
Even though some moronic writers hold off on voting for them, players still get into the Hall in their first year. Going back to the title of this post, George Brett, Robin Yount, and Nolan Ryan all went into the Hall in the same year, all in their first year of eligibility. Now, that it was much of a surprise; I remember when they retired, people were saying, "There's your Hall of Fame class in 5 years. No one else is getting in that year [by the writer's vote] ." They said the same thing when Cal Ripken, Jr. and Tony Gwynn retired. "That's it, that's list. No one else will get in that year because these guys are shoe-ins."
How stupid is that? Sure, Ripken and Gwynn are Hall of Famers, no one doubts that. But why does having them on the ballot prevent you from voting for, say, Jim Rice or Andre Dawson? And yet, guys like Rice and Dawson only get significant numbers of votes when there aren't "shoe-in" names on the ballot. Few people seem to doubt that both Rice and Dawson deserve to be in the Hall, but they are still on the outside looking in. There's no limit to the number of players that can be inducted in a year, so if a guy's deserving of the Hall of Fame, why wait?
A Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer. The writers think they are making a statement when they cast their votes for the Hall. The only comments on a guy's career that matters are the ones that appear on his plaque. The 9 writer's who didn't vote for Hank Aaron should've lost their votes forever. Same with the 11 that didn't vote for Babe Ruth. The should be only one reason not to vote a player into the Hall of Fame- he wasn't good enough. That's it, that's the list.
I caught the most recent Costas NOW on HBO where they had a live round table discussion on the current state of baseball; their first live round table discussion was on Sports and Media and gave us the following exchange from Buzz Bissinger (writer of Friday Night Lights) and Will Leitch (founder of Deadspin.com):
The baseball round table wasn't nearly as heated, but it did have Bissinger and Leitch sitting side by side in the audience, sharing a hot dog and a beer. On the program, they had a number of Hall of Famers, such as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Bob Gibson, and they also had, via satellite, Pete Rose.
Now, I'm a big Pete Rose apologist, always have been, always will be. But this post isn't about Pete and why he should be in the Hall of Fame. No, it's about a point that Pete brought up during this round table. He asked, rhetorically, what it means to be a "first ballot" Hall of Famer and how its any different from being a "regular" Hall of Famer. Pete argued, and I whole-heartedly agree, that there's no different and that a guy is either a Hall of Famer or he's not. First ballot, second ballot, ninth ballot, it doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter. It doesn't matter to the players in the Hall (to them, a Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer), so why does it matter to the writers? I think its because a number of baseball writers are idiots.
There are two things that bother me regarding the Baseball Hall of Fame. The first is voting (or not voting) for players in their first year of eligibility.
I've read there are baseball writers that don't vote for any player in their first year of eligibility because they believe that no player should ever be elected to the Hall of Fame with 100% of the vote on the first try. I've read that it might have something to do with the fact that Babe Ruth, the greatest baseball player of all time, didn't get 100%, or that no one in that inaugural class got 100%; either way, it's ludicrous. Who cares if a player gets 100% of the vote? A Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer, you're either worthy or not. Do the writer's really think that people will look at the vote tally and decide who was the greatest player based on that? Does anyone really think that Tom Seaver (with 98.84% of the vote, the current highest) is the greatest baseball player of all time? No, that's still Babe Ruth. So what's the difference between 98.84% and 100%? Nothing.
The title of this post comes from a line of Miller Lite commercials from a few years back (2000, maybe?) featuring pairs of retired athletes discussing the merits of Miller Lite and their own careers. This line comes from the George Brett-Robin Yount commercial, where Brett alludes to the pair's Hall of Fame induction percentages (Brett at 98% of the vote, Yount 77%). Clearly, it was meant in jest for the commercial, but in the end, they're both in the Hall, so it doesn't matter.
Writer's claim that not voting for a guy in his first year is a way for them to comment on a guy's career. But if he's worthy of the Hall and is going to make it eventually, who cares? It means the same to the player if they go in on year 1 as it does on year 10, so what comment are you making? They don't make mention on your plaque that it took you 7 tries before you were voted in, so why does it matter? I think it matters to the writers because they need to say, "Look how important I think I am!!"
The second thing that bothers me about the Hall is having an unofficial "cap" on the number of inductees that writers will put in a class.
Even though some moronic writers hold off on voting for them, players still get into the Hall in their first year. Going back to the title of this post, George Brett, Robin Yount, and Nolan Ryan all went into the Hall in the same year, all in their first year of eligibility. Now, that it was much of a surprise; I remember when they retired, people were saying, "There's your Hall of Fame class in 5 years. No one else is getting in that year [by the writer's vote] ." They said the same thing when Cal Ripken, Jr. and Tony Gwynn retired. "That's it, that's list. No one else will get in that year because these guys are shoe-ins."
How stupid is that? Sure, Ripken and Gwynn are Hall of Famers, no one doubts that. But why does having them on the ballot prevent you from voting for, say, Jim Rice or Andre Dawson? And yet, guys like Rice and Dawson only get significant numbers of votes when there aren't "shoe-in" names on the ballot. Few people seem to doubt that both Rice and Dawson deserve to be in the Hall, but they are still on the outside looking in. There's no limit to the number of players that can be inducted in a year, so if a guy's deserving of the Hall of Fame, why wait?
A Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer. The writers think they are making a statement when they cast their votes for the Hall. The only comments on a guy's career that matters are the ones that appear on his plaque. The 9 writer's who didn't vote for Hank Aaron should've lost their votes forever. Same with the 11 that didn't vote for Babe Ruth. The should be only one reason not to vote a player into the Hall of Fame- he wasn't good enough. That's it, that's the list.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Speaking Of Batman...
... he pitches for the Reds. And to think, the Reds AAA team is the Louisville Bats.
Though, I'd rather have a starting pitcher moonlighting as a masked vigilante in Gotham City than a head football coach pulling shifts at Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital with House.
Though, I'd rather have a starting pitcher moonlighting as a masked vigilante in Gotham City than a head football coach pulling shifts at Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital with House.
I Believe In Christopher Nolan (And Zack Snyder).
Okay, time to geek out.
The Dark Knight was fucking awesome. I'm not going to spoil anything from the movie (not that there is a whole lot to spoil; that is, unless, you are one of the people that doesn't already know that Harvey Dent is fated to become Two-Face- there, you've been spoiled), but it lived up to all of the hype. Christopher Nolan has done an amazing job rebooting the Batman franchise. Heath Ledger as the Joker? Incredible. There's talk of a posthumous Oscar nomination, and given his performance, I don't think that would be out of place. The movie addressed my favorite part of the Batman character- the fact that Batman is kinda crazy and is really only a half-step away from the "freaks" he puts away in Arkham. I love that he's essentially insane but he's able to control it and use his psychosis for good.
Zoe: He's a psycho, you know. Niska.
Mal: He's not the first psycho to hire us, nor the last. You think that's a commentary on us?
And speaking of psychotic superheroes, how about the teaser trailer for Watchmen that ran before The Dark Knight?
Stunning. I cannot wait for this movie to come out. Yeah, its supposed to be "unfilmable," but so was The Lord of the Rings, and look how that turned out. What you need is someone who is determined to remain true to the source material, and Zack Snyder appears to be that someone. Entertainment Weekly has Watchmen on the cover right now with a preview of the movie, and it looks like Snyder is saying all the right things and working hard to preserve as much of the original story as possible. But in the end, you never know. Changes are inevitable, I just hope the changes make sense and are justifiable within the context of the story. I guess Snyder's first real test is at Comic-Con this week, where he's showing some footage. If he gets of there alive, maybe he's on the right track.
The Dark Knight was fucking awesome. I'm not going to spoil anything from the movie (not that there is a whole lot to spoil; that is, unless, you are one of the people that doesn't already know that Harvey Dent is fated to become Two-Face- there, you've been spoiled), but it lived up to all of the hype. Christopher Nolan has done an amazing job rebooting the Batman franchise. Heath Ledger as the Joker? Incredible. There's talk of a posthumous Oscar nomination, and given his performance, I don't think that would be out of place. The movie addressed my favorite part of the Batman character- the fact that Batman is kinda crazy and is really only a half-step away from the "freaks" he puts away in Arkham. I love that he's essentially insane but he's able to control it and use his psychosis for good.
Zoe: He's a psycho, you know. Niska.
Mal: He's not the first psycho to hire us, nor the last. You think that's a commentary on us?
And speaking of psychotic superheroes, how about the teaser trailer for Watchmen that ran before The Dark Knight?
Stunning. I cannot wait for this movie to come out. Yeah, its supposed to be "unfilmable," but so was The Lord of the Rings, and look how that turned out. What you need is someone who is determined to remain true to the source material, and Zack Snyder appears to be that someone. Entertainment Weekly has Watchmen on the cover right now with a preview of the movie, and it looks like Snyder is saying all the right things and working hard to preserve as much of the original story as possible. But in the end, you never know. Changes are inevitable, I just hope the changes make sense and are justifiable within the context of the story. I guess Snyder's first real test is at Comic-Con this week, where he's showing some footage. If he gets of there alive, maybe he's on the right track.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Feh
I'm not certain what I'm more pissed about- the fact that I blew out a tire on the way to a job site is Chillicothe, or the fact that I had to go to Chillicothe in the first place. There's only one reason to go to Chillicothe, and I've already seen the show.
That's it, no more jobs in that part of the state.
No quote, too aggravated. Time to go find a beer.
That's it, no more jobs in that part of the state.
No quote, too aggravated. Time to go find a beer.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Hey Now, You're An All-Star
I think its ludicrous that home field in the World Series is determined by the winner of an exhibition game who's starting lineups are made by the fans. But this isn't going to be a post ranting against all the problems associated with the All-Star game. Its about how to add some life and excitement (and a way out of a jam) into the game.
The lunacy of deciding home field advantage with the All-Star game came as a reaction to the debacle of a "game" that was the 2002 mid-summer classic. They (read: Bud Selig) wanted to give the All-Star game some meaning and force it to come to a proper conclusion (all good things, I should add). However, the new rule does really change anything- how would the '02 game been different if home field were on the line? They would've had to of played into the 12th inning and beyond, which is what they were trying to avoid in the first place by calling the game a tie.
This leaves baseball in a tough spot- the game has to have a winner, but no one (players, managers, GM's, owners) wants their guys to play 18 innings to get there. So the ideal solution would be something that would allow for some overtime, but not too much, and still produce a winning team. Call me crazy, but that sounds an awful lot like how soccer.
Dan: Casey?
Casey: Yeah?
Dan: I've been thinking a lot about soccer lately.
Casey: And?
Dan: Pretty much through with that.
[Okay, that's three Sports Night quotes in a row; I might be over-doing it a bit. I'll try and mix it up. I promise.]
That's right, soccer has the answer to baseball's All-Star game quandary.
I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I love penalty kicks to end soccer games, er, matches. Naysayers claim that its anti-climactic and akin to ending a baseball game with a home run derby. The problem with that is, I don't think home run derbies are anything like penalty kicks (or shootouts in hockey, for that matter). PK's are exciting- the misses (or saves) are just as, an maybe even more, important than the makes. Home run derbies are boring because the non-home runs (and the non-swings) are meaningless. The batters a)are getting BP fastballs, grooved down the middle and b)taking pitch after pitch after pitch until they get the ball they want. That's not how overtime PK's work at all. The shooter gets one shot, that's it. No rebound, no second chance. For a home run derby to be like this, the batter would have to get only one pitch to hit, and that pitch sure as hell wouldn't be a BP fastball. With that in mind, here's my solution for extra innings in the All-Star game.
First, you have to give the teams a chance to win the game on the field. So if the game's tied after 9 innings, you get a max 3 extra innings (ie- at least one full trip through the lineup) to finish the game. If its still tied after 12, you go to extra inning home run derby. The rules:
-One pitch and one swing per batter
-If the pitch is a strike (swinging, looking, foul ball), 1 run for the pitching team
-If the pitch is a ball, 1 run for the batting team
-Any fair ball not home run is a wash (no runs for either team)
-Home runs are worth 2 runs (because I suspect they'll be rare)
-9 batters per half inning (thus, only 9 pitches for the pitcher)
-All players are eligible batters (that includes all pitchers in my mind, but I could be convinced to limit it to position players only)
-Any 9 batters can be used (ie- not restricted to player positions)
-Each lineup of 9 batters must be different each inning
-No pitching changes mid-inning (its only 9 pitches) and a new pitcher must be used every inning
-A player can't bat a second time until all available players have batted; ditto for using pitchers
-Runs earned with pitching and batting are added after each inning to determine winner
-Innings continue as needed
I would love to see an All-Star game end this way. Every pitch would matter, every swing (and non-swing) would matter. I think it would be awesome.
The lunacy of deciding home field advantage with the All-Star game came as a reaction to the debacle of a "game" that was the 2002 mid-summer classic. They (read: Bud Selig) wanted to give the All-Star game some meaning and force it to come to a proper conclusion (all good things, I should add). However, the new rule does really change anything- how would the '02 game been different if home field were on the line? They would've had to of played into the 12th inning and beyond, which is what they were trying to avoid in the first place by calling the game a tie.
This leaves baseball in a tough spot- the game has to have a winner, but no one (players, managers, GM's, owners) wants their guys to play 18 innings to get there. So the ideal solution would be something that would allow for some overtime, but not too much, and still produce a winning team. Call me crazy, but that sounds an awful lot like how soccer.
Dan: Casey?
Casey: Yeah?
Dan: I've been thinking a lot about soccer lately.
Casey: And?
Dan: Pretty much through with that.
[Okay, that's three Sports Night quotes in a row; I might be over-doing it a bit. I'll try and mix it up. I promise.]
That's right, soccer has the answer to baseball's All-Star game quandary.
I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I love penalty kicks to end soccer games, er, matches. Naysayers claim that its anti-climactic and akin to ending a baseball game with a home run derby. The problem with that is, I don't think home run derbies are anything like penalty kicks (or shootouts in hockey, for that matter). PK's are exciting- the misses (or saves) are just as, an maybe even more, important than the makes. Home run derbies are boring because the non-home runs (and the non-swings) are meaningless. The batters a)are getting BP fastballs, grooved down the middle and b)taking pitch after pitch after pitch until they get the ball they want. That's not how overtime PK's work at all. The shooter gets one shot, that's it. No rebound, no second chance. For a home run derby to be like this, the batter would have to get only one pitch to hit, and that pitch sure as hell wouldn't be a BP fastball. With that in mind, here's my solution for extra innings in the All-Star game.
First, you have to give the teams a chance to win the game on the field. So if the game's tied after 9 innings, you get a max 3 extra innings (ie- at least one full trip through the lineup) to finish the game. If its still tied after 12, you go to extra inning home run derby. The rules:
-One pitch and one swing per batter
-If the pitch is a strike (swinging, looking, foul ball), 1 run for the pitching team
-If the pitch is a ball, 1 run for the batting team
-Any fair ball not home run is a wash (no runs for either team)
-Home runs are worth 2 runs (because I suspect they'll be rare)
-9 batters per half inning (thus, only 9 pitches for the pitcher)
-All players are eligible batters (that includes all pitchers in my mind, but I could be convinced to limit it to position players only)
-Any 9 batters can be used (ie- not restricted to player positions)
-Each lineup of 9 batters must be different each inning
-No pitching changes mid-inning (its only 9 pitches) and a new pitcher must be used every inning
-A player can't bat a second time until all available players have batted; ditto for using pitchers
-Runs earned with pitching and batting are added after each inning to determine winner
-Innings continue as needed
I would love to see an All-Star game end this way. Every pitch would matter, every swing (and non-swing) would matter. I think it would be awesome.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Who Wants A New House?
So Extreme Makeover: Home Edition has come to West Chester. Here's an article about the family. And while I've never actually seen the show (as in sat down and watched an entire episode start to finish), I think it's pretty cool that they're here, and I think, at its core, it a show that truly does mean to do good.
But reading the comments to that article, I am reminded once again that on the Internets, people will hate on anything. Really, you're going to hate on a family that has three kids, one with Crohn's disease and two (TWO!!) with spinal muscular atrophy because they want things like digital cameras and laptops? Shame on them for wanting things! You're going to hate on a television program that wants to actually help these people and others like them? Shame on them for wanting to help!
I think my favorite comment was the one that said the family should be ashamed because they had already gotten a trip to Disneyland through Make-A-Wish and now they're getting this. As if there's a quota on the charity you're allowed to receive.
"I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do for you. Someone's already cared about you once."
Some claim that there are other families "more deserving" than this one. What the fuck does that even mean? And why does that even matter? Is it about helping only the "neediest" families (and really, who's place is it to make that call), or is it about helping anyone at all? I'd like to think its the latter.
Casey: Hey, you solved your problem yet?
Dan: On how to be guilt-free altruist?
Casey: Yeah.
Dan: It's easier being a miser.
Casey: Can I say something?
Dan: Sure.
Casey: You're not going to solve everybody's problems. In fact, you're not going to solve anybody's problems. So you know what you should do?
Dan: What?
Casey: Anything. As much of it as as often as you can.
Work-related sidebar: I found out today that my company is doing the footing inspections and compaction testing for the new house (which I think is pretty cool). We keep telling our man who's going to be on site that he needs to continually fail the fill material that they'll be placing in an attempt to get on TV. Bad fill is a headache on regular job sites, and at times, it can be a costly problem to fix. So I wonder how the show would deal with it? How long would they try and work with the material they have before deciding to move on to a different solution? They have 106 hours to finish the job; they can't spend a whole day fucking around with crappy material like normal job sites can. I guess most people don't think about things like that.
Edit: Apparently, my company was also involved the last time Extreme Makeover: Home Edition came to the area. So we're 2 for 2.
But reading the comments to that article, I am reminded once again that on the Internets, people will hate on anything. Really, you're going to hate on a family that has three kids, one with Crohn's disease and two (TWO!!) with spinal muscular atrophy because they want things like digital cameras and laptops? Shame on them for wanting things! You're going to hate on a television program that wants to actually help these people and others like them? Shame on them for wanting to help!
I think my favorite comment was the one that said the family should be ashamed because they had already gotten a trip to Disneyland through Make-A-Wish and now they're getting this. As if there's a quota on the charity you're allowed to receive.
"I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do for you. Someone's already cared about you once."
Some claim that there are other families "more deserving" than this one. What the fuck does that even mean? And why does that even matter? Is it about helping only the "neediest" families (and really, who's place is it to make that call), or is it about helping anyone at all? I'd like to think its the latter.
Casey: Hey, you solved your problem yet?
Dan: On how to be guilt-free altruist?
Casey: Yeah.
Dan: It's easier being a miser.
Casey: Can I say something?
Dan: Sure.
Casey: You're not going to solve everybody's problems. In fact, you're not going to solve anybody's problems. So you know what you should do?
Dan: What?
Casey: Anything. As much of it as as often as you can.
Work-related sidebar: I found out today that my company is doing the footing inspections and compaction testing for the new house (which I think is pretty cool). We keep telling our man who's going to be on site that he needs to continually fail the fill material that they'll be placing in an attempt to get on TV. Bad fill is a headache on regular job sites, and at times, it can be a costly problem to fix. So I wonder how the show would deal with it? How long would they try and work with the material they have before deciding to move on to a different solution? They have 106 hours to finish the job; they can't spend a whole day fucking around with crappy material like normal job sites can. I guess most people don't think about things like that.
Edit: Apparently, my company was also involved the last time Extreme Makeover: Home Edition came to the area. So we're 2 for 2.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Olympic Fever, Baby!
Dave: Natalie...
Elliot: Are you sick?
Kim: She's not sick.
Natalie: Oh, I believe I'm coming down with something.
Dave: Don't encourage her.
Will: Picture's up on 4.
Natalie: Will, give me your hand!
Will: I just ate a sticky bun.
Natale: Okay, then don't give me your hand, you'll just have to trust me, I am burning up.
Dave: Natalie...
Natalie: Olympic fever, baby! Catch it!
Dave: Oh god.
Chris: I thought there was something really wrong with her.
Elliot: Well, you be the judge.
I love the Olympics. I love everything about the Olympics. I love that the NBC family of networks is going to have something like 3,600 hours of Olympic coverage this year (and that’s a whole lot of Bob Costas, but I can live with it). I love that there are sports on television every night. Yeah, they’re sports that I normally don’t care about (though I’ll watch the world championships in track and swimming if they’re on) and some of them aren’t even “sports” by my own definition (that’s another post); doesn’t matter. The fact that I don’t normally watch them is why I enjoy them so much when I do. For four years, these sports get zero media coverage and then for two weeks, they get pushed into the limelight. I love that in those two weeks, a nobody from a fringe sport can become a national icon.
The cliché about sports is that every time out, you’ve got a chance to see something no one’s ever seen before, a chance to see history. And that’s been true so far at the Olympic Trials. I jumped out of my chair when Tyson Gay ran the 100 meters in 9.68 seconds. Sure it was wind-aided, but its still the fastest a human has ever been clocked in the 100. With Gay going up against Bolt (WR holder at 9.72 seconds) and Powell (former WR holder) from Jamaica, the 100 looks to be shaping up once again as the premier track event.
And if you want to see history, check out the swimming trials. A world record has a chance to fall every night. I was skeptical at first of what advantage the Speedo LZR suits actually give to the swimmers; I’m not anymore. That shit’s crazy; it could probably turn me in to a competitive swimmer (assuming I could even get into one, which isn’t likely). And for an already great swimmer, like Michael Phelps or Katie Hoff? Makes them unbeatable. I think both Phelps and Hoff will have a record gold medal haul in Beijing. Of course, thanks to my track record on this blog, perhaps I’ve just jinxed. Guess I’ll have to tune in a see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)