I was talking with some co-workers today about the AL Central and one of my friends was adamant that the Cleveland Indians weren't going to win the division. I think that's nuts.
Going back to 2006, an outlier season where three teams in the Central finished with 90 wins or better, this is how many wins the 2nd place team in the AL Central had at the end of the season:
2010 - 88 wins by the Chicago White Sox
2009 - 86 wins by the Detroit Tigers (Minnesota Twins won a 1 game playoff)
2008 - 88 wins by the Minnesota Twins (Chicago White Sox won a 1 game playoff)
2007 - 88 wins by the Detroit Tigers
The winner of the AL Central has needed to win an average of 88.5 games to take home the pennant. Let's call 89 wins the magic number to win the AL Central. The first team past the 89-win post is going to win the AL Central except by fluke.
After 40 games the Indians have banked 26 wins and to get to 89 wins they need 63 wins over their last 122 games. That's only two games above .500 and the Indians are currently playing at a pace 12! games above .500 for the season. They could lose their next ten games and go one for two the rest of the way and still hit 89 wins.
I think the AL Central is over. The Indians would need to collapse in epic fashion and someone else would have to raise their game incredibly to catch them. And that's a problem going forward because this team is built to win for the next handful of years.
Showing posts with label rap lyric titles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rap lyric titles. Show all posts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Yeah, I Want Things To Go My Ways. But As Of Late, Shit Been Going Sideways.
I finished the book "Everything Bad Is Good For You" by Steven Johnson on the plane yesterday.
The thesis of the book is this. Mass Culture (large C) is in incline, not decline. Cultural critics argue that it's decline because television, videogames and movies have become more violent and filled with sex and other blah blah blah (and they have). What this book argues is that it's actually in incline because complexity has increased and thus the work a person must do to enjoy entertainment has increased. It has even begun to make us smarter, a fact which goes unnoticed because of the Flynn Effect. Basically the shift has taken place because of three things.
The first is not only that culture is more complex by following more and longer storylines but the complexity is encased in the relationships between things. It's not just that you have to solve the mystery of what the things placed into a show or videogame are a la Chekov's gun but also how they relate to one another. You have to parse what information is important to the ultimate resolution and what is not. Specifically you have to do this in (and are trained to do this by) videogames but it applies to more passive forms of culture. Producers are now "allowed" to leave more ambiguity in their programming and require the audience make narrative leaps of filling in and making assumptions which they wouldn't have to in the past.
Because all of our media is now storeable and repeatable and you can see something later which will explain something earlier instead of only vice versa. In 1970, one of the Big Three television networks aired something once and then it was gone, a movie ran once in the theater and it was gone, etc. But with the advent of VCRs and the expansion of cable (and with it, the comensurate thirst for programming to fill their shelves and schedule), media has to hold up to and can require repeat viewings. This encourages the creators to embed clues and in-jokes into the programming which you only see or get upon repeat or obsessive viewings. We've moved away from a lowest-common-denominator you had to get the first time thru to a most-repeatable ethos where you will want to watch it over and over.
A contributing factor to that is we now have a greater community to discuss our ideas via the Internet. It's now a "lean forward" culture as Steve Jobs calls it where we the viewers experience rewards for digesting close readings. Where as the likelyhood of finding someone who had even seen Star Trek in the mid-70s was low, now there are massive web message boards devoted to Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica and Survivor and so on down the line. You aren't encouraged to sit back and zone out. You tune in and join up.
An example they cite is the in-joke of Art Vandalay on Seinfeld. You wouldn't need to know Art Vandalay is a name George uses to lie in awkward social situations to enjoy the episode itself you're watching. It's just a name which could be interchangeable with anything else you could make up on the spot. But for someone who has obsessively and repeatedly watched the show, it's a nod to George's long-arcing laziness. It adds depth to his character to know he's so often a liar that he's has created a character he can lean back on when he's forced to lie. If you haven't been following Seinfeld since day one (or The Simpsons or The Wire or college basketball) there's this massive online community you can tap into right there on the Internet.
I found the book fascinating. It held a couple of keys for me which tailed back incidentally to earlier things I'd been thinking of a la a television show's later explains earlier structure.
The first was that television producers create shows like Lost specifically to obscure and leave out plot points BECAUSE that's the way people want them. To me it seemed like lazy, drawn-out storytelling (and perhaps it is) but they're doing it that way to respond to their audience. So where I might watch Lost and think "This is dumb. He's obviously dead and in a limbo-like state." other people will watch Lost and think "I think he's dead and in a limbo-like state. What are the clues which confirm that?" The Lost audience wants drawn-out storytelling they can watch closely and analyze and interface with other people about over the Internet and in-person. I won't "get" what they think is great about it not because I'm skeptical but because I'm not skeptical enough. I look at it, think "That's answer." and move on. Lost fans see it and get sucked in.
The other key was what I did just there. I didn't use the tools of defining what something is and how it interrelates to other things on a popular television show or in a videogame. I used those tools to define something and how it interrelates to other things in my life. And I'm trying to get better at those things because Life is a one-pass event like a 1970s television show. Johnson brings up the idea of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence near the end of the book in regards to how media is put together in this version of the mass culture. They try to get it right the first time because people are going to watch it over and over if it rewards them for doing so.
A couple of months back I went to brunch with some friends and we were discussing religion. I told them how my morality is based upon having to explain your actions later. I don't always get them right which is why I'm a big proponent of grace. But I'd like to think I could go back and explain my reasoning and emotional state which lead to me doing what I did and didn't do.
I'm trying to get better at the skills "Everthing Bad Is Good For You" defines not to analyze media but because Life is a one-pass event like a 1970s television show. I worry about getting Life right because it too is storeable and figuratively repeatable. I want to make the right choice the first time around because that's the one which will remain in people's memories. If I know better what the right choice is, I'm more likely to make it and to be remembered as making it.
The thesis of the book is this. Mass Culture (large C) is in incline, not decline. Cultural critics argue that it's decline because television, videogames and movies have become more violent and filled with sex and other blah blah blah (and they have). What this book argues is that it's actually in incline because complexity has increased and thus the work a person must do to enjoy entertainment has increased. It has even begun to make us smarter, a fact which goes unnoticed because of the Flynn Effect. Basically the shift has taken place because of three things.
The first is not only that culture is more complex by following more and longer storylines but the complexity is encased in the relationships between things. It's not just that you have to solve the mystery of what the things placed into a show or videogame are a la Chekov's gun but also how they relate to one another. You have to parse what information is important to the ultimate resolution and what is not. Specifically you have to do this in (and are trained to do this by) videogames but it applies to more passive forms of culture. Producers are now "allowed" to leave more ambiguity in their programming and require the audience make narrative leaps of filling in and making assumptions which they wouldn't have to in the past.
Because all of our media is now storeable and repeatable and you can see something later which will explain something earlier instead of only vice versa. In 1970, one of the Big Three television networks aired something once and then it was gone, a movie ran once in the theater and it was gone, etc. But with the advent of VCRs and the expansion of cable (and with it, the comensurate thirst for programming to fill their shelves and schedule), media has to hold up to and can require repeat viewings. This encourages the creators to embed clues and in-jokes into the programming which you only see or get upon repeat or obsessive viewings. We've moved away from a lowest-common-denominator you had to get the first time thru to a most-repeatable ethos where you will want to watch it over and over.
A contributing factor to that is we now have a greater community to discuss our ideas via the Internet. It's now a "lean forward" culture as Steve Jobs calls it where we the viewers experience rewards for digesting close readings. Where as the likelyhood of finding someone who had even seen Star Trek in the mid-70s was low, now there are massive web message boards devoted to Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica and Survivor and so on down the line. You aren't encouraged to sit back and zone out. You tune in and join up.
An example they cite is the in-joke of Art Vandalay on Seinfeld. You wouldn't need to know Art Vandalay is a name George uses to lie in awkward social situations to enjoy the episode itself you're watching. It's just a name which could be interchangeable with anything else you could make up on the spot. But for someone who has obsessively and repeatedly watched the show, it's a nod to George's long-arcing laziness. It adds depth to his character to know he's so often a liar that he's has created a character he can lean back on when he's forced to lie. If you haven't been following Seinfeld since day one (or The Simpsons or The Wire or college basketball) there's this massive online community you can tap into right there on the Internet.
I found the book fascinating. It held a couple of keys for me which tailed back incidentally to earlier things I'd been thinking of a la a television show's later explains earlier structure.
The first was that television producers create shows like Lost specifically to obscure and leave out plot points BECAUSE that's the way people want them. To me it seemed like lazy, drawn-out storytelling (and perhaps it is) but they're doing it that way to respond to their audience. So where I might watch Lost and think "This is dumb. He's obviously dead and in a limbo-like state." other people will watch Lost and think "I think he's dead and in a limbo-like state. What are the clues which confirm that?" The Lost audience wants drawn-out storytelling they can watch closely and analyze and interface with other people about over the Internet and in-person. I won't "get" what they think is great about it not because I'm skeptical but because I'm not skeptical enough. I look at it, think "That's answer." and move on. Lost fans see it and get sucked in.
The other key was what I did just there. I didn't use the tools of defining what something is and how it interrelates to other things on a popular television show or in a videogame. I used those tools to define something and how it interrelates to other things in my life. And I'm trying to get better at those things because Life is a one-pass event like a 1970s television show. Johnson brings up the idea of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence near the end of the book in regards to how media is put together in this version of the mass culture. They try to get it right the first time because people are going to watch it over and over if it rewards them for doing so.
A couple of months back I went to brunch with some friends and we were discussing religion. I told them how my morality is based upon having to explain your actions later. I don't always get them right which is why I'm a big proponent of grace. But I'd like to think I could go back and explain my reasoning and emotional state which lead to me doing what I did and didn't do.
I'm trying to get better at the skills "Everthing Bad Is Good For You" defines not to analyze media but because Life is a one-pass event like a 1970s television show. I worry about getting Life right because it too is storeable and figuratively repeatable. I want to make the right choice the first time around because that's the one which will remain in people's memories. If I know better what the right choice is, I'm more likely to make it and to be remembered as making it.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Take Away the Football Team, the Basketball Team And All We Got Is Me to Represent New Orleans
Jeff, a Milwaukee native and transplant to Minneapolis, is standing in the Bryant-Lake Bowl, a turn-of-the-20th-century bowling alley converted to include a bar, restaurant and theater. As moderator of a popular and locally-acclaimed reading series, Jeff is working with the technical staff of the theater to wire in a Skype chat with the author of that month's selection.
"Can you hear us?" says Jeff as the 150 person capacity crowd of the theater greets each other and orders drinks around him. ...
Ok, so all of what I just wrote is true. By reporting what I know about Jeff and by attending the July meeting of Books & Bars, I've given an accurate representation of what was happening. I may have embellished a little bit here, tightened up a bit there and put words in Jeff's mouth but at its heart everything I wrote is true to the actual event.
Is it the Truth though? Is what I wrote an absolute representation of the situation? Well, no. I focused on Jeff while cutting out everyone else in the room. I gave one perspective on the event and had that stand in for the whole of the event. As a reader who wasn't there, you would likely assume (correctly I hope) that a perspective highlighting the moderator would be able to be generalized to the lion's share of the people in attendance because taking the time to actually chronicle the entire crowd would be time-consuming and unlikely to shed a great deal more perspective upon the July meeting. So you accept it's a representation of the Truth.
The same is true of "Zeitoun". It's based upon actual events from Zeitoun and Kathy's real lives. But it doesn't purport to be the Truth. It is after all Eggers' name on the front of the book, not Kathy and Zeitoun's names. Eggers is giving a representation of the Truth of their experiences surrounding Hurricane Katrina and using it to stand in as representative of a generalized experience of a person who lived in New Orleans in the aftermath of the storm. We could again try to chronicle the experience and perspective of everyone but at a wont of time and necessity, we don't.
So you might be saying, "So what? Eggers is writing creative non-fiction. Welcome to the world of early 21st century publishing." And I agree with that, especially because the popularity of Eggers and his own deliberate efforts have pushed contemporary publishing in that direction. Did anyone see that 16-year-old Justin Bieber is writing his memoirs? Speak of a wont of time and necessity...
This is why I think it's important. One of the three things which stuck out about "Zeitoun" (along with how it romanticizes the post-storm anarchy and how poorly Kathy comes off) is the frequent references to how difficult it is to be a Muslim in post-9/11 America. It stuck out to me because 1.) it's kind of tangential if Zeitoun is taking the place of the Everyman and 2.) it's like duuuuuhhhhhhh. It's not even something which we can limit to happening prior to January 20th, 2009 either as the stupid "WTC mosque" controversy has proven. Though it's been almost ten years since 9/11, our continued military presence in Muslim countries makes for a constant backdrop to living in the United States right now. Anyone alive and aware in America knows it's difficult to be a Muslim in our culture.
The only people whom that wouldn't be readily obvious for is people who don't live in our culture. Since America is a cultural hegemony (just try to find a foreign film in the top 100 grossing films of 2009) and because we're willing to live with our warts, that's not an idea which is remote to anyone living in a free society on the planet. Which means the people whom need to be told of that reality are for the most part people who are either too young to remember or haven't been born yet. Eggers has to be aware his celebrity and influence means his books will be read not just by contemporary audiences. They will also be read by people who wouldn't know offhand how difficult it is to be Muslim right now.
It matters because for many people who will be looking back on this era, this will be their perspective and representation of this era in the same way Kerouac's "On the Road" is for those of us who were not old enough or even alive in the 1950s. (Notice that I said Kerouac and "On The Road", not Halberstam and "The Fifties" or C. Wright Mills and "The Power Elite".) But it would be ludicrous to suggest "On the Road" is the Truth about the 1950s, no matter how beloved our friend Kerouac is. "On the Road" is creative non-fiction which is meant to represent a generalization of post-WWII America in the way "Zeitoun" represents our current moment. Hell, the focus in each is even on the main character's transportation.
So my impression while reading "Zeitoun" was an awareness that what I was reading was true but not the Truth. I don't think you can hand someone a copy of the book and say "This is what it was like to live in New Orleans in the days after Hurricane Katrina," any more than you can hand them "On the Road" and show them the 1950s. To get closer to the Truth, you have to keep on looking and I hope, being an open-minded individual who believes in the freedom of religion, that the future readers of "Zeitoun" keep looking. Our era is much too complex to summarize in 325 pages and in the experience of only one man.
"Can you hear us?" says Jeff as the 150 person capacity crowd of the theater greets each other and orders drinks around him. ...
Ok, so all of what I just wrote is true. By reporting what I know about Jeff and by attending the July meeting of Books & Bars, I've given an accurate representation of what was happening. I may have embellished a little bit here, tightened up a bit there and put words in Jeff's mouth but at its heart everything I wrote is true to the actual event.
Is it the Truth though? Is what I wrote an absolute representation of the situation? Well, no. I focused on Jeff while cutting out everyone else in the room. I gave one perspective on the event and had that stand in for the whole of the event. As a reader who wasn't there, you would likely assume (correctly I hope) that a perspective highlighting the moderator would be able to be generalized to the lion's share of the people in attendance because taking the time to actually chronicle the entire crowd would be time-consuming and unlikely to shed a great deal more perspective upon the July meeting. So you accept it's a representation of the Truth.
The same is true of "Zeitoun". It's based upon actual events from Zeitoun and Kathy's real lives. But it doesn't purport to be the Truth. It is after all Eggers' name on the front of the book, not Kathy and Zeitoun's names. Eggers is giving a representation of the Truth of their experiences surrounding Hurricane Katrina and using it to stand in as representative of a generalized experience of a person who lived in New Orleans in the aftermath of the storm. We could again try to chronicle the experience and perspective of everyone but at a wont of time and necessity, we don't.
So you might be saying, "So what? Eggers is writing creative non-fiction. Welcome to the world of early 21st century publishing." And I agree with that, especially because the popularity of Eggers and his own deliberate efforts have pushed contemporary publishing in that direction. Did anyone see that 16-year-old Justin Bieber is writing his memoirs? Speak of a wont of time and necessity...
This is why I think it's important. One of the three things which stuck out about "Zeitoun" (along with how it romanticizes the post-storm anarchy and how poorly Kathy comes off) is the frequent references to how difficult it is to be a Muslim in post-9/11 America. It stuck out to me because 1.) it's kind of tangential if Zeitoun is taking the place of the Everyman and 2.) it's like duuuuuhhhhhhh. It's not even something which we can limit to happening prior to January 20th, 2009 either as the stupid "WTC mosque" controversy has proven. Though it's been almost ten years since 9/11, our continued military presence in Muslim countries makes for a constant backdrop to living in the United States right now. Anyone alive and aware in America knows it's difficult to be a Muslim in our culture.
The only people whom that wouldn't be readily obvious for is people who don't live in our culture. Since America is a cultural hegemony (just try to find a foreign film in the top 100 grossing films of 2009) and because we're willing to live with our warts, that's not an idea which is remote to anyone living in a free society on the planet. Which means the people whom need to be told of that reality are for the most part people who are either too young to remember or haven't been born yet. Eggers has to be aware his celebrity and influence means his books will be read not just by contemporary audiences. They will also be read by people who wouldn't know offhand how difficult it is to be Muslim right now.
It matters because for many people who will be looking back on this era, this will be their perspective and representation of this era in the same way Kerouac's "On the Road" is for those of us who were not old enough or even alive in the 1950s. (Notice that I said Kerouac and "On The Road", not Halberstam and "The Fifties" or C. Wright Mills and "The Power Elite".) But it would be ludicrous to suggest "On the Road" is the Truth about the 1950s, no matter how beloved our friend Kerouac is. "On the Road" is creative non-fiction which is meant to represent a generalization of post-WWII America in the way "Zeitoun" represents our current moment. Hell, the focus in each is even on the main character's transportation.
So my impression while reading "Zeitoun" was an awareness that what I was reading was true but not the Truth. I don't think you can hand someone a copy of the book and say "This is what it was like to live in New Orleans in the days after Hurricane Katrina," any more than you can hand them "On the Road" and show them the 1950s. To get closer to the Truth, you have to keep on looking and I hope, being an open-minded individual who believes in the freedom of religion, that the future readers of "Zeitoun" keep looking. Our era is much too complex to summarize in 325 pages and in the experience of only one man.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Need A Go-Go Girl Who Dance Like Lady Gaga
Last night I went to a Lady Gaga-themed 30th birthday party for a friend. Attendees were encouraged to dress like Gaga or in Gaga-inspired outfits. Some people took their direction from Gaga videos and replicated the bubble outfit or the Diet Coke rollers. Other people simply wrapped themselves in electrical tape or something sparkly because nothing which is aware and celebrates its oddness is really un-Gaga. I myself took the four aces and a joker from a deck of cards and stuck them to my forehead with double-stick tape.
It all relates to a simple truth. Like or dislike her music (I personally like it), it would be pretty difficult to deny Gaga's influence as a cultural force. In the last two years she has released 8 new singles and 7 of them have been top 10 hits with the most recent being the Isla Bonita-esque "Alejandro." What distinguishes Gaga as a cultural force is that each video is a envelope-pushing production and the new video is no exception.
In her early videos, she celebrated rockstar-like Midwest partying, L.A. decadence and, like a good New Yorker, New York. Then came the dual turning points of "Paparazzi" and "Bad Romance" where the now-famous Gaga began making insider points/mocking the celebrity culture which now enveloped her. By the time "Telephone" and its unabashed product placements arrived Gaga was both ensconced in the business-side of things while winking at us from the art-for-arts-sake side. How "Alejandro" distiguishes itself from Gaga's earlier videos is the type of iconography it choses to ape.
It's disappointing to me Gaga's first foray from what she'd done well with into new turf didn't take her anywhere interesting. Gone are American influences as Gaga draws from an even deeper pool. Unfortunately the influences she draws are the tired and worn-out trifecta of Fascism, Catholicism and Victorianism. If she's feeling restricted from producing her art (and quite unworthily so) the play isn't to recycle cliche. Even if it reads as unintentional homage to Madonna, it's a rare misstep from Gaga and hopefully one she doesn't soon duplicate.
So why didn't it work? I'd offer this as a simple possibility. We Americans have our cultural feet placed deep one-each into two cultural pools: that of Europe and that of Africa. Gaga represents an excellent balance between those two cultural pools. It's not a stretch to call her music techno or to call it R&B. Some may look down their rock critic noses at dance pop here in the Anglosphere but dance music is what makes the rest of the world move. You could play "Alejandro" in an international setting and not seem over-reaching or out-of-place in either Stockholm or Malawi. Gaga's American melting pot is what distinguished her from other also-rans. I put forth the video doesn't work because it tilts to formalism while forgetting about that world-moving sensation of dancing.
The truth is Gaga is one of only two American popular artists who have actual credibility within all but the shrewdly discriminating of our culture. If her career follows the arc of Justin Timberlake's (an artist who has his own internationally-infused songs), she'll be just fine.
It all relates to a simple truth. Like or dislike her music (I personally like it), it would be pretty difficult to deny Gaga's influence as a cultural force. In the last two years she has released 8 new singles and 7 of them have been top 10 hits with the most recent being the Isla Bonita-esque "Alejandro." What distinguishes Gaga as a cultural force is that each video is a envelope-pushing production and the new video is no exception.
In her early videos, she celebrated rockstar-like Midwest partying, L.A. decadence and, like a good New Yorker, New York. Then came the dual turning points of "Paparazzi" and "Bad Romance" where the now-famous Gaga began making insider points/mocking the celebrity culture which now enveloped her. By the time "Telephone" and its unabashed product placements arrived Gaga was both ensconced in the business-side of things while winking at us from the art-for-arts-sake side. How "Alejandro" distiguishes itself from Gaga's earlier videos is the type of iconography it choses to ape.
It's disappointing to me Gaga's first foray from what she'd done well with into new turf didn't take her anywhere interesting. Gone are American influences as Gaga draws from an even deeper pool. Unfortunately the influences she draws are the tired and worn-out trifecta of Fascism, Catholicism and Victorianism. If she's feeling restricted from producing her art (and quite unworthily so) the play isn't to recycle cliche. Even if it reads as unintentional homage to Madonna, it's a rare misstep from Gaga and hopefully one she doesn't soon duplicate.
So why didn't it work? I'd offer this as a simple possibility. We Americans have our cultural feet placed deep one-each into two cultural pools: that of Europe and that of Africa. Gaga represents an excellent balance between those two cultural pools. It's not a stretch to call her music techno or to call it R&B. Some may look down their rock critic noses at dance pop here in the Anglosphere but dance music is what makes the rest of the world move. You could play "Alejandro" in an international setting and not seem over-reaching or out-of-place in either Stockholm or Malawi. Gaga's American melting pot is what distinguished her from other also-rans. I put forth the video doesn't work because it tilts to formalism while forgetting about that world-moving sensation of dancing.
The truth is Gaga is one of only two American popular artists who have actual credibility within all but the shrewdly discriminating of our culture. If her career follows the arc of Justin Timberlake's (an artist who has his own internationally-infused songs), she'll be just fine.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
It's A Number Game But Shit Don't Add Up Somehow
From the time I got on the bus yesterday morning until when he stopped texting me back seven hours later, Smallz and I exchanged mini-diatribes about the NBA Draft ranging from which player the Wolves should take with the fourth pick to the proper way to evaluate talent and construct a team to the other person's deficiencies at evaluating talent and those of their chosen method to constructing a team. Basically our arguments were this.
Smallz loves efficient players. Thus Kevin Love is his one shining beacon on our entire roster. As such Al Jefferson inspires much hatred in Smallz's gut. Not only does Jefferson play the same position as Love but inefficiently uses the ball in offensive situations Love would efficiently use them. His evidence is statistics and his team-building philosophy is to find other efficient players to pair with Love.
I, on the other hand, believe Jefferson is inefficient because he needs to be. Love is a good player and a compliment to Jefferson. But efficiency statistics don't tell the whole story. As the most offensively-skilled player on the Wolves, a less-than-efficient attempt from Jefferson is still better than passing the ball to a less talented teammate. Being the focus of the offense and the volume of his shots he can't cherry-pick only the best attempts. Basketball is scored as a quantitative game, not an efficiency game, and to remove Jefferson without a suitable replacement will only focus the defense on another lesser player.
(Further reading found HERE.)
This is especially important with the NBA draft coming up. Since the Wolves didn't get one of the surefire guys at the very top of the draft, their path forward is a lot less clear. Smallz wants to trade Jefferson to free playing time for Love and draft Kentucky's DeMarcus Cousins, a freakishly large center who may have character issues. I want to keep both Jefferson and Love while drafting Syracuse small forward Wesley Johnson, a lower risk lower reward player who plays a position of need. We could argue back and forth for hours (and did) about which one would be a better fit for Minnesota. I wanted to model the problem and get some results now.
How I Used Math To "Solve" the Problem
So let's assume three things. First that either Cousins or Johnson could boom or bust with equal likelihood. Let's just say Cousins wider range of possible outcomes averages out to Johnson's thinner range to make things easier. Second, let's assume the pick is an independent outcome. Let's say if Minnesota picked Cousins they wouldn't keep Jefferson and his minutes would go to DeMarcus. Third, the actual outcome will be one of many possible outcomes. When a weatherman says 55% chance of rain and it doesn't, he was right. It just fell in the 45% he didn't mention.
Here's the "game" I developed. Imagine every possible outcome for DeMarcus Cousins' and Wesley Johnson's careers is represented by a playing card. Since they are top draft picks they are more likely to succeed than fail so all face cards represent complete success (being a cornerstone), ten through six represent qualified success (being an NBA starter) and five through two mean they bust. I could look up the real success rate but let's keep it simple. Now draw two cards, one representing Cousins and the other representing Johnson. Reset the deck, reshuffle the cards and repeat the process 100 times.
(Or do like I did and use a random card generator like THIS ONE.)
What I found is Cousins is a cornerstone 37% of the time, a starter 38% of the time and a bust 25% of the time. Likewise Johnson is a cornerstone 38% of the time, a starter 33% of the time and a bust 29% of the time. In 48% of the cases Cousins is the better player while Johnson is the better player 45% of the time. (The remaining 7% is when they're even.) It's also worth noting Cousins is significantly better 27% of the time while Johnson is significantly better 26% of the time.
So what do the results tell us about who the Wolves should take? Nothing. This is a simplified model of an enormously complex system. But within the context of the system it says we should expect any result to be possible. In that way both experience and this simulation align. In the NBA Draft eventually you have to play the odds and hope for the best.
P.S. This is the raw data from my simulation. Cousins is on the left and Johnson on the right. Ignore the symbols. That's just me coding the data.
CJ
A4**
A3**
A9**
88-
610++
610++
Q8**
QK*
63*
32*
5J++
10Q+
9J+
87*
410++
56*
3Q++
34+
5A++
67+
109*
QJ*
4K++
82**
109*
63*
56+
7Q++
86*
J8**
3A++
910+
5K++
J9*
Q4**
103**
KJ*
JQ+
A2**
9Q+
25+
K5**
9Q+
4A++
63*
44-
6K++
6Q++
9K++
K3**
KJ*
8A++
5J++
8Q++
A5**
25++
7Q++
KA+
K8**
A3**
J3**
22-
J3**
37++
24+
76*
9J+
A4**
3K++
QJ*
KA+
88-
53*
A8**
82**
36+
J8*
8Q++
J7**
Q9*
6J++
AA-
6A++
A5**
310++
92**
QQ-
JK+
56+
8Q++
8J+
Q9*
Q6**
Q5**
810+
J2**
33-
104**
A7**
QA+
Smallz loves efficient players. Thus Kevin Love is his one shining beacon on our entire roster. As such Al Jefferson inspires much hatred in Smallz's gut. Not only does Jefferson play the same position as Love but inefficiently uses the ball in offensive situations Love would efficiently use them. His evidence is statistics and his team-building philosophy is to find other efficient players to pair with Love.
I, on the other hand, believe Jefferson is inefficient because he needs to be. Love is a good player and a compliment to Jefferson. But efficiency statistics don't tell the whole story. As the most offensively-skilled player on the Wolves, a less-than-efficient attempt from Jefferson is still better than passing the ball to a less talented teammate. Being the focus of the offense and the volume of his shots he can't cherry-pick only the best attempts. Basketball is scored as a quantitative game, not an efficiency game, and to remove Jefferson without a suitable replacement will only focus the defense on another lesser player.
(Further reading found HERE.)
This is especially important with the NBA draft coming up. Since the Wolves didn't get one of the surefire guys at the very top of the draft, their path forward is a lot less clear. Smallz wants to trade Jefferson to free playing time for Love and draft Kentucky's DeMarcus Cousins, a freakishly large center who may have character issues. I want to keep both Jefferson and Love while drafting Syracuse small forward Wesley Johnson, a lower risk lower reward player who plays a position of need. We could argue back and forth for hours (and did) about which one would be a better fit for Minnesota. I wanted to model the problem and get some results now.
How I Used Math To "Solve" the Problem
So let's assume three things. First that either Cousins or Johnson could boom or bust with equal likelihood. Let's just say Cousins wider range of possible outcomes averages out to Johnson's thinner range to make things easier. Second, let's assume the pick is an independent outcome. Let's say if Minnesota picked Cousins they wouldn't keep Jefferson and his minutes would go to DeMarcus. Third, the actual outcome will be one of many possible outcomes. When a weatherman says 55% chance of rain and it doesn't, he was right. It just fell in the 45% he didn't mention.
Here's the "game" I developed. Imagine every possible outcome for DeMarcus Cousins' and Wesley Johnson's careers is represented by a playing card. Since they are top draft picks they are more likely to succeed than fail so all face cards represent complete success (being a cornerstone), ten through six represent qualified success (being an NBA starter) and five through two mean they bust. I could look up the real success rate but let's keep it simple. Now draw two cards, one representing Cousins and the other representing Johnson. Reset the deck, reshuffle the cards and repeat the process 100 times.
(Or do like I did and use a random card generator like THIS ONE.)
What I found is Cousins is a cornerstone 37% of the time, a starter 38% of the time and a bust 25% of the time. Likewise Johnson is a cornerstone 38% of the time, a starter 33% of the time and a bust 29% of the time. In 48% of the cases Cousins is the better player while Johnson is the better player 45% of the time. (The remaining 7% is when they're even.) It's also worth noting Cousins is significantly better 27% of the time while Johnson is significantly better 26% of the time.
So what do the results tell us about who the Wolves should take? Nothing. This is a simplified model of an enormously complex system. But within the context of the system it says we should expect any result to be possible. In that way both experience and this simulation align. In the NBA Draft eventually you have to play the odds and hope for the best.
P.S. This is the raw data from my simulation. Cousins is on the left and Johnson on the right. Ignore the symbols. That's just me coding the data.
CJ
A4**
A3**
A9**
88-
610++
610++
Q8**
QK*
63*
32*
5J++
10Q+
9J+
87*
410++
56*
3Q++
34+
5A++
67+
109*
QJ*
4K++
82**
109*
63*
56+
7Q++
86*
J8**
3A++
910+
5K++
J9*
Q4**
103**
KJ*
JQ+
A2**
9Q+
25+
K5**
9Q+
4A++
63*
44-
6K++
6Q++
9K++
K3**
KJ*
8A++
5J++
8Q++
A5**
25++
7Q++
KA+
K8**
A3**
J3**
22-
J3**
37++
24+
76*
9J+
A4**
3K++
QJ*
KA+
88-
53*
A8**
82**
36+
J8*
8Q++
J7**
Q9*
6J++
AA-
6A++
A5**
310++
92**
QQ-
JK+
56+
8Q++
8J+
Q9*
Q6**
Q5**
810+
J2**
33-
104**
A7**
QA+
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Today Was A Good Day
Four years ago, the day after the election, I wrote the following blog post on my old blog Captain Handsome.
Election Results
Today I feel both disappointed and relieved.
I feel disappointed because John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win. It's a little like cheering for your favorite sports team if your favorite sports team directed the economy, the military and the governance of law.
A lot of people like cheering for the Yankees because the Yankees win. If you had to choose your favorite team based on how they played, how they treated their fans, etc., the distribution would be more even. Or people just wouldn't care which is what happens more often in politics.
When John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win, it doesn't mean I won't vote for Democrats two years from now. I'll still be back cheering for the same team because the same things will be important to me then and it will be the same team which will be able to deliver them to me.
As I've expressed elsewhere, this one in particular would've been nice to win.
I'm relieved because it came down to votes. There was no last minute surprise "Hey, we have Osama bin Laden," or "Holy shit, President Bush raped a bear. And that bear was my father!" shit. I think that's the stuff which really turns people off to politics and makes them think their vote doesn't count. This election really was about courting the voters, talking about issues and who is the better man for the job.
There are still votes to be counted and the television networks don't choose the president. It would be great if Bush were ushered out the same way he was ushered in. However, I'm waking up to an America in which George W Bush is the President and I can finally react to that.
The nation selected George W Bush. They elected a foreign policy where the United States actively uses its military might, a domestic policy which supports businesses who are then responsible for supporting their employees and a moral policy which is very conservative. They also selected leaving things as they are over how things could be.
And I'm not sure I fit with that. I don't fit with the Bush Administration's interpretations for sure. Yet a lot of voters looked past the pragmatic and went on the basis of values. While I can relate to those values, they aren't mine.
Atleast I know where I stand. And I can start setting my course from there.
Whether that is me following through on my festering urge to move out of the US or just into a deeper blue state or the exact opposite by going into a red state and helping to bridge the gap, I don't know.
Today is a brand new day. Today my relief is to be starting.
Now it's four years later and I can tell you what happened.
After getting over the initial shock, I decided to commit myself to work and spent the next term floating astray and trying to fit into the corporate world I found odd. For three of those years, I had the support of a wonderful and caring woman and she did more than her part to help me see the cheer in my life and why I should continue on. But the stress of our relationship pushed us apart and this summer things fell apart. I moved home from Chicago and looked around at my options.
There are two realizations I've come to in the last two months. I've found I'm back where I was four years ago and my old burning is coming back. I never really forgot that feeling and anyone who was there will tell you volunteering was the part of my Chicago job I enjoyed the most. It's no coincidence that I'd supported a community organizer for President. Then last night that community organizer won.
Yesterday the nation selected Barack Obama. They elected a foreign policy where the United States uses its military might judiciously, a domestic policy which asks people to make sacrifices for the greater good and a moral policy which is open and liberal. They left behind things as they are and want to see how things could be. And I fit with that. I can relate to those values because they are mine too.
So, with the economy in the tank and the corporate world a suit that fit poorly to begin, I'm going to look into making service my full-time occupation. I don't know if that's going to be foreign service, the Peace Corps, Americorps, some form of government job, some form of non-profit or non-governmental organization, etc. All of that is to be determined. The point is I woke up this morning in an America that needs help and I plan to do my part in helping.
In 2008, Yes We Can!
Election Results
Today I feel both disappointed and relieved.
I feel disappointed because John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win. It's a little like cheering for your favorite sports team if your favorite sports team directed the economy, the military and the governance of law.
A lot of people like cheering for the Yankees because the Yankees win. If you had to choose your favorite team based on how they played, how they treated their fans, etc., the distribution would be more even. Or people just wouldn't care which is what happens more often in politics.
When John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win, it doesn't mean I won't vote for Democrats two years from now. I'll still be back cheering for the same team because the same things will be important to me then and it will be the same team which will be able to deliver them to me.
As I've expressed elsewhere, this one in particular would've been nice to win.
I'm relieved because it came down to votes. There was no last minute surprise "Hey, we have Osama bin Laden," or "Holy shit, President Bush raped a bear. And that bear was my father!" shit. I think that's the stuff which really turns people off to politics and makes them think their vote doesn't count. This election really was about courting the voters, talking about issues and who is the better man for the job.
There are still votes to be counted and the television networks don't choose the president. It would be great if Bush were ushered out the same way he was ushered in. However, I'm waking up to an America in which George W Bush is the President and I can finally react to that.
The nation selected George W Bush. They elected a foreign policy where the United States actively uses its military might, a domestic policy which supports businesses who are then responsible for supporting their employees and a moral policy which is very conservative. They also selected leaving things as they are over how things could be.
And I'm not sure I fit with that. I don't fit with the Bush Administration's interpretations for sure. Yet a lot of voters looked past the pragmatic and went on the basis of values. While I can relate to those values, they aren't mine.
Atleast I know where I stand. And I can start setting my course from there.
Whether that is me following through on my festering urge to move out of the US or just into a deeper blue state or the exact opposite by going into a red state and helping to bridge the gap, I don't know.
Today is a brand new day. Today my relief is to be starting.
Now it's four years later and I can tell you what happened.
After getting over the initial shock, I decided to commit myself to work and spent the next term floating astray and trying to fit into the corporate world I found odd. For three of those years, I had the support of a wonderful and caring woman and she did more than her part to help me see the cheer in my life and why I should continue on. But the stress of our relationship pushed us apart and this summer things fell apart. I moved home from Chicago and looked around at my options.
There are two realizations I've come to in the last two months. I've found I'm back where I was four years ago and my old burning is coming back. I never really forgot that feeling and anyone who was there will tell you volunteering was the part of my Chicago job I enjoyed the most. It's no coincidence that I'd supported a community organizer for President. Then last night that community organizer won.
Yesterday the nation selected Barack Obama. They elected a foreign policy where the United States uses its military might judiciously, a domestic policy which asks people to make sacrifices for the greater good and a moral policy which is open and liberal. They left behind things as they are and want to see how things could be. And I fit with that. I can relate to those values because they are mine too.
So, with the economy in the tank and the corporate world a suit that fit poorly to begin, I'm going to look into making service my full-time occupation. I don't know if that's going to be foreign service, the Peace Corps, Americorps, some form of government job, some form of non-profit or non-governmental organization, etc. All of that is to be determined. The point is I woke up this morning in an America that needs help and I plan to do my part in helping.
In 2008, Yes We Can!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
I Make It Rain
I had a friend who posted an article on his Facebook about the American tax system explained through beer. Here it is and then my comments follow...
Tax System explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten guys comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers'' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I'
''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I think there's a falacy in the logic of this article. It assumes that all of people's needs (the beer) are met by the bartender (the government). But that's not the economic model used in the capitalistic, free market United States. That's actually large-C Communism.
This article is actually a pretty sound illustration of why a tax break doesn't benefit the middle class. Despite paying taxes on a percentage basis, real world costs (food, housing, clothing, gas) are on a dollar for dollar basis. And the tax cut you describe gives the tenth man ten times the actual dollar for dollar benefit as the fifth man and provides no benefit for the first through fourth men.
Take college tuition for example. That is a flat cost. If you go to the University of Minnesota and are from Minnesota, you pay the same rate regardless of your ability to pay. So a middle class family who makes too much to qualify for financial aid has a penalty in sending their children to college. They have to choose on a dollar for dollar basis where their money would be better spent.
In my opinion, the great flaw in conservative fiscal policy is not giving tax breaks to the rich. Freeing money from the grandstanding whims of politicians (who gave $700B to Treasury to "I dunno. Fix the economy or somethin'," without oversight) is a good idea. Taxes can only benefit the people who are paying in, the citizens of the country. Investment capital can benefit anyone anywhere, especially in areas that are poised for rapid growth in the globalized economy aka The Third World. It is that the money doesn't end up being put in investments that benefit everyone.
The money is ending up emphasizing the investments over the capital. People are buying dot.com stock and mortgage-backed securities to get a healthy return for their portfolios because investing in government projects (in the form of bonds) have been money losers in the conservative fiscal world. There's no reason in the profit motive to do something that's altruistic.
Merck, for example, isn't going to do a whole lot of R&D on a new tuberculosis treatment in order to share that research with its competitors. It would be foolish to expect people to work hard, get ahead and then flush that advantage down the drain. But the Centers For Disease Control would.
So if you're saying that there should be tax breaks to free investment capital for use in the world economy, then I agree with you especially if that money is bringing basic needs to developing nations.
If you're saying that a tax break is a way to create wealth, I still need to be sold because it seems to me to be just moving water out of one bucket and into another.
If you're saying that the rich are going to take their ball and go home, I encourage you to tell me a better economy for the wealthy than the one we've got. You know that liberals have been waiting 40 years to say this...
Love it or leave it.
Tax System explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten guys comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers'' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I'
''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I think there's a falacy in the logic of this article. It assumes that all of people's needs (the beer) are met by the bartender (the government). But that's not the economic model used in the capitalistic, free market United States. That's actually large-C Communism.
This article is actually a pretty sound illustration of why a tax break doesn't benefit the middle class. Despite paying taxes on a percentage basis, real world costs (food, housing, clothing, gas) are on a dollar for dollar basis. And the tax cut you describe gives the tenth man ten times the actual dollar for dollar benefit as the fifth man and provides no benefit for the first through fourth men.
Take college tuition for example. That is a flat cost. If you go to the University of Minnesota and are from Minnesota, you pay the same rate regardless of your ability to pay. So a middle class family who makes too much to qualify for financial aid has a penalty in sending their children to college. They have to choose on a dollar for dollar basis where their money would be better spent.
In my opinion, the great flaw in conservative fiscal policy is not giving tax breaks to the rich. Freeing money from the grandstanding whims of politicians (who gave $700B to Treasury to "I dunno. Fix the economy or somethin'," without oversight) is a good idea. Taxes can only benefit the people who are paying in, the citizens of the country. Investment capital can benefit anyone anywhere, especially in areas that are poised for rapid growth in the globalized economy aka The Third World. It is that the money doesn't end up being put in investments that benefit everyone.
The money is ending up emphasizing the investments over the capital. People are buying dot.com stock and mortgage-backed securities to get a healthy return for their portfolios because investing in government projects (in the form of bonds) have been money losers in the conservative fiscal world. There's no reason in the profit motive to do something that's altruistic.
Merck, for example, isn't going to do a whole lot of R&D on a new tuberculosis treatment in order to share that research with its competitors. It would be foolish to expect people to work hard, get ahead and then flush that advantage down the drain. But the Centers For Disease Control would.
So if you're saying that there should be tax breaks to free investment capital for use in the world economy, then I agree with you especially if that money is bringing basic needs to developing nations.
If you're saying that a tax break is a way to create wealth, I still need to be sold because it seems to me to be just moving water out of one bucket and into another.
If you're saying that the rich are going to take their ball and go home, I encourage you to tell me a better economy for the wealthy than the one we've got. You know that liberals have been waiting 40 years to say this...
Love it or leave it.
Monday, July 28, 2008
If You Ain't Gonna Ride Fly Then You Might As Well Hate
Though it came out two Fridays ago, it took me until last Wednesday to see "The Dark Knight" for a couple of very valid reasons. Foremost in those reasons is that I spent all of that weekend at the Pitchfork Music Festival listening to Public Enemy, The Hold Steady, Jarvis Cocker, Ghostface Killah and Raekwon, Vampire Weekend and Dinosaur Jr as well as others.
On Saturday morning my friend and consistent concert companion Patrick and I were walking to the train to take out to the festival. Walking in the other direction was a kind of lumpy kid with colored hair and too big clothes with army boots. Back in high school this kid would be considered a goth and, while I wouldn't have been slamming his head into a locker, I could have counted on this kid listening to Marilyn Manson, not really giving a shite about school and owning at least one shirt with Brandon Lee as The Crow on it.
Except this kid's shirt didn't have Brandon Lee on it. The face printed white on black and staring back at me wasn't The Crow. In a moment it all snapped together for me. The long run of Brandon Lee as the dead celebrity that most exemplifies the dark and brooding soul of a teenager was over. Fourteen years on the top ended quickly and quietly overnight on Thursday with the old king being deposed by a new prince of crime. It had barely been a day and a half since the first midnight screenings of "The Dark Knight." But already Heath Ledger was the new Brandon Lee. The Crow Is Dead! Long Live The Joker!
Now I could go off on a tangent about how the icon has changed from a hero who is righting a wrong and curing the world of its ills to a cynical villain who is creating chaos in the world. I'll just say post-Columbine it became very easy to vilify the outsiders who sat by themselves at lunch. Apparently those attitudes have not faded completely in the last ten years.
The point is this. Going back to the day they announced Heath Ledger would be playing The Joker... check that... going back to the end of "Batman Begins" when he flips over the playing card, it was apparent this movie would be riding on whomever played The Joker. When they cast Heath Ledger, it seemed an oddball choice and this role would have forever remained his legacy whether he'd died or not. I'm so sure of it, I actually wrote these first five paragraphs before I even saw the movie. And, having now seen the movie, I can tell you his legacy will be he was the only inspired thing in an otherwise terrible movie.
One of the things that "Batman Begins" got right was it returned the astray Batman franchise from focusing on flash and visuals and celebrities playing the villains to the dark and deep story of a man who brings justice to an unjust world. The movie walked you through the development of Bruce Wayne into Batman and you could see the dynamic character growing and learning. You could feel his motivations changing and expanding. At the beginning of the movie, he's ready to shoot the man who killed his parents. At the end of the movie, he allows the man who really killed his parents to die. He's stopped fighting the symptoms and started curing the disease.
Well, that one movie detour into truly timeless elements was short-lived. The franchise quickly and noisily reverted to 90% stunts, 10% "There's good and evil in the world. Get it?" The line I've been pushing this past week is that the movie should've been called "Die Hard With A Batman." But the truth of the matter even that is a misnomer because the third Die Hard movie actually had more plot than "Dark Knight." This movie was a return to the failed form of the earlier movies with flash and visuals and "Hey, it's that guy," playing a larger part of advancing the movie to its finish than things like story, character growth and dramatic rise and fall.
Which is what makes "Dark Knight" ultimately more than a bad movie. It's a disappointment because of the potential re-starting the franchise held. This franchise could've been a study in the human character wrapped into a blockbuster's skin. Now it's just the hollow skin. My guess is too many fingers ended up in this pot and the auteur sense used to make "Batman Begins" into a great movie was squashed under a mountain of memos. These movies cost and make too much money to just let someone like Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan play with them for too long. Eventually these pieces of art are about making money for the studios and to do that you have to appeal to the largest audience possible even if it means watering down your product to the point of oblivion.
My only solace will be to watch the "Watchmen" trailer over and over until it comes out next March. They can't possibly screw up the sequel to that. Word up to my fellow comic book fans who get the joke!
On Saturday morning my friend and consistent concert companion Patrick and I were walking to the train to take out to the festival. Walking in the other direction was a kind of lumpy kid with colored hair and too big clothes with army boots. Back in high school this kid would be considered a goth and, while I wouldn't have been slamming his head into a locker, I could have counted on this kid listening to Marilyn Manson, not really giving a shite about school and owning at least one shirt with Brandon Lee as The Crow on it.
Except this kid's shirt didn't have Brandon Lee on it. The face printed white on black and staring back at me wasn't The Crow. In a moment it all snapped together for me. The long run of Brandon Lee as the dead celebrity that most exemplifies the dark and brooding soul of a teenager was over. Fourteen years on the top ended quickly and quietly overnight on Thursday with the old king being deposed by a new prince of crime. It had barely been a day and a half since the first midnight screenings of "The Dark Knight." But already Heath Ledger was the new Brandon Lee. The Crow Is Dead! Long Live The Joker!
Now I could go off on a tangent about how the icon has changed from a hero who is righting a wrong and curing the world of its ills to a cynical villain who is creating chaos in the world. I'll just say post-Columbine it became very easy to vilify the outsiders who sat by themselves at lunch. Apparently those attitudes have not faded completely in the last ten years.
The point is this. Going back to the day they announced Heath Ledger would be playing The Joker... check that... going back to the end of "Batman Begins" when he flips over the playing card, it was apparent this movie would be riding on whomever played The Joker. When they cast Heath Ledger, it seemed an oddball choice and this role would have forever remained his legacy whether he'd died or not. I'm so sure of it, I actually wrote these first five paragraphs before I even saw the movie. And, having now seen the movie, I can tell you his legacy will be he was the only inspired thing in an otherwise terrible movie.
One of the things that "Batman Begins" got right was it returned the astray Batman franchise from focusing on flash and visuals and celebrities playing the villains to the dark and deep story of a man who brings justice to an unjust world. The movie walked you through the development of Bruce Wayne into Batman and you could see the dynamic character growing and learning. You could feel his motivations changing and expanding. At the beginning of the movie, he's ready to shoot the man who killed his parents. At the end of the movie, he allows the man who really killed his parents to die. He's stopped fighting the symptoms and started curing the disease.
Well, that one movie detour into truly timeless elements was short-lived. The franchise quickly and noisily reverted to 90% stunts, 10% "There's good and evil in the world. Get it?" The line I've been pushing this past week is that the movie should've been called "Die Hard With A Batman." But the truth of the matter even that is a misnomer because the third Die Hard movie actually had more plot than "Dark Knight." This movie was a return to the failed form of the earlier movies with flash and visuals and "Hey, it's that guy," playing a larger part of advancing the movie to its finish than things like story, character growth and dramatic rise and fall.
Which is what makes "Dark Knight" ultimately more than a bad movie. It's a disappointment because of the potential re-starting the franchise held. This franchise could've been a study in the human character wrapped into a blockbuster's skin. Now it's just the hollow skin. My guess is too many fingers ended up in this pot and the auteur sense used to make "Batman Begins" into a great movie was squashed under a mountain of memos. These movies cost and make too much money to just let someone like Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan play with them for too long. Eventually these pieces of art are about making money for the studios and to do that you have to appeal to the largest audience possible even if it means watering down your product to the point of oblivion.
My only solace will be to watch the "Watchmen" trailer over and over until it comes out next March. They can't possibly screw up the sequel to that. Word up to my fellow comic book fans who get the joke!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
While Y'All Were Asking Permission I Just Stepped Up and Took It
Have you heard to the Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball? It’s pretty simple. Basically, it says that your Expected Win-Loss should be equal to the proportion of the runs you score out of all of the runs scored in games you play. (Your Runs) / (Your Runs + Your Runs Allowed) in other words. Normally a team’s record falls within +/- 3 games. There are of course exceptions like last year’s Diamondbacks who “should” have been 79-83 but actually led the NL at 90-72. But it’s a good guideline.
The variation usually comes from games at either end of the spectrum, blowouts and close games. So when the Twins get trounced by the Tigers 19-3 on Saturday it makes the Twins appear worse and the Tigers appear better than they “are.” Additionally when the Twins win one-run games which they’ve done 12 times against 8 loses, they appear better than they “are” and the Royals appear worse.
The cool thing for me as a Twins fan is this. At the beginning of the Twins-Royals series, the Twins record (25-25) was better than their X W-L at (23-27). In both of the Royals games, the Royals led going into the top of the 9th including a blown save by Joe Nathan on Tuesday because of a missed sliding catch by Delmon Young which resulted in an indoor-four for Mark Teahan to tie the game. Each of those nights, the Twins squeaked out extra inning one-run wins alternately by playing small ball on Tuesday and by hitting the long ball last night. There’s no “this game is over” once we reach the late innings with this team. In the end it's the games you do or don't win that count not the ones which you should or shouldn't have.
As a result this morning the Twins record (27-25) is 4 games better than their X W-L (25-27). This makes sense since, as I said before, the Twins have won four more one-run games than they’ve lost.
The variation usually comes from games at either end of the spectrum, blowouts and close games. So when the Twins get trounced by the Tigers 19-3 on Saturday it makes the Twins appear worse and the Tigers appear better than they “are.” Additionally when the Twins win one-run games which they’ve done 12 times against 8 loses, they appear better than they “are” and the Royals appear worse.
The cool thing for me as a Twins fan is this. At the beginning of the Twins-Royals series, the Twins record (25-25) was better than their X W-L at (23-27). In both of the Royals games, the Royals led going into the top of the 9th including a blown save by Joe Nathan on Tuesday because of a missed sliding catch by Delmon Young which resulted in an indoor-four for Mark Teahan to tie the game. Each of those nights, the Twins squeaked out extra inning one-run wins alternately by playing small ball on Tuesday and by hitting the long ball last night. There’s no “this game is over” once we reach the late innings with this team. In the end it's the games you do or don't win that count not the ones which you should or shouldn't have.
As a result this morning the Twins record (27-25) is 4 games better than their X W-L (25-27). This makes sense since, as I said before, the Twins have won four more one-run games than they’ve lost.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Don't Hate the Player. Hate the Game.
I finally started watching "Lost" recently after an extended discussion with Gerry about the qualms I had about the show. This is exactly the sort of show which should've appealed to me right out of the gate and I should be square in the show's target demographic.
Yet at the time it first burst onto the scene I didn't get ABC very well on my rabbit ears nor can I really be bothered to sit down at a specific time on a specific night to catch a television program. By the time it made it to DVD, "Lost" was such a huge phenomenon that I was put off by it. Add in my perception of the show's writers favoring obfuscation over plot development and I let the "Lost" ship sail without me.
Which I'm perfectly okay with in the long run. I'm not the sort of person who shows up late to the scene and says, "Oh, wow. I didn't realize how good 'Lost' was and it really is." The moment where it was fully in the cultural eye as something new and fresh and exciting is over and, like I said, I let that moment pass with out involving myself in it. There are advantages like being able to look up answers to the show's questions and being able to knock out a block of episodes in a row.
But I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. It's a good show and one which engenders complete fandom. The producers of the show know this and play up the bulletin board material. It's certainly in their favor to do so because the buzz helps their ratings. Then the fans respond with more obsession and the cycle feeds itself again. All in all, "Lost" is shrouded in an excess of mystique which is unfortunate because it is legitimately good on its own merits.
Instead of banging on a tired drum about how "things are popular based on hype and promotion now" (now being the operative word as though it's something new), I'd like to list things that make me happy which are underrated and underappreciated and need more attention instead of tearing down something else which does get a lot of attention. In no order and indeterminite quantity...
Cultural Studies
When I transferred back from St. Norbert to the University of Minnesota, I took a class in my last full semester from the Cultural Studies and Comparative Literatures Department. I wrote my senior paper in that class when I ran into a problem professor in the English Department capstone class. I ruminated on how if I'd gone to the University first I probably would've been a CSCL major.
And I've taken that into my post-collegiate life. I don't need to have a teacher assigning me books to read them. In fact, that's the point of a liberal arts degree; to foster a diversity of interests (because it's not the money). So I a lot of time in bookstores perusing their cultural studies section.
There I make discoveries like Klosterman's "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs" or the book I finished this weekend "American Nerd: The Story of My People" by Benjamin Nugent. The title is pretty explanatory of what the topic is but also of the slant.
This isn't like most cultural studies where a subject is examined from a distance. Nugent specifically weaves his own primary experience into the study and is thus able to cut into the "Why?" in much greater depth and detail. It also gives the narrative a definition and understanding a memoir usually doesn't have.
The Stretch of I-94 from Hudson, WI to St. Paul, MN
Driving from Minneapolis to just about any other major metropolitan area takes forever. The distance to Chicago or Milwaukee is about six hours and, unless you consider Duluth, Des Moines, LaCrosse or Eau Claire to be major cities, those are the closest metropolises to the Twin Cities. So if you're driving from the east on I-94 toward Minnesota, the last few hours though the farmland of West Wisconsin can seem interminable.
Then Hudson (on the border of Minnesota and Wisconsin) rolls up and you are attached to a rocket. Quickly buildings, malls and cities grow along the side of the road as you burn through the half hour to St. Paul and then it's across the high-bridge over the Mississippi River and into the heart of Minneapolis. If you've been tired driving through the night from Chicago or points further, that last stretch is like a bolt of energy.
The Re-playability of Certain Videogames
When Mario Kart came out over 15 years ago, could you have predicted we'd still be playing it into our late 20s? I suppose the paradigm has changed as we've grown older (and because we've grown older) where you don't stop playing videogames after college. It also matters that videogames have become less about reflexes and knowing a complex order of buttons to mash (bastions of the young and otherwise unencumbered) and are now much more egalitarian and relating to the realworld. When you're playing Mario Kart now, you only have to rotate your hands right and left like you would an actual steering wheel. Still it's been 15 years and the franchise is still going strong because guys like me still want to play.
Cover Versions of Songs You Love
"Loooove... Love will tear us apart... againnn"
Cover Versions of Songs That Suck (But Are Awesome Themselves)
"Dooooon't Stop... BEE-LEEE-VVIIINNN"
Spending A Long Weekend Doing Nothing
Well, not nothing. After a spending Friday night and into early Saturday morning celebrating a friend and co-worker's birthday party, I drove up to Madison to see my friends here. Since then I've seen the new Indiana Jones movie (if something is magnetic, cover it with fabric and it won't be anymore), played "Race for the Galaxy", had some excellent pork chops, done yoga, went for a really long walk, played some of the aforementioned Mario Kart, had people over for dinner, went to the gym, finished reading the aforementioned "American Nerd" and typed on my blog. As Mary and I were walking over to the gym this morning, we were talking about how great it is to have just spent this weekend with no particular plans. "It's like you're actually on vacation," she said. Which is 100% true and exactly what you need to feel relaxed and not tired going back to work on Tuesday.
Yet at the time it first burst onto the scene I didn't get ABC very well on my rabbit ears nor can I really be bothered to sit down at a specific time on a specific night to catch a television program. By the time it made it to DVD, "Lost" was such a huge phenomenon that I was put off by it. Add in my perception of the show's writers favoring obfuscation over plot development and I let the "Lost" ship sail without me.
Which I'm perfectly okay with in the long run. I'm not the sort of person who shows up late to the scene and says, "Oh, wow. I didn't realize how good 'Lost' was and it really is." The moment where it was fully in the cultural eye as something new and fresh and exciting is over and, like I said, I let that moment pass with out involving myself in it. There are advantages like being able to look up answers to the show's questions and being able to knock out a block of episodes in a row.
But I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. It's a good show and one which engenders complete fandom. The producers of the show know this and play up the bulletin board material. It's certainly in their favor to do so because the buzz helps their ratings. Then the fans respond with more obsession and the cycle feeds itself again. All in all, "Lost" is shrouded in an excess of mystique which is unfortunate because it is legitimately good on its own merits.
Instead of banging on a tired drum about how "things are popular based on hype and promotion now" (now being the operative word as though it's something new), I'd like to list things that make me happy which are underrated and underappreciated and need more attention instead of tearing down something else which does get a lot of attention. In no order and indeterminite quantity...
Cultural Studies
When I transferred back from St. Norbert to the University of Minnesota, I took a class in my last full semester from the Cultural Studies and Comparative Literatures Department. I wrote my senior paper in that class when I ran into a problem professor in the English Department capstone class. I ruminated on how if I'd gone to the University first I probably would've been a CSCL major.
And I've taken that into my post-collegiate life. I don't need to have a teacher assigning me books to read them. In fact, that's the point of a liberal arts degree; to foster a diversity of interests (because it's not the money). So I a lot of time in bookstores perusing their cultural studies section.
There I make discoveries like Klosterman's "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs" or the book I finished this weekend "American Nerd: The Story of My People" by Benjamin Nugent. The title is pretty explanatory of what the topic is but also of the slant.
This isn't like most cultural studies where a subject is examined from a distance. Nugent specifically weaves his own primary experience into the study and is thus able to cut into the "Why?" in much greater depth and detail. It also gives the narrative a definition and understanding a memoir usually doesn't have.
The Stretch of I-94 from Hudson, WI to St. Paul, MN
Driving from Minneapolis to just about any other major metropolitan area takes forever. The distance to Chicago or Milwaukee is about six hours and, unless you consider Duluth, Des Moines, LaCrosse or Eau Claire to be major cities, those are the closest metropolises to the Twin Cities. So if you're driving from the east on I-94 toward Minnesota, the last few hours though the farmland of West Wisconsin can seem interminable.
Then Hudson (on the border of Minnesota and Wisconsin) rolls up and you are attached to a rocket. Quickly buildings, malls and cities grow along the side of the road as you burn through the half hour to St. Paul and then it's across the high-bridge over the Mississippi River and into the heart of Minneapolis. If you've been tired driving through the night from Chicago or points further, that last stretch is like a bolt of energy.
The Re-playability of Certain Videogames
When Mario Kart came out over 15 years ago, could you have predicted we'd still be playing it into our late 20s? I suppose the paradigm has changed as we've grown older (and because we've grown older) where you don't stop playing videogames after college. It also matters that videogames have become less about reflexes and knowing a complex order of buttons to mash (bastions of the young and otherwise unencumbered) and are now much more egalitarian and relating to the realworld. When you're playing Mario Kart now, you only have to rotate your hands right and left like you would an actual steering wheel. Still it's been 15 years and the franchise is still going strong because guys like me still want to play.
Cover Versions of Songs You Love
"Loooove... Love will tear us apart... againnn"
Cover Versions of Songs That Suck (But Are Awesome Themselves)
"Dooooon't Stop... BEE-LEEE-VVIIINNN"
Spending A Long Weekend Doing Nothing
Well, not nothing. After a spending Friday night and into early Saturday morning celebrating a friend and co-worker's birthday party, I drove up to Madison to see my friends here. Since then I've seen the new Indiana Jones movie (if something is magnetic, cover it with fabric and it won't be anymore), played "Race for the Galaxy", had some excellent pork chops, done yoga, went for a really long walk, played some of the aforementioned Mario Kart, had people over for dinner, went to the gym, finished reading the aforementioned "American Nerd" and typed on my blog. As Mary and I were walking over to the gym this morning, we were talking about how great it is to have just spent this weekend with no particular plans. "It's like you're actually on vacation," she said. Which is 100% true and exactly what you need to feel relaxed and not tired going back to work on Tuesday.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Peace to Dirt Dog. I'm Back like Deja Vu.
Last night I saw a preview screening of "Iron Man" with K-Dogg. The movie comes out this weekend so I can't claim great exclusivity like when we saw "Spider-Man 3" last year a few weeks before it came out. But I've always held Iron Man as one of my favorite comic book characters so I've been looking forward to the movie since it was just a rumor.
In the grand thrust of movies based on comic books coming to the screen, there are a select handful including the original X-Men movie, "Batman Begins" and "Spider-Man 2" which encompass the upper eschelon. Those are movies which are good enough to stand up on their own irregardless of genre in the same way "Star Wars" is more than just a sci-fi film.
The next level down from that is where "Iron Man" belongs. It's a good movie and I was thrilled as a comic books fan to see they stayed faithful to the character. Like the first "Spider-man" movie or the Thomas Jane "Punisher" film, it's really good for the genre and should do a good job satisfying both the fans of Iron Man and the general public who is properly meeting the character for the first time.
One thing which did stick out for me about the movie was the enemies in the movie were Taliban-esque warlords in Afghanistan. And for the first time since our Global War on Terrorism began, it didn't feel heavy-handed to have them be the enemy. Perhaps it's because it's the last year of GWB's presidency and perhaps it's because the "with us or against us" rhetoric has died down since Rumsfeld resigned.
I think a bigger part of it is the movie's self-awareness showing that it's not guys who live in caves and warm themselves around woodfires who are making the guns being fired at our military. In a way, it is both literally and metaphorically our own imperialism being fired back at us. That little extra is what distinguishes making an Iron Man movie from making a movie about a man in a flying metal suit.
In the grand thrust of movies based on comic books coming to the screen, there are a select handful including the original X-Men movie, "Batman Begins" and "Spider-Man 2" which encompass the upper eschelon. Those are movies which are good enough to stand up on their own irregardless of genre in the same way "Star Wars" is more than just a sci-fi film.
The next level down from that is where "Iron Man" belongs. It's a good movie and I was thrilled as a comic books fan to see they stayed faithful to the character. Like the first "Spider-man" movie or the Thomas Jane "Punisher" film, it's really good for the genre and should do a good job satisfying both the fans of Iron Man and the general public who is properly meeting the character for the first time.
One thing which did stick out for me about the movie was the enemies in the movie were Taliban-esque warlords in Afghanistan. And for the first time since our Global War on Terrorism began, it didn't feel heavy-handed to have them be the enemy. Perhaps it's because it's the last year of GWB's presidency and perhaps it's because the "with us or against us" rhetoric has died down since Rumsfeld resigned.
I think a bigger part of it is the movie's self-awareness showing that it's not guys who live in caves and warm themselves around woodfires who are making the guns being fired at our military. In a way, it is both literally and metaphorically our own imperialism being fired back at us. That little extra is what distinguishes making an Iron Man movie from making a movie about a man in a flying metal suit.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Y'All Better Buy My Rookie Card Now Because After This Year The Price Ain't Coming Down
Since I cheer for the Minnesota Twins from my apartment in Illinois, the amount of actual baseball I see over the summer is limited. It requires either a trip to the South Side or the rare occassion WGN chooses a Twins-White Sox game for me to see my hometown team. While I'd like to say I'm a fan of the sport itself, I don't love it quite as much without a rooting interest.
That's why this year I'm going whole hog into fantasy baseball. I have two teams, one points-based team I drafted at the beginning of spring training and one head-to-head team I drafted at the end of spring training. Since baseball is the longest sports season (basically the end of March until the beginning of October plus the playoffs) and there's very little competition for my attention, I don't believe this is going overboard. I'm just augmenting my enjoyment of the sport by giving myself a rooting interest in guys on teams other than the Twins.
Here are my teams. You can tell at first blanche which league I got the first pick in and which one I picked eleventh.
Morneau4MVP,eh? (Pre-Spring Training Team)
Miguel Cabrera (Det - 3B)
Ryan Braun (Mil - 3B)
Lance Berkman (Hou - 1B,OF)
Brian Roberts (Bal - 2B)
Chone Figgins (LAA - 2B,3B,OF)
Hunter Pence (Hou - OF)
Vernon Wells (Tor - OF)
Édgar Rentería (Det - SS)
Bengie Molina (SF -C)
Jeremy Hermida (Fla - OF)
Stephen Drew (Ari - SS)
Conor Jackson (Ari - 1B)
Aaron Harang (Cin - SP)
Javier Vázquez (CWS - SP)
Matt Cain (SF - SP)
Phil Hughes (NYY - SP)
Dontrelle Willis (Det - SP)
Matt Garza (TB - SP)
Mark Buehrle (CWS - SP)
Chad Cordero (Was - RP)
Heath Bell (SD - RP)
BatterThanYrBatter (Post-Spring Training Team)
Álex Rodríguez (NYY - 3B)
Brandon Phillips (Cin - 2B)
Derrek Lee (ChC - 1B)
Bobby Abreu (NYY - OF)
Brian McCann (Atl - C)
Rafael Furcal (LAD - SS)
Dan Uggla (Fla - 2B)
Jeff Francoeur (Atl - OF)
James Loney (LAD - 1B)
Kosuke Fukudome (ChC - OF)
Justin Upton (Ari - OF)
Coco Crisp (Bos - OF)
Jake Peavy (SD - SP)
Mark Buehrle (CWS - SP)
Pedro Martínez (NYM - SP)
Francisco Liriano (Min - SP)
Adam Wainwright (StL - SP)
Dontrelle Willis (Det - SP)
Billy Wagner (NYM - RP)
Kevin Gregg (Fla - RP)
Heath Bell (SD - RP)
I should point out that I'm heavily invested via my fantasy team in Mark Buehrle, Dontrelle Willis, Heath Bell and the Arizona Diamondbacks. I'm ready to reshuffle my roster as necessary and I won't have the sentimental attachment like I did to last year's Hunter-Mauer-Cuddyer-Neshek team the computer drafted for me. Still, I'm putting my eggs in those same baskets.
I'm also jittery about the seasons Phil Hughes and Francisco Liriano, my sole Twins player, will have. If Hughes (the player the Twins could've had in a Santana-to-the-Yankees deal) has a breakout season and Liriano goes into the tank, I will probably cry myself to sleep. Add on that I'm gambling on my hated rival's top pitcher in both leagues and this could the fantasy season that pushes me into literal insanity. If it does, please take me to the new ballpark when it opens.
That's why this year I'm going whole hog into fantasy baseball. I have two teams, one points-based team I drafted at the beginning of spring training and one head-to-head team I drafted at the end of spring training. Since baseball is the longest sports season (basically the end of March until the beginning of October plus the playoffs) and there's very little competition for my attention, I don't believe this is going overboard. I'm just augmenting my enjoyment of the sport by giving myself a rooting interest in guys on teams other than the Twins.
Here are my teams. You can tell at first blanche which league I got the first pick in and which one I picked eleventh.
Morneau4MVP,eh? (Pre-Spring Training Team)
Miguel Cabrera (Det - 3B)
Ryan Braun (Mil - 3B)
Lance Berkman (Hou - 1B,OF)
Brian Roberts (Bal - 2B)
Chone Figgins (LAA - 2B,3B,OF)
Hunter Pence (Hou - OF)
Vernon Wells (Tor - OF)
Édgar Rentería (Det - SS)
Bengie Molina (SF -C)
Jeremy Hermida (Fla - OF)
Stephen Drew (Ari - SS)
Conor Jackson (Ari - 1B)
Aaron Harang (Cin - SP)
Javier Vázquez (CWS - SP)
Matt Cain (SF - SP)
Phil Hughes (NYY - SP)
Dontrelle Willis (Det - SP)
Matt Garza (TB - SP)
Mark Buehrle (CWS - SP)
Chad Cordero (Was - RP)
Heath Bell (SD - RP)
BatterThanYrBatter (Post-Spring Training Team)
Álex Rodríguez (NYY - 3B)
Brandon Phillips (Cin - 2B)
Derrek Lee (ChC - 1B)
Bobby Abreu (NYY - OF)
Brian McCann (Atl - C)
Rafael Furcal (LAD - SS)
Dan Uggla (Fla - 2B)
Jeff Francoeur (Atl - OF)
James Loney (LAD - 1B)
Kosuke Fukudome (ChC - OF)
Justin Upton (Ari - OF)
Coco Crisp (Bos - OF)
Jake Peavy (SD - SP)
Mark Buehrle (CWS - SP)
Pedro Martínez (NYM - SP)
Francisco Liriano (Min - SP)
Adam Wainwright (StL - SP)
Dontrelle Willis (Det - SP)
Billy Wagner (NYM - RP)
Kevin Gregg (Fla - RP)
Heath Bell (SD - RP)
I should point out that I'm heavily invested via my fantasy team in Mark Buehrle, Dontrelle Willis, Heath Bell and the Arizona Diamondbacks. I'm ready to reshuffle my roster as necessary and I won't have the sentimental attachment like I did to last year's Hunter-Mauer-Cuddyer-Neshek team the computer drafted for me. Still, I'm putting my eggs in those same baskets.
I'm also jittery about the seasons Phil Hughes and Francisco Liriano, my sole Twins player, will have. If Hughes (the player the Twins could've had in a Santana-to-the-Yankees deal) has a breakout season and Liriano goes into the tank, I will probably cry myself to sleep. Add on that I'm gambling on my hated rival's top pitcher in both leagues and this could the fantasy season that pushes me into literal insanity. If it does, please take me to the new ballpark when it opens.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Everyday I'm Hustlin'
The end of the year is coming and that means my job is heating up again. Between the months of January, February and March, the first quarter is by far the worst time of my entire year. I have to file some form of report be it annual, semi-annual or quarterly in an veto-overriding majority of the states between the first of the year and Tax Day as well as completing the rest of my work.
The good news is a lot of the licensing stuff is going to come off my plate. After it was originally plopped onto my plate unexpectedly back at the beginning of the month, I compiled a list of what I needed to do to do my additional duties in addition to my prior job. I presented it to my boss showing him the sheer number of things I need to do was overwhelming. Just as importantly, the likelihood I'd not be able to complete something in time really scared the piss out of me and thus him.
So help is on the way. They aren't going to employ someone new as there really may be only a little more than a half job to each of my positions. Instead we'll be farming most of the actual processing out to another company who will do it for us. I'll still be the person in charge of coordinating and collecting the material. Thus my job isn't in jeopardy. However it does mean I still need to learn everything useful to know about licensing.
I also have to make sure we're buttoning down the surplus lines stuff properly too. We've been pretty far behind since I got there and we'll only really catch up because I'll kill myself to get it done for the annuals. The last thing I want is to have something from 2006 trip me up in 2008.
All of this for a company I haven't even been employed by for a whole year yet. I enjoy the challenge and I prefer being a busy body to being bored out of my mind. It's a good job for me because I lose motivation if something is too easy and mindless. However there are sometimes I think about whether those above me really understand the work involved. Maybe a wunderkind of some sort could do my job much better and more efficiently. If you could get someone like that to take my job that is. Until they can, they're stuck with me.
(Happy Halloween Everybody!!!)
The good news is a lot of the licensing stuff is going to come off my plate. After it was originally plopped onto my plate unexpectedly back at the beginning of the month, I compiled a list of what I needed to do to do my additional duties in addition to my prior job. I presented it to my boss showing him the sheer number of things I need to do was overwhelming. Just as importantly, the likelihood I'd not be able to complete something in time really scared the piss out of me and thus him.
So help is on the way. They aren't going to employ someone new as there really may be only a little more than a half job to each of my positions. Instead we'll be farming most of the actual processing out to another company who will do it for us. I'll still be the person in charge of coordinating and collecting the material. Thus my job isn't in jeopardy. However it does mean I still need to learn everything useful to know about licensing.
I also have to make sure we're buttoning down the surplus lines stuff properly too. We've been pretty far behind since I got there and we'll only really catch up because I'll kill myself to get it done for the annuals. The last thing I want is to have something from 2006 trip me up in 2008.
All of this for a company I haven't even been employed by for a whole year yet. I enjoy the challenge and I prefer being a busy body to being bored out of my mind. It's a good job for me because I lose motivation if something is too easy and mindless. However there are sometimes I think about whether those above me really understand the work involved. Maybe a wunderkind of some sort could do my job much better and more efficiently. If you could get someone like that to take my job that is. Until they can, they're stuck with me.
(Happy Halloween Everybody!!!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)