Yes, it is almost finally here! Have you ever lamented the premature demise of your favorite boyband? Well who hasn't?! Over the last decade or so we have been treated to a seemingly endless list of extraordinarily talented young men who formed musical acts known as boybands. Now sure, it was pretty clear that none of them were playing actual instruments, but these were boybands and no one ever said that boybands had to play instruments. Despite their across the board popularity, however, the boybands started to die out, leaving the genre almost extinct as of the present day. Never fear, though, help is on the way!
Have you ever wondered what would happen if Jordan Knight, Nick Carter, Justin Timberlake, and Nick Lachey, respectively from New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys, *NSYNC, and 98 Degrees, formed a mega-boyband? Yes? No? Well wonder no longer because although Jordan Knight, Nick Carter, Justin Timberlake, and Nick Lachey apparently were not available (yes, it appears that even Nick Carter was busy with something else), you still get Bryan Abrams of Color Me Badd, Rich Cronin of LFO**, Chris Kirkpatrick of *NSYNC, and Jeff Timmons of 98 Degrees! Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Man Band!!!! Err, Mission Man Band!
Scheduled to premiere on August 6 on The VH1, Mission Man Band will bring together those aforementioned megastars from our favorite boybands, only get this, they are not boys anymore. They are men, and thus we have a man band. Do you follow the logic? It's genius! This is the sort of ingenious idea that only the likes of Lou Pearlman could envision. However, I'm so excited about this that I cannot focus enough to read about what to expect from this show, and so I'll just predict what I think we can expect. First of all, the senior member of the group, Bryan Abrams, can be counted on to bring style and video choreography advice as displayed in his Color Me Badd days. And I can think of no one better than Rich Cronin to write the lyrics for every song that Man Band develops. We all know that he has displayed unparalleled lyrical talent in the past. And as for Chris Kirkpatrick and Jeff Timmons... Well, I'll be honest, I never would have possibly remembered their names (or Abrams and Cronin either for that matter) if not for this show, and I certainly can't tell you what they look like, but I can assure you that they will bring all the talent and star power to the table that one might expect out of former boyband members that you can't possibly name or identify.
So let's get set for Man Band! Man Band! Yeah!!!!!
**In the interest of full disclosure, my sister did once claim to have attended an LFO concert. However, this was during the height of their "popularity," and so there is no telling if she would actually admit to this currently if questioned/interrogated.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Spears-Federline Rankings - July 17, 2007
There are very few people who have not heard of Kevin Federline and Britney Spears. As to whether this fact is a good thing or a bad thing is up to one's own interpretation. (It's a bad thing.) But with all that has been going on in the lives of these two very talented individuals, I thought that it would be worthwhile to periodically provide updates of the current rankings of the two. So, what follows are the current rankings between the two, with short explanations given for each. First place votes appear in parentheses.
Rankings for July 17, 2007
1. Britney Spears (1) - After a hard, months long charge, Britney Spears for the first time ever takes over the number one position in the Spears-Federline Rankings. She joins the likes of Kevin Federline and Lindsay Lohan who have held the top spot. Ms. Spears moves to the top for a number of reasons, including the thoughtful poem that she wrote for her mother. While true, this poem was written about two months after Mother's Day, it is still the thought that counts. Besides, Ms. Spears was likely occupied prior to this time with jail or rehab or something and just could not find the time. The Committee salutes Ms. Spears for thinking about her mother. Would this act of love have been enough to overtake the consistent Federline on its own? Who knows, but the Committee did not have to worry about such a tough decision once it was revealed that Britney Spears is big on child safety and is an animal lover. Okay sure, the no fun people at the Humane Society want to throw hissy fits because Ms. Spears acquired the $3000 pure bred puppy from some sort of high tech puppy manufacturing power plant, but come on here! If rich people aren't going to be allowed to buy $3000 puppies, then how are these puppies factories going to make enough money so that they can continue to produce $3000 puppies so that the human employees of these factories are able to put food on the table and buy Nintendo Wii's for each of their children? Come on, think Humane Society. You are not sounding very humane...
2. Kevin Federline - The Committee finally decided that Kevin Federline could no longer get a free ride to the top of the rankings. Or better yet, the Committee was not imaginative enough on the occasion of these rankings to make up what Federline might have been doing that just was not being reported by the media. While it does appear that Federline gets along much better with Ms. Spears's mother than does Ms. Spears, the Committee is certain that this sort of thing happens all of the time. No bonus points for you here Mr. Federline. Now since Mr. Federline is certainly a competitor, what sort of things might he do to regain the coveted number one spot? Starting rumors that he has impregnated Shar Jackson or some other pseudo-celebrity wouldn't hurt. And though the Committee likes to remain completely impartial in this race for number one, it will on this occasion make the suggestion that saving injured thoroughbred horses from incessant and overreactive attention (see Barbaro) is always a plus because $3000 puppies deserve the best selection of horse meats so that washed up pop stars can continue to buy them so that more $3000 puppies can continue to be churned out in $3000 a puppy puppy factories so that employees at the factories can continue to have enough means to put food on the plates of their families and put Playstation 3's in the hands of their children.
Also receiving votes: Lindsay Lohan (recently eliminated both reasons for not being able to drink: being in rehab and being under twenty-one years of age), Paris Hilton (avid reader of the Bible and excellent display of civic responsibility: voting for the President of the US in 2006)
Can Kevin Federline return to the top?
UPDATE - July 18, 2007, 6:30 am PDT - It seems one of the Committee members inadvertantly allowed an assistant to cast the vote on his behalf. The actual corrected rankings are as follows:
1. Kevin Federline (1)
2. Britney Spears
Rankings for July 17, 2007
1. Britney Spears (1) - After a hard, months long charge, Britney Spears for the first time ever takes over the number one position in the Spears-Federline Rankings. She joins the likes of Kevin Federline and Lindsay Lohan who have held the top spot. Ms. Spears moves to the top for a number of reasons, including the thoughtful poem that she wrote for her mother. While true, this poem was written about two months after Mother's Day, it is still the thought that counts. Besides, Ms. Spears was likely occupied prior to this time with jail or rehab or something and just could not find the time. The Committee salutes Ms. Spears for thinking about her mother. Would this act of love have been enough to overtake the consistent Federline on its own? Who knows, but the Committee did not have to worry about such a tough decision once it was revealed that Britney Spears is big on child safety and is an animal lover. Okay sure, the no fun people at the Humane Society want to throw hissy fits because Ms. Spears acquired the $3000 pure bred puppy from some sort of high tech puppy manufacturing power plant, but come on here! If rich people aren't going to be allowed to buy $3000 puppies, then how are these puppies factories going to make enough money so that they can continue to produce $3000 puppies so that the human employees of these factories are able to put food on the table and buy Nintendo Wii's for each of their children? Come on, think Humane Society. You are not sounding very humane...
2. Kevin Federline - The Committee finally decided that Kevin Federline could no longer get a free ride to the top of the rankings. Or better yet, the Committee was not imaginative enough on the occasion of these rankings to make up what Federline might have been doing that just was not being reported by the media. While it does appear that Federline gets along much better with Ms. Spears's mother than does Ms. Spears, the Committee is certain that this sort of thing happens all of the time. No bonus points for you here Mr. Federline. Now since Mr. Federline is certainly a competitor, what sort of things might he do to regain the coveted number one spot? Starting rumors that he has impregnated Shar Jackson or some other pseudo-celebrity wouldn't hurt. And though the Committee likes to remain completely impartial in this race for number one, it will on this occasion make the suggestion that saving injured thoroughbred horses from incessant and overreactive attention (see Barbaro) is always a plus because $3000 puppies deserve the best selection of horse meats so that washed up pop stars can continue to buy them so that more $3000 puppies can continue to be churned out in $3000 a puppy puppy factories so that employees at the factories can continue to have enough means to put food on the plates of their families and put Playstation 3's in the hands of their children.
Also receiving votes: Lindsay Lohan (recently eliminated both reasons for not being able to drink: being in rehab and being under twenty-one years of age), Paris Hilton (avid reader of the Bible and excellent display of civic responsibility: voting for the President of the US in 2006)
Can Kevin Federline return to the top?
UPDATE - July 18, 2007, 6:30 am PDT - It seems one of the Committee members inadvertantly allowed an assistant to cast the vote on his behalf. The actual corrected rankings are as follows:
1. Kevin Federline (1)
2. Britney Spears
The Diary of the Adventures of Superman as a Boy
Superman is without a doubt the greatest superhero ever created. How do we know this? Well, Superman is the most powerful superhero and that naturally means that he must be the greatest. Let’s see, Superman can fly, he has super breath, x-ray vision, heat vision, virtual invulnerability, super speed, and so on and so forth. But those are only his most commonly used abilities. Did you know that Superman is capable of time travel? It’s true! He did it in Superman: the Movie, and in the course also violated many laws of physics. Superman is also capable of creating illusions of himself (he did it in Superman II) and telekinesis (okay maybe he didn’t do this himself in Superman II, but one of the other Kryptonians did so and this must mean that Superman can do it). And then of course one can make the claim that he is capable of actually replicating himself (did it in Superman III), but this may have actually just been a war within his own head without Clark Kent and the evil Superman actually fighting. But I have not mentioned Superman’s greatest power – one that is always overlooked. His greatest power is his ability to wear red briefs over full body covering blue tights. This ability no other superhero has been able to duplicate.
Whew! That was a mouthful. Superman often wonders what life would have been like if he had not been such a boy scout, but rather, was “bad to the bone.” Luckily enough, I have discovered Superman’s very own diary about these subjects, and now I present to you an excerpt from the Diary of the Adventures of Superman as a Boy if He Could be a Boy Again…
07-17-xxxx - I've been feeling depressed lately. Yes, that's right Superman does get depressed sometimes. It's hard going through life knowing that you are the best and not being able to show everyone else how much you enjoy knowing you are the best. You know what I'm talking about, right? Ha! Of course you don't know what I'm talking about since you are not Superman and you are not the best. Wait a minute. Who am I talking to here? Since this is Superman's diary, anyone caught reading it would be dead. (And resistance would be futile since Superman has no weaknesses.) That is, anyone who isn't a hot chick who is caught reading this would be dead. I have other ways of dealing with hot chicks caught reading this diary, namely, making out with them to cause them to forget. But I am depressed and I need to find some sort of remedy. Let me see, how did I deal with this sort of thing in the past? I know how to find out. Let me get my trusty blue tights and red briefs out and do flying back into the past to find out. I'll take the diary along with me. I'll put it in my briefs since it will be protected from the heat there...
Oh wait, I see myself over there looking a little depressed. Let's see, I can vaguely remember this happening. I had just been turned down on a date to the school dance by this really hot chick. Instead, she went with some meathead. If anyone should have gone to the dance with this chick and stood on the opposite side of the gym with the guys while she stood on the opposite side of the gym with the other girls, it should have been me. Okay, I have to go talk some sense into me.
Wow, that was close it's a good thing that I put on that disguise before going over there. But it was a really close call when I asked me what my name and how I knew that I had powers. Luckily, I was able to think quickly and come up with 'El-Kal' for a name and I seemed to be satisfied enough with this. So I told myself I really should start using my powers to sabotage this meathead so that I could get the hot chicks. I mean, what good are powers if you aren't using them to pick up chicks? Come to think of it, I vaguely remember my depression ending after I ran into some mysterious stranger so many years ago...
Oh well, I've done my good here on this day. I probably should head back to the present.
Now where did I put those red briefs...
Whew! That was a mouthful. Superman often wonders what life would have been like if he had not been such a boy scout, but rather, was “bad to the bone.” Luckily enough, I have discovered Superman’s very own diary about these subjects, and now I present to you an excerpt from the Diary of the Adventures of Superman as a Boy if He Could be a Boy Again…
07-17-xxxx - I've been feeling depressed lately. Yes, that's right Superman does get depressed sometimes. It's hard going through life knowing that you are the best and not being able to show everyone else how much you enjoy knowing you are the best. You know what I'm talking about, right? Ha! Of course you don't know what I'm talking about since you are not Superman and you are not the best. Wait a minute. Who am I talking to here? Since this is Superman's diary, anyone caught reading it would be dead. (And resistance would be futile since Superman has no weaknesses.) That is, anyone who isn't a hot chick who is caught reading this would be dead. I have other ways of dealing with hot chicks caught reading this diary, namely, making out with them to cause them to forget. But I am depressed and I need to find some sort of remedy. Let me see, how did I deal with this sort of thing in the past? I know how to find out. Let me get my trusty blue tights and red briefs out and do flying back into the past to find out. I'll take the diary along with me. I'll put it in my briefs since it will be protected from the heat there...
Oh wait, I see myself over there looking a little depressed. Let's see, I can vaguely remember this happening. I had just been turned down on a date to the school dance by this really hot chick. Instead, she went with some meathead. If anyone should have gone to the dance with this chick and stood on the opposite side of the gym with the guys while she stood on the opposite side of the gym with the other girls, it should have been me. Okay, I have to go talk some sense into me.
Wow, that was close it's a good thing that I put on that disguise before going over there. But it was a really close call when I asked me what my name and how I knew that I had powers. Luckily, I was able to think quickly and come up with 'El-Kal' for a name and I seemed to be satisfied enough with this. So I told myself I really should start using my powers to sabotage this meathead so that I could get the hot chicks. I mean, what good are powers if you aren't using them to pick up chicks? Come to think of it, I vaguely remember my depression ending after I ran into some mysterious stranger so many years ago...
Oh well, I've done my good here on this day. I probably should head back to the present.
Now where did I put those red briefs...
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Fifty-Four Miles Per Hour
Everyone, I've done it! I have made the greatest discovery of my life to date, and perhaps ever. This is the sort of discovery that will place my name in text books for children to read about for generations to come. Brace yourselves... Last night I discovered that the speed at which one must be traveling by automobile is in the range of 53-55 mph to ensure that a roach will not be able to maintain contact with your side window!
This discovery was a long time in the making. I first envisioned the idea for determining this years ago when I saw a roach inside my apartment. I quickly grabbed my can of Raid, somersaulted into position, and blasted away at the roach with my "kills bugs dead" can. But as I jumped to my feet and celebrated as if I were a gymnast who had just "stuck" the landing, I noticed something. That roach did not die right away, but was stumbling around in a fashion not unlike the one in which I see countless bar patrons at closing time. The first thought that immediately came to mind was at what speed must one travel to cause a roach to lose contact with your side window?
It was going to be a difficult discovery to make. First of all, roaches are disgusting. I generally do not get anywhere close to the repulsive creatures, and hence the can of Raid. Even after the filthy cretins are dead, I'll generally wait until my mom comes back to town and allow her to deal with them. However, yesterday evening fortune smiled upon me as the perfect circumstance arose. I was at the grocery store doing a little shopping, and upon exiting the store I placed my items in the back area of my car. Everything was fine as I went and opened the driver's door and got inside. It wasn't until I had closed the door that I realized that this filthy thing was on my window. Ordinarily I probably would have just taken the local streets back home, but I was afraid that 40-45 mph just wasn't going to be good enough. So, I decided that I had to take a minor detour to the highway. And so I got on the highway entrance ramp and pushed the pace. The entire time that this was going on I glanced over at my enemy. It did a good job of holding on for a while, but finally I saw it struggling. I have estimated that somewhere between 53 mph and 55 mph was the point where it could hold on no longer. It was a worthy opponent as at the point where it fell off I was getting very close to my exit. However, on that night I would have been more than willing to bypass my exit and push the pace to 75-80 mph to get that thing off. I just didn't want to have to sleep in my car that night.
So where does this discovery that I made rank with the all time great discoveries and the all time great records? Well, I would say that it deserves about as much or slightly more esteem as the recently set record of eating sixty-six hot dogs and buns in twelve minutes. These are both incredible feats of which to be proud.
This discovery was a long time in the making. I first envisioned the idea for determining this years ago when I saw a roach inside my apartment. I quickly grabbed my can of Raid, somersaulted into position, and blasted away at the roach with my "kills bugs dead" can. But as I jumped to my feet and celebrated as if I were a gymnast who had just "stuck" the landing, I noticed something. That roach did not die right away, but was stumbling around in a fashion not unlike the one in which I see countless bar patrons at closing time. The first thought that immediately came to mind was at what speed must one travel to cause a roach to lose contact with your side window?
It was going to be a difficult discovery to make. First of all, roaches are disgusting. I generally do not get anywhere close to the repulsive creatures, and hence the can of Raid. Even after the filthy cretins are dead, I'll generally wait until my mom comes back to town and allow her to deal with them. However, yesterday evening fortune smiled upon me as the perfect circumstance arose. I was at the grocery store doing a little shopping, and upon exiting the store I placed my items in the back area of my car. Everything was fine as I went and opened the driver's door and got inside. It wasn't until I had closed the door that I realized that this filthy thing was on my window. Ordinarily I probably would have just taken the local streets back home, but I was afraid that 40-45 mph just wasn't going to be good enough. So, I decided that I had to take a minor detour to the highway. And so I got on the highway entrance ramp and pushed the pace. The entire time that this was going on I glanced over at my enemy. It did a good job of holding on for a while, but finally I saw it struggling. I have estimated that somewhere between 53 mph and 55 mph was the point where it could hold on no longer. It was a worthy opponent as at the point where it fell off I was getting very close to my exit. However, on that night I would have been more than willing to bypass my exit and push the pace to 75-80 mph to get that thing off. I just didn't want to have to sleep in my car that night.
So where does this discovery that I made rank with the all time great discoveries and the all time great records? Well, I would say that it deserves about as much or slightly more esteem as the recently set record of eating sixty-six hot dogs and buns in twelve minutes. These are both incredible feats of which to be proud.
Wimbledon Wrap-up
So Wimbledon has finally concluded and so I thought that it would be good to share some post tournament thoughts. Though I will focus on the men's tournament. I will say a few brief words about the women's tournament. Venus Williams played outstandingly of course to win it all. However, the narrative that many of the commentators (the "experts") were creating became quite tiresome. While true, Williams was only seeded 23 in the tournament, but it became rather annoying when the commentators talked about her being favored to win particular matches against higher seeds and then acted as if it were among the greatest accomplishments ever when she went on to beat those higher seeds. I mean seriously, you just told us that we should expect Venus Williams to win the match, and so why should we act as if the result was a surprise? Going into the tournament Williams was already a three-time champion at the event. Commentators have frequently said that we should ignore seeds when it comes to the Williams sisters and they are healthy. Venus Williams seemed to be plenty healthy for this tournament so there did not seem to be any need to be over dramatic (and really is there ever a need to be over dramatic about something?) about her having won the title.
And now on to the men's tournament. I find it quite amazing how accurate my prediction was leading up to the men's final. As I stated then, there were very few people that believed Nadal would make the final again against Federer, and obviously even fewer who actually gave Nadal a chance to win. True enough, Federer was victorious. He showed a great will in gutting out the victory: 7-6 (7), 4-6, 7-6 (3), 2-6, 6-2. However, looking at the score of the match alone (without having watched it) should demonstrate that Federer was far from dominant against Nadal as many of these hack experts would have had you believe leading up to the tournament. I think that the most infuriating thing to me entering this tournament was how many of these hacks said that Andy Roddick was the guy most likely to beat Federer. Oh, you mean Andy Roddick is more likely to beat Federer? The same Andy Roddick who is 1-13 lifetime against Federer? And he's more likely to beat Federer and not Rafael Nadal who is 8-4 (before Wimbledon) lifetime against Federer? Oh, but Andy Roddick has that huge serve they said. Well, they may have had a point if they could have guaranteed that Roddick would serve an ace on every single serve. If that were the case, clearly Federer would never win a point on Roddick's serve and thus Roddick could just wait until the tie breaker of each set for Federer to make a mistake serving. This is sheer lunacy and indicates to me a clear bias. In America, at the very least, these commentators have long desired to have an American challenge for the top, to challenge Federer and so they create these inplausible scenarios in their minds irrespective of observable facts. This sort of craziness was to me no different than Darren Cahill suggesting that Lleyton Hewitt had a chance of beating Rafael Nadal at the French Open.
These sorts of narratives that the commentators are creating are getting old. Now to be clear, I'm perfectly fine if they like Federer as a player better. I have no problem if they root for Federer, but please don't allow this to cloud your analysis of what is happening. I will give some of these people credit. Some of them did finally say what I had said prior to Wimbledon; Nadal is closer to defeating Federer on the grass at Wimbledon than Federer is to beating Nadal on the clay at Roland Garros. Up until now, the idiotic conventional wisdom out of these people was that the surface of Wimbledon (grass) was way too fast for Nadal to have a chance against the great Federer. But now that Nadal has shown an ability to hold his own against Federer on grass, now the story goes oh, Wimbledon is no longer the fastest of the surfaces, now it's the US Open. Nadal won't have a prayer of reaching the final or defeating Federer on the hardcourts of the US Open. These idiots again conveniently neglect the fact that lifetime on hardcourts Nadal and Federer are 2-2.
I still believe that all of these analysts see Nadal as some sort of a clay court freak. They don't want to believe that he could possibly be the best tennis player in the world. This would upset the narratives that they have created in their minds about Roger Federer. In truth, Federer may still be the best player in the world, but the gap between he and Nadal is much closer than they would like to admit, and hence Nadal does not get the respect from these "experts" that he deserves.
And now on to the men's tournament. I find it quite amazing how accurate my prediction was leading up to the men's final. As I stated then, there were very few people that believed Nadal would make the final again against Federer, and obviously even fewer who actually gave Nadal a chance to win. True enough, Federer was victorious. He showed a great will in gutting out the victory: 7-6 (7), 4-6, 7-6 (3), 2-6, 6-2. However, looking at the score of the match alone (without having watched it) should demonstrate that Federer was far from dominant against Nadal as many of these hack experts would have had you believe leading up to the tournament. I think that the most infuriating thing to me entering this tournament was how many of these hacks said that Andy Roddick was the guy most likely to beat Federer. Oh, you mean Andy Roddick is more likely to beat Federer? The same Andy Roddick who is 1-13 lifetime against Federer? And he's more likely to beat Federer and not Rafael Nadal who is 8-4 (before Wimbledon) lifetime against Federer? Oh, but Andy Roddick has that huge serve they said. Well, they may have had a point if they could have guaranteed that Roddick would serve an ace on every single serve. If that were the case, clearly Federer would never win a point on Roddick's serve and thus Roddick could just wait until the tie breaker of each set for Federer to make a mistake serving. This is sheer lunacy and indicates to me a clear bias. In America, at the very least, these commentators have long desired to have an American challenge for the top, to challenge Federer and so they create these inplausible scenarios in their minds irrespective of observable facts. This sort of craziness was to me no different than Darren Cahill suggesting that Lleyton Hewitt had a chance of beating Rafael Nadal at the French Open.
These sorts of narratives that the commentators are creating are getting old. Now to be clear, I'm perfectly fine if they like Federer as a player better. I have no problem if they root for Federer, but please don't allow this to cloud your analysis of what is happening. I will give some of these people credit. Some of them did finally say what I had said prior to Wimbledon; Nadal is closer to defeating Federer on the grass at Wimbledon than Federer is to beating Nadal on the clay at Roland Garros. Up until now, the idiotic conventional wisdom out of these people was that the surface of Wimbledon (grass) was way too fast for Nadal to have a chance against the great Federer. But now that Nadal has shown an ability to hold his own against Federer on grass, now the story goes oh, Wimbledon is no longer the fastest of the surfaces, now it's the US Open. Nadal won't have a prayer of reaching the final or defeating Federer on the hardcourts of the US Open. These idiots again conveniently neglect the fact that lifetime on hardcourts Nadal and Federer are 2-2.
I still believe that all of these analysts see Nadal as some sort of a clay court freak. They don't want to believe that he could possibly be the best tennis player in the world. This would upset the narratives that they have created in their minds about Roger Federer. In truth, Federer may still be the best player in the world, but the gap between he and Nadal is much closer than they would like to admit, and hence Nadal does not get the respect from these "experts" that he deserves.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Magua Chronicles: Magua Goes to the UN
Many people who are fans of classic American literature know Magua to be the major villain of James Fenimore Cooper's 19th Century novel The Last of the Mohicans. And for those of you (okay us) who have never read that novel, he is still known as a legendary villain because of the brilliant 1992 film version of Cooper's story. More than anything, Magua was a man of words, a master orator. Consider this famous quote by Magua from the film:
Magua: "When the Grey Hair is dead, Magua will eat his heart. Before he dies, Magua will put his children under the knife, so the Grey Hair will know his seed is wiped out forever."
Such manipulation of the spoken word! It makes one wonder how Magua would fare in other situations...
The scene: the United Nations General Assembly, October 12, 1960
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev has just given a speech in which he inexplicably yelled out what was translated to mean "we will bury you," while angrily banging his removed shoe on his desk. The next person to speak is Special Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations, Magua.
Special Ambassador Magua: "The Shoe Stamper is a fool to stamp his shoe in Magua's presence. Magua was unable to bring his tomahawk in and so the blade still shines. Magua will eat the heart of the Shoe Stamper. Before he dies, Magua will put all of the Shoe Stamper's blood brothers under the knife so that they will be as the buffalo on the plains of this great land. Magua will now return to his seat."
And history will show that the strong stance of Special Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations, Magua, and his exceptional oratory skills ultimately led to the downfall of Nikita Khrushchev.
Magua: "When the Grey Hair is dead, Magua will eat his heart. Before he dies, Magua will put his children under the knife, so the Grey Hair will know his seed is wiped out forever."
Such manipulation of the spoken word! It makes one wonder how Magua would fare in other situations...
The scene: the United Nations General Assembly, October 12, 1960
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev has just given a speech in which he inexplicably yelled out what was translated to mean "we will bury you," while angrily banging his removed shoe on his desk. The next person to speak is Special Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations, Magua.
Special Ambassador Magua: "The Shoe Stamper is a fool to stamp his shoe in Magua's presence. Magua was unable to bring his tomahawk in and so the blade still shines. Magua will eat the heart of the Shoe Stamper. Before he dies, Magua will put all of the Shoe Stamper's blood brothers under the knife so that they will be as the buffalo on the plains of this great land. Magua will now return to his seat."
And history will show that the strong stance of Special Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations, Magua, and his exceptional oratory skills ultimately led to the downfall of Nikita Khrushchev.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Why Even Bother to Seed?
I really wanted to wait until Wimbledon's conclusion to dive back into a tennis discussion, but I'm afraid that there is something that is bothering me way too much. And what is bothering me this time? Well, it is the insanely incompetent way in which Wimbledon handles the seeding of top players.
Wimbledon handles seeding in a different fashion than do the other major tournaments. The other majors (Australian Open, French Open, US Open) seed the players according to the players' world rankings. If a player is ranked seventh in the world, and the other six players in the world who are ranked ahead of this player are participating in the tournament, then this player would be seeded seventh in the other three major tournaments. To its credit, the Committee of Management will actually look at previous grass court performance and factor this in when determining player seeding. If a player is ranked eleventh in the world, but has shown great ability on grass in the past, he or she may be seeded seventh in the tournament. (This is actually true this year on the men's side as eleventh ranked Tomas Berdych is seeded seventh.) At the same time, if a player is ranked at a high level in the world but has struggled in the past on grass, he or she may receive a lower seed than their world ranking would suggest.
Okay, so far I have nothing wrong with this. The Committee is seemingly trying to come up with the best possible seeding for the tournament. This makes sense and one would think that this would lead to the best possible tournament. However, the next step that the Committee does demonstrates the rationality that one might expect out of a mental patient. The seeded players do not appear in the brackets where they "should" appear. Most people who are fans of the NCAA basketball tournament know that in each of the four regions (at the beginning of play) the matchups are as follows: 1vs16, 8vs9, 5vs12, 4vs13, 3vs14, 6vs11, 7vs10, and 2vs15. If form holds in the region, then the second round would be 1vs8, 5vs4, 3vs6, and 7vs2. Again if forms holds the next round would be 1vs4 and 3vs2. Finally the final game in the region would be 1vs2 if all goes as it "should." Now in tennis, there are 32 seeded players in each of the men's and women's draw. You can expand on the basketball example that I have just given by adding an additional round to the tennis case. In the round of 32, if all seeded players have successfully won their first two rounds, the matchups should appear as the following: 1vs32, 16vs17, 8vs25, 9vs24, 5vs28, 12vs21, 4vs29, 13vs20, 3vs30, 14vs19, 11vs22, 6vs27, 7vs26, 10vs23, 15vs18, and finally 2vs31. Essentially, in each quarter of the original draw, there should be eight seeded players and the sum total of their rankings should be 132. If everything holds, the number one seeded player should meet the fourth seed in the semifinals, while the number two seed should meet the number three in the other semifinal. However, this is not the case in Wimbledon, which is terribly troubling.
At this year's Wimbledon, on the men's side, the top four seeds (in this order) are Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Roddick, and Novak Djokovic. In Federer's quarter you have the following seeds: 1, 26, 21, 13, 9, 20, 27, 5 (for a total of 122). In Nadal's quarter the seeds are: 7, 29, 19, 11, 14, 18, 28, 2 (for a total of 128). In Roddick's quarter the seeds are: 3, 31, 17, 15, 12, 24, 25 (for a total of 127, but would be 135 if including the original 8 seed, Andy Murray, who pulled out with an injury). Finally, in Djokovic's quarter the seeds are: 6, 32, 23, 10, 16, 22, 30, 4 (for a total of 143). Now, these variations from the 132 total may not seem to be that far off, but particularly if you look at the difference between the Federer quarter and the Djokovic quarter, there should definitely be some concern. The eight seeded players in Federer's quarter are on average seeded more than 2.5 positions higher than those Djokovic quarter. This difference is not insignificant. Just looking at the seedings, it would indicate that the ease of making it to the semifinals among the top four seeds goes in this order: Djokovic-Roddick-Nadal-Federer. In how many other sports would you find it that the road to the championship is intentionally made harder for the top seed? Now if this was one of the other three majors, this sort of a draw could be forgiven since they are basing the seedings solely on world rankings. If the rankings did not change appreciably over the course of a few years, it might get boring seeing the same matchups over and over. However, Wimbledon is a different story. The Committee already seeds the players essentially wherever they want irrespective of actual world rankings. If you are not going to have "well-behaved" tournament seedings, what's the point of even seeding players? Why go through the trouble of taking into account past performance on grass if you are essentially just going to ignore all of these considerations you have just used? I mean the only convention that these crazy people seem to hold fast to is that the numbers one and two seeded players cannot meet until the final. Goodness these people are frustratingly foolish...
Wimbledon handles seeding in a different fashion than do the other major tournaments. The other majors (Australian Open, French Open, US Open) seed the players according to the players' world rankings. If a player is ranked seventh in the world, and the other six players in the world who are ranked ahead of this player are participating in the tournament, then this player would be seeded seventh in the other three major tournaments. To its credit, the Committee of Management will actually look at previous grass court performance and factor this in when determining player seeding. If a player is ranked eleventh in the world, but has shown great ability on grass in the past, he or she may be seeded seventh in the tournament. (This is actually true this year on the men's side as eleventh ranked Tomas Berdych is seeded seventh.) At the same time, if a player is ranked at a high level in the world but has struggled in the past on grass, he or she may receive a lower seed than their world ranking would suggest.
Okay, so far I have nothing wrong with this. The Committee is seemingly trying to come up with the best possible seeding for the tournament. This makes sense and one would think that this would lead to the best possible tournament. However, the next step that the Committee does demonstrates the rationality that one might expect out of a mental patient. The seeded players do not appear in the brackets where they "should" appear. Most people who are fans of the NCAA basketball tournament know that in each of the four regions (at the beginning of play) the matchups are as follows: 1vs16, 8vs9, 5vs12, 4vs13, 3vs14, 6vs11, 7vs10, and 2vs15. If form holds in the region, then the second round would be 1vs8, 5vs4, 3vs6, and 7vs2. Again if forms holds the next round would be 1vs4 and 3vs2. Finally the final game in the region would be 1vs2 if all goes as it "should." Now in tennis, there are 32 seeded players in each of the men's and women's draw. You can expand on the basketball example that I have just given by adding an additional round to the tennis case. In the round of 32, if all seeded players have successfully won their first two rounds, the matchups should appear as the following: 1vs32, 16vs17, 8vs25, 9vs24, 5vs28, 12vs21, 4vs29, 13vs20, 3vs30, 14vs19, 11vs22, 6vs27, 7vs26, 10vs23, 15vs18, and finally 2vs31. Essentially, in each quarter of the original draw, there should be eight seeded players and the sum total of their rankings should be 132. If everything holds, the number one seeded player should meet the fourth seed in the semifinals, while the number two seed should meet the number three in the other semifinal. However, this is not the case in Wimbledon, which is terribly troubling.
At this year's Wimbledon, on the men's side, the top four seeds (in this order) are Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Roddick, and Novak Djokovic. In Federer's quarter you have the following seeds: 1, 26, 21, 13, 9, 20, 27, 5 (for a total of 122). In Nadal's quarter the seeds are: 7, 29, 19, 11, 14, 18, 28, 2 (for a total of 128). In Roddick's quarter the seeds are: 3, 31, 17, 15, 12, 24, 25 (for a total of 127, but would be 135 if including the original 8 seed, Andy Murray, who pulled out with an injury). Finally, in Djokovic's quarter the seeds are: 6, 32, 23, 10, 16, 22, 30, 4 (for a total of 143). Now, these variations from the 132 total may not seem to be that far off, but particularly if you look at the difference between the Federer quarter and the Djokovic quarter, there should definitely be some concern. The eight seeded players in Federer's quarter are on average seeded more than 2.5 positions higher than those Djokovic quarter. This difference is not insignificant. Just looking at the seedings, it would indicate that the ease of making it to the semifinals among the top four seeds goes in this order: Djokovic-Roddick-Nadal-Federer. In how many other sports would you find it that the road to the championship is intentionally made harder for the top seed? Now if this was one of the other three majors, this sort of a draw could be forgiven since they are basing the seedings solely on world rankings. If the rankings did not change appreciably over the course of a few years, it might get boring seeing the same matchups over and over. However, Wimbledon is a different story. The Committee already seeds the players essentially wherever they want irrespective of actual world rankings. If you are not going to have "well-behaved" tournament seedings, what's the point of even seeding players? Why go through the trouble of taking into account past performance on grass if you are essentially just going to ignore all of these considerations you have just used? I mean the only convention that these crazy people seem to hold fast to is that the numbers one and two seeded players cannot meet until the final. Goodness these people are frustratingly foolish...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
On the Eve of Wimbledon, Some Thoughts on Tennis
In a few short days the 2007 edition of The Championships, Wimbledon, will get underway. Frankly, I'm excited about this, just as I am every year. Wimbledon seems to hold a much grander importance than any of the other Grand Slam tournaments. It is the oldest and certainly seems to be the most coveted of the major championships. I do not wish to write an extended piece on Wimbledon itself, or this year's tournament for that matter (I'll consider doing so at the conclusion if events during the fortnight warrant such an entry), but I will say that on the men's side I expect Roger Federer to win (yes, I know I'm going out on a limb on that one). At the same time, I do expect Rafael Nadal to get back to the final to face Federer just as he did last year. These two are easily the best two players in the world. But whereas very many of the so-called experts out there seem unwilling to admit, I believe that the gap between Federer and Nadal is considerably smaller than the gap between the two and everyone else.
Watching the French Open coverage was particularly infuriating this year. The fact that so many of the "experts" out there considered Roger Federer to be the favorite over Nadal was baffling. It was absolutely astounding to see how many of these people allowed their clear desire to see Federer win both a calendar Grand Slam and career Grand Slam, especially in view of his victory against Nadal in a relatively meaningless clay court match shortly before the start of the French Open, to so completely cloud their judgments as to render them nearly veritable fools. It was as if the moment Federer won at Hamburg by defeating Nadal all of these people collectively said (whether in their heads or out loud), "Like, oh my gosh!!! Roger Federer just totally beat Rafael Nadal on clay! Federer is so great! He's like totally going to win the French Open! I totally wonder if Nadal is even going to reach the final! Roger is the greatest ever!" Now, to be fair, I do believe that at this point Federer is the best player that I have ever seen. I think Federer now (whether he is truly in his prime at this point) would beat Pete Sampras in his prime more often than not on Sampras's best surface, grass. Additionally, Federer, barring injury, would never lose to Sampras on clay. That being said, these people still behaved as idiots before the French Open, and throughout the tournament up until the championship match. They seemed to forget that going into this year's French Open, if you excluded clay court matches, Nadal's record against Federer was a respectable 2-3. For those wondering, that is two victories for each on hard court and Federer with the lone victory on grass. However, once you included clay court matches into the record (again, prior to this year's French), Nadal's record would improve to 7-4. Okay, so this shows that Nadal has more than held his own in his career against Federer. But in addition to this, prior to Nadal's loss at Hamburg, he had won 81 consecutive matches on clay. That's longer than any other male player on any surface ever. And then you throw in the extra fact that Nadal had never lost a match at the French Open and you start to wonder what wonderfully potent hallucinogenic drug were these "experts" on at the time. But again, the start of Wimbledon is imminent. Last year Federer and Nadal became the first two male players in the open era to reach the French Open and Wimbledon finals in the same year. Each player won on his own stronger surface, with Federer winning seventeen games in defeat at the French, while Nadal won sixteen games in defeat at Wimbledon. If the two meet in the final, Federer will be the favorite, as he should be, but you will likely be able to count the number of "experts" on one hand (perhaps one finger?) who will actually favor Nadal to win. Nadal will not nearly get the same sort of respect that Federer got leading up to the French Open. Personally, I actually think that the gap between the two on clay is increasing, whereas I'm predicting that we'll see the gap between the two on grass decrease. This means, of course, that I believe that the overall gap between Federer and Nadal is decreasing...
And on to something that is even more troubling to me than what I have already mentioned... Have you ever noticed how elite tennis players will play doubles? And in this case, I do mean to include such players as the Bryan brothers as elite tennis players. I mean players like Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal or, on the women's side Justine Henin or Maria Sharapova. While it is true that the top players in the women's game seem to be less likely to play doubles (Henin and Sharapova, for instance, have yet to play doubles matches this year), the obvious question is why in blazes do the top men's players ever play doubles? It seems to me that Henin and Sharapova are smart of enough not to waste any time or energy playing doubles, so why don't Federer and Nadal follow suit? Now granted, the two play doubles far less frequently than they play singles, but I am of the opinion that the only time they should ever play doubles is if they have a kid brother who is struggling to make some money playing tennis so they play alongside to help the kid out. Maybe I'll include a cousin in there, but I draw the line at second cousins. Now as with every rule, this one has an exception. And the exception to this rule is for mixed doubles. I could understand if these players played mixed doubles because it might give them the opportunity to play with and against hot girls. In fact, I'm just going to amend what I just said. They should not even play doubles to help their kid brother have a little success. They should only play mixed doubles, and only if they can be certain that they are partnered with a hot chick. I will make one exception, and that would be Marat Safin. Safin is in the rare position where he could play alongside his sister, Dinara Safina, and just totally hit on the hot chick on the other team throughout the match. Safina is a good enough (currently ranked number thirteen) where she could carry the play for a while. And during that time Safin could hit on the chicks. Well, I've gone on for long enough, but the important message to take away is top dude tennis players should never play doubles, except for mixed doubles, and only with a hot partner.
Watching the French Open coverage was particularly infuriating this year. The fact that so many of the "experts" out there considered Roger Federer to be the favorite over Nadal was baffling. It was absolutely astounding to see how many of these people allowed their clear desire to see Federer win both a calendar Grand Slam and career Grand Slam, especially in view of his victory against Nadal in a relatively meaningless clay court match shortly before the start of the French Open, to so completely cloud their judgments as to render them nearly veritable fools. It was as if the moment Federer won at Hamburg by defeating Nadal all of these people collectively said (whether in their heads or out loud), "Like, oh my gosh!!! Roger Federer just totally beat Rafael Nadal on clay! Federer is so great! He's like totally going to win the French Open! I totally wonder if Nadal is even going to reach the final! Roger is the greatest ever!" Now, to be fair, I do believe that at this point Federer is the best player that I have ever seen. I think Federer now (whether he is truly in his prime at this point) would beat Pete Sampras in his prime more often than not on Sampras's best surface, grass. Additionally, Federer, barring injury, would never lose to Sampras on clay. That being said, these people still behaved as idiots before the French Open, and throughout the tournament up until the championship match. They seemed to forget that going into this year's French Open, if you excluded clay court matches, Nadal's record against Federer was a respectable 2-3. For those wondering, that is two victories for each on hard court and Federer with the lone victory on grass. However, once you included clay court matches into the record (again, prior to this year's French), Nadal's record would improve to 7-4. Okay, so this shows that Nadal has more than held his own in his career against Federer. But in addition to this, prior to Nadal's loss at Hamburg, he had won 81 consecutive matches on clay. That's longer than any other male player on any surface ever. And then you throw in the extra fact that Nadal had never lost a match at the French Open and you start to wonder what wonderfully potent hallucinogenic drug were these "experts" on at the time. But again, the start of Wimbledon is imminent. Last year Federer and Nadal became the first two male players in the open era to reach the French Open and Wimbledon finals in the same year. Each player won on his own stronger surface, with Federer winning seventeen games in defeat at the French, while Nadal won sixteen games in defeat at Wimbledon. If the two meet in the final, Federer will be the favorite, as he should be, but you will likely be able to count the number of "experts" on one hand (perhaps one finger?) who will actually favor Nadal to win. Nadal will not nearly get the same sort of respect that Federer got leading up to the French Open. Personally, I actually think that the gap between the two on clay is increasing, whereas I'm predicting that we'll see the gap between the two on grass decrease. This means, of course, that I believe that the overall gap between Federer and Nadal is decreasing...
And on to something that is even more troubling to me than what I have already mentioned... Have you ever noticed how elite tennis players will play doubles? And in this case, I do mean to include such players as the Bryan brothers as elite tennis players. I mean players like Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal or, on the women's side Justine Henin or Maria Sharapova. While it is true that the top players in the women's game seem to be less likely to play doubles (Henin and Sharapova, for instance, have yet to play doubles matches this year), the obvious question is why in blazes do the top men's players ever play doubles? It seems to me that Henin and Sharapova are smart of enough not to waste any time or energy playing doubles, so why don't Federer and Nadal follow suit? Now granted, the two play doubles far less frequently than they play singles, but I am of the opinion that the only time they should ever play doubles is if they have a kid brother who is struggling to make some money playing tennis so they play alongside to help the kid out. Maybe I'll include a cousin in there, but I draw the line at second cousins. Now as with every rule, this one has an exception. And the exception to this rule is for mixed doubles. I could understand if these players played mixed doubles because it might give them the opportunity to play with and against hot girls. In fact, I'm just going to amend what I just said. They should not even play doubles to help their kid brother have a little success. They should only play mixed doubles, and only if they can be certain that they are partnered with a hot chick. I will make one exception, and that would be Marat Safin. Safin is in the rare position where he could play alongside his sister, Dinara Safina, and just totally hit on the hot chick on the other team throughout the match. Safina is a good enough (currently ranked number thirteen) where she could carry the play for a while. And during that time Safin could hit on the chicks. Well, I've gone on for long enough, but the important message to take away is top dude tennis players should never play doubles, except for mixed doubles, and only with a hot partner.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Spears-Federline Rankings - June 19, 2007
There are very few people who have not heard of Kevin Federline and Britney Spears. As to whether this fact is a good thing or a bad thing is up to one's own interpretation. (It's a bad thing.) But with all that has been going on in the lives of these two very talented individuals, I thought that it would be worthwhile to periodically provide updates of the current rankings of the two. So, what follows are the current rankings between the two, with short explanations given for each. First place votes appear in parentheses.
Rankings for June 19, 2007
1. Kevin Federline (1) - After a one poll absence from the top, Kevin Federline once again resumes the top spot in the rankings. And it was not necessarily anything that Federline did that caused the committee to return him to the top of the rankings, rather, it was what he was rumored to have done. In case you missed it, it was rumored that Federline had once again impregnated Shar Jackson! Of course it probably is not true - Shar Jackson even denies it. However, the committee does not necessarily need accurate information on which to base its deliberations. Unsubstantiated rumors are certainly fine with us! But more importantly, the committee has convinced itself that this news is true for the sake of these rankings because of a larger impact that Kevin Federline's impregnation of Shar Jackson would have. Such a fact would finally do the inconceivable and bring together the proponents of Natural Selection and Intelligent Design. Both sides would have to agree that they were horribly wrong.
2. Britney Spears - Britney Spears fights back to the number two spot in the poll after her absence from the last poll. Britney did some inspiring work to once again force her way to near the top of the poll. By allowing herself to be seen in unflattering photos, Britney was saying to the world, "Hey sure, I may not be as hot or talented as you or I really think I am, but I still have photographers who are willing to take snapshots at my backside as if I was hot and talented. So there!" And to show that she's really on her way back up to the top, Britney has made a few changes in her life. Now sure, she has not decided to actually give up flashing the paparazzi while out on the town, but she has decided that when she flashes the paparazzi, from now on she's going to be wearing underwear! You go girl! Now these may appear to only be baby steps to everyone reading this, but these baby steps are helping Britney inch ever closer to the number one spot. However, she just could not compete with the bringing together of Natural Selection and Intelligent Design.
Good show Britney, keep fighting to the top!
Rankings for June 19, 2007
1. Kevin Federline (1) - After a one poll absence from the top, Kevin Federline once again resumes the top spot in the rankings. And it was not necessarily anything that Federline did that caused the committee to return him to the top of the rankings, rather, it was what he was rumored to have done. In case you missed it, it was rumored that Federline had once again impregnated Shar Jackson! Of course it probably is not true - Shar Jackson even denies it. However, the committee does not necessarily need accurate information on which to base its deliberations. Unsubstantiated rumors are certainly fine with us! But more importantly, the committee has convinced itself that this news is true for the sake of these rankings because of a larger impact that Kevin Federline's impregnation of Shar Jackson would have. Such a fact would finally do the inconceivable and bring together the proponents of Natural Selection and Intelligent Design. Both sides would have to agree that they were horribly wrong.
2. Britney Spears - Britney Spears fights back to the number two spot in the poll after her absence from the last poll. Britney did some inspiring work to once again force her way to near the top of the poll. By allowing herself to be seen in unflattering photos, Britney was saying to the world, "Hey sure, I may not be as hot or talented as you or I really think I am, but I still have photographers who are willing to take snapshots at my backside as if I was hot and talented. So there!" And to show that she's really on her way back up to the top, Britney has made a few changes in her life. Now sure, she has not decided to actually give up flashing the paparazzi while out on the town, but she has decided that when she flashes the paparazzi, from now on she's going to be wearing underwear! You go girl! Now these may appear to only be baby steps to everyone reading this, but these baby steps are helping Britney inch ever closer to the number one spot. However, she just could not compete with the bringing together of Natural Selection and Intelligent Design.
Good show Britney, keep fighting to the top!
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
A Thirty-Day Makeover
The date was May 6, 2007 and the location was The Bronx, New York City, New York State, United States of America. And in particular, the scene in the Bronx was Yankee Stadium, the House that Ruth Built. A momentous event occurred on this day, as the great Roger Clemens announced that he was returning to from like his fourteenth retirement to play once again with the New York Yankees. At the time, the Yankees were in the midst of a mediocre start. They were 13-15 at the moment Clemens made that announcement during the seventh inning stretch of that particular game. However, Clemens presence paid immediate dividends as the Yankees went on to victory that day. True, the Yankees were already ahead at the point when Clemens made the announcement 3-0, and the Mariners only had six more outs with which to work, but the bottom line is that the Yankees scored two more runs and they won the game 5-0. Red Sox look out!
And now we are thirty days removed from that monumental day - that day when the Yankees' very own knight in shining armor (along the lines of the soon to be knighted David Beckham) rode in to save the season. And what a turn around it has been! The Yankees have been an unstoppable juggernaut since then. They've steamrolled opponent after opponent. Roger Clemens has been virtually unhittable, shutting down every single American League lineup he has faced. This sort of surge by the great Yankees has certainly justified the unbelievable amout of television coverage that ESPN has dedicated to The Rocket's return. Print those playoff and World Series tickets right now!
Wow! Forgive me please. I momentarily slipped off into delusional, psychadelic, hyper-euphoric, crazy-person Yankee fan fantasy land. For a good example of what this sounds like, listen here. But if you have been watching the ESPN family of networks since Clemens's grand announcement you probably won't have had to listen to that link. ESPN's slavish devotion to all things Yankees since Clemens made that announcement has been downright sickening. It's like, "Oh my gosh! Roger Clemens is starting in a single A baseball game! We simply have to dedicate a channel to covering this, or maybe two channels!"
Since the conclusion of games on May 6, the Yankees are 10-16. They are currently tied for last place in their division. That Clemens addition has surely been a shot in the arm to boost this team! Clemens has started precisely zero major league games. But does that stop ESPN from broadcasting games featuring the crappy Yankees and other teams that are mediocre at best? Of course not! Just last night ESPN showed a game between the Yankees and Chicago White Sox. Going into the game, the White Sox were 25-27 and the Yankees were 24-30. The White Sox won the game of course. Now granted, perhaps ESPN might have been justified in showing the game if Roger Clemens started as was originally planned but Clemens had to pull out of the game with a "fatigued right groin." So wouldn't it have been wise because of Clemens's fatigued right groin for the people at ESPN to say, "Holy crap! Clemens is not starting because of a fatigued right groin! Maybe we should show another game rather than this one which features two crappy teams. We'll just plan to broadcast Clemens's actual first start after he recovers from his fatigued right groin."? I think that this would have been the way to go.
But hats off to the Yankees and their fans (and ESPN as well)! The Yankees are 12.5 games out of first place, but never fear, they have a forty-four year old pitcher who is currently injured with a fatigued right groin who is certain to lead them to glory!
And now we are thirty days removed from that monumental day - that day when the Yankees' very own knight in shining armor (along the lines of the soon to be knighted David Beckham) rode in to save the season. And what a turn around it has been! The Yankees have been an unstoppable juggernaut since then. They've steamrolled opponent after opponent. Roger Clemens has been virtually unhittable, shutting down every single American League lineup he has faced. This sort of surge by the great Yankees has certainly justified the unbelievable amout of television coverage that ESPN has dedicated to The Rocket's return. Print those playoff and World Series tickets right now!
Wow! Forgive me please. I momentarily slipped off into delusional, psychadelic, hyper-euphoric, crazy-person Yankee fan fantasy land. For a good example of what this sounds like, listen here. But if you have been watching the ESPN family of networks since Clemens's grand announcement you probably won't have had to listen to that link. ESPN's slavish devotion to all things Yankees since Clemens made that announcement has been downright sickening. It's like, "Oh my gosh! Roger Clemens is starting in a single A baseball game! We simply have to dedicate a channel to covering this, or maybe two channels!"
Since the conclusion of games on May 6, the Yankees are 10-16. They are currently tied for last place in their division. That Clemens addition has surely been a shot in the arm to boost this team! Clemens has started precisely zero major league games. But does that stop ESPN from broadcasting games featuring the crappy Yankees and other teams that are mediocre at best? Of course not! Just last night ESPN showed a game between the Yankees and Chicago White Sox. Going into the game, the White Sox were 25-27 and the Yankees were 24-30. The White Sox won the game of course. Now granted, perhaps ESPN might have been justified in showing the game if Roger Clemens started as was originally planned but Clemens had to pull out of the game with a "fatigued right groin." So wouldn't it have been wise because of Clemens's fatigued right groin for the people at ESPN to say, "Holy crap! Clemens is not starting because of a fatigued right groin! Maybe we should show another game rather than this one which features two crappy teams. We'll just plan to broadcast Clemens's actual first start after he recovers from his fatigued right groin."? I think that this would have been the way to go.
But hats off to the Yankees and their fans (and ESPN as well)! The Yankees are 12.5 games out of first place, but never fear, they have a forty-four year old pitcher who is currently injured with a fatigued right groin who is certain to lead them to glory!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
