It's that time of year again. That's right, the voting for the baseball Hall of Fame is going on now and the results will be released in early January. I'm a big baseball fan and consider the Hall of Fame to be one of the most interesting aspects of the game. First, a little background:
The Hall of Fame is located in Cooperstown, New York, which is where the sport is said to have been invented in 1839 by future Civil War hero Abner Doubleday. (In actuality, Doubleday was nowhere near Cooperstown at the time, and baseball basically evolved from other ball-and-bat games. But the powers-that-be wanted an "All-American" origin story, and they weren't about to let facts get in the way.) Anyway, the Hall of Fame was established and dedicated in that quiet town in 1939. I had the opportunity to visit there one time about 15 years ago and had an amazing time. In addition to plaques for all the honorees, there are seemingly endless displays of rare and interesting artifacts from the game's history. Anyone who is a baseball fan owes it to themselves to make the trip at least once.
Every year, elections are held to choose new members of the Hall of Fame. Voting is done by professional sportswriters who have covered baseball for at least ten years. Players must be retired for at least five years to be eligible. Voters can select up to ten players out of the list of about forty candidates. Those who get a "Yes" vote on 75 percent of the ballots are then inducted into the Hall of Fame at a ceremony in July. Those who get listed on between 5 and 75 percent of the ballot will stay on the ballot next year (up to a maximum of fifteen years of eligibility). Those who fall below five percent are permanently dropped from the ballot, though there is a Veterans Committee to consider players who did not get elected the conventional way.
This year's ballot is considered to be perhaps the most controversial ever. Several of the greatest players on the ballot have been linked to steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). The two top candidates, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, have on-field accomplishments and statistics that place them among the all-time legends of the sport. Absent these accusations, both would easily be inducted. There are also several other first-time candidates who deserve recognition. Overall, this year should be a grand celebration of some truly great baseball talent.
However, the issue of steroids has reared its ugly head. Most of the current candidates played during the so-called "steroid era" of the 1990s. At that time, home run records fell and accusations started to be whispered concerning almost anyone who developed a power swing. The problem was, there was little or no drug testing in the sport at that time. A few players have come forward in subsequent years to either admit their own use or point the finger at former teammates.
In actuality, it is pretty much impossible to know who did what and when in regards to cheating. This is not stopping certain voters from declaring themselves to be judge and jury on the issue, refusing to vote for certain candidates on the basis that they "just know" who is guilty. I think that this is grossly unfair to the players and to the institution of the Hall of Fame. Please note: I am not condoning cheating, or trying to sweep the issue under the rug with an "everybody does it" attitude, but instead dealing with the reality of limited knowledge and trying not to turn the entire process into a steroid witch hunt. I feel that it is important for the Hall of Fame to recognize the best players in baseball history. To exclude those who dominated the sport for extended periods of time based on rumor and suspicion would be doing the sport a grave injustice.
If I had a vote, I would try as much as possible to base my decisions on actual on-field issues. Since voters can vote for a maximum of ten players, these would be my choices, in order:
1. Barry Bonds (all-time home run king)
2. Roger Clemens (perhaps the greatest pitcher of the past 50 years)
3. Craig Biggio (3,000 hits and played key defensive positions)
4. Mike Piazza (the greatest hitting catchers of all time)
5. Tim Raines (second greatest base stealer ever)
6. Alan Trammell (helped revolutionize the shortstop position, paving way for Ripken, Jeter, etc)
7. Sammy Sosa (great home run hitter whose only connection to steroids seems to be his daring to not speak perfect English in front of a Congressional committee)
8. Jeff Bagwell (great hitter whose career was shortened by injuries)
9. Curt Schilling (helped pitch two teams to world championships)
10. Edgar Martinez (feared hitter who played mostly as a designated hitter)
In addition, there are a few more players on the ballot who I think deserve induction, but I don't have room for them on the ballot:
Rafael Palmeiro (500 home runs and 3,000 hits, but did test positive for PEDs)
Mark McGwire (lots of home runs, but other parts of the game were weak)
Fred McGriff (good power and defense)
I wish there was room on the ballot to vote for two long-time Yankees: Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams. Unfortunately, each is likely to appear on fewer than five percent of the ballots, and therefore be removed from future consideration.
Finally, here is my prediction for what the actual results will be:
Craig Biggio and Jack Morris will each get about 80 percent of the vote and be inducted. Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza will each be between 40 and 50 percent and have to wait until next year. Other deserving candidates won't come close.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Christmas Music
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the importance of not starting the Christmas celebrations too early. My main complaint was that some radio stations switched over to 24-hour Christmas music in mid-November.
Now that it's December, I am able to focus on the upcoming celebration. I love almost everything about Christmas, including the music. Lately I have been listening to a lot of Christmas music. So I wanted to share a few thoughts on the topic:
Variety
The problem with Christmas music is that there is both too many songs, and too few songs. What I mean by that is that many musicians over the years have released albums of holiday music. I have no doubt that these are easy money-makers for the artists and the record labels. Usually, the album will have one original Christmas-related song and the rest is covers of holiday classics.
As a result, there are dozens of versions of certain songs. When you listen to the Christmas music stations for an extended period of time, you will hear multiple versions of such songs as "Jingle Bells" and "Santa Claus is Coming to Town". (There is even a cover version of Wham's "Last Christmas"). In general, this can be interesting as each singer puts their own unique spin on the song. However, there are certain songs which I feel have already been performed perfectly, and can not be improved upon. The following is a list of examples of what I consider to be "definitive versions" of certain classics:
"The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on An Open Fire)" - Nat King Cole
"White Christmas" - Bing Crosby
"It's The Most Wonderful Time of the Year" - Andy Williams
"A Holly Jolly Christmas" - Burl Ives
"Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" - Brenda Lee
"Blue Christmas" - Elvis Presley
"I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" - The Jackson 5 (though the Mellencamp version is good)
"The Little Drummer Boy" - Bob Seger
"Joy To The World" - Three Dog Night (just kidding!)
I feel that there is no need for new versions of the above songs.
Overplayed Songs
Two songs that get a lot of air time are by former Beatles. These are "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" by John Lennon and "Wonderful Christmas time" by Paul McCartney. It seems that radio stations give these mediocre songs more attention due to their connection to the Beatles. I would be happy to discard these two permanently.
Strange Lyrics
Sometimes, a line from a famous song will strike me as strange. A later verse of "Here Comes Santa Claus" says "let's give thanks to the Lord above cause Santa Claus comes tonight". In light of the so-called War on Christmas and some Christians feeling that Santa gets in the way of celebrating the birth of Christ, I find this lyric to be an odd combination.
Back in the 1980s, a large group of artists gathered under the name Band Aid to record "Do They Know It's Christmas". The proceeds from this song have gone to famine relief in Africa. There is a definite tone of guilt-inducement and sarcasm in this song, which chides westerners for being too comfortable while others are suffering. However, it is easy to miss that message until Bono belts out the line "Well tonight thank God it's them instead of you!". It certainly comes as a surprise and sounds out of place on a Christmas song, but hopefully gets the point across.
A Disturbing Song
Finally, I want to mention a song that gets a lot of play, but probably for the wrong reasons. It is called "Baby It's Cold Outside". This song is a duet with a man and a woman singing alternating lines.
The first problem is that this song is not a Christmas song. The only way slight connection is that it is based on cold weather, and Christmas is in December. For that reason alone, it should not be considered a Christmas song. But the much bigger problem is the theme of the song. After enjoying an evening together, the woman mentions that she needs to go home. Each time she does so, the man counters with a reason why she needs to stay the night. In spite of her continued protests, he will not let her leave. It can be a bit uncomfortable. We refer to this as the "Date Rape Song". Very disturbing.
Rather than end on such a down note, I will leave you with the lyrics to a timeless Christmas tune:
Jingle Bells, Batman smells
Robin laid an egg
The Batmobile lost a wheel
And the Joker got away - hey!
I learned this song many years ago from other kids at school, and now my kids have had that same experience. It is heart-warming to know that the true classics will always survive.
Merry Christmas!
Now that it's December, I am able to focus on the upcoming celebration. I love almost everything about Christmas, including the music. Lately I have been listening to a lot of Christmas music. So I wanted to share a few thoughts on the topic:
Variety
The problem with Christmas music is that there is both too many songs, and too few songs. What I mean by that is that many musicians over the years have released albums of holiday music. I have no doubt that these are easy money-makers for the artists and the record labels. Usually, the album will have one original Christmas-related song and the rest is covers of holiday classics.
As a result, there are dozens of versions of certain songs. When you listen to the Christmas music stations for an extended period of time, you will hear multiple versions of such songs as "Jingle Bells" and "Santa Claus is Coming to Town". (There is even a cover version of Wham's "Last Christmas"). In general, this can be interesting as each singer puts their own unique spin on the song. However, there are certain songs which I feel have already been performed perfectly, and can not be improved upon. The following is a list of examples of what I consider to be "definitive versions" of certain classics:
"The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on An Open Fire)" - Nat King Cole
"White Christmas" - Bing Crosby
"It's The Most Wonderful Time of the Year" - Andy Williams
"A Holly Jolly Christmas" - Burl Ives
"Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" - Brenda Lee
"Blue Christmas" - Elvis Presley
"I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" - The Jackson 5 (though the Mellencamp version is good)
"The Little Drummer Boy" - Bob Seger
"Joy To The World" - Three Dog Night (just kidding!)
I feel that there is no need for new versions of the above songs.
Overplayed Songs
Two songs that get a lot of air time are by former Beatles. These are "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" by John Lennon and "Wonderful Christmas time" by Paul McCartney. It seems that radio stations give these mediocre songs more attention due to their connection to the Beatles. I would be happy to discard these two permanently.
Strange Lyrics
Sometimes, a line from a famous song will strike me as strange. A later verse of "Here Comes Santa Claus" says "let's give thanks to the Lord above cause Santa Claus comes tonight". In light of the so-called War on Christmas and some Christians feeling that Santa gets in the way of celebrating the birth of Christ, I find this lyric to be an odd combination.
Back in the 1980s, a large group of artists gathered under the name Band Aid to record "Do They Know It's Christmas". The proceeds from this song have gone to famine relief in Africa. There is a definite tone of guilt-inducement and sarcasm in this song, which chides westerners for being too comfortable while others are suffering. However, it is easy to miss that message until Bono belts out the line "Well tonight thank God it's them instead of you!". It certainly comes as a surprise and sounds out of place on a Christmas song, but hopefully gets the point across.
A Disturbing Song
Finally, I want to mention a song that gets a lot of play, but probably for the wrong reasons. It is called "Baby It's Cold Outside". This song is a duet with a man and a woman singing alternating lines.
The first problem is that this song is not a Christmas song. The only way slight connection is that it is based on cold weather, and Christmas is in December. For that reason alone, it should not be considered a Christmas song. But the much bigger problem is the theme of the song. After enjoying an evening together, the woman mentions that she needs to go home. Each time she does so, the man counters with a reason why she needs to stay the night. In spite of her continued protests, he will not let her leave. It can be a bit uncomfortable. We refer to this as the "Date Rape Song". Very disturbing.
Rather than end on such a down note, I will leave you with the lyrics to a timeless Christmas tune:
Jingle Bells, Batman smells
Robin laid an egg
The Batmobile lost a wheel
And the Joker got away - hey!
I learned this song many years ago from other kids at school, and now my kids have had that same experience. It is heart-warming to know that the true classics will always survive.
Merry Christmas!
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Enjoy Thanksgiving
As I'm writing this, it is the night before Thanksgiving. In fact, we just watched "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" with the kids. (A great special, even though it's disturbing that Woodstock eats turkey at the end.)
Last weekend, we were in the car and discovered that two local radio stations had already switched to 24-hour Christmas music. I find this to be highly inappropriate; Thanksgiving should be celebrated and enjoyed before people's attention shifts to Christmas. To add to the problem, each year the stations that do this switch back to regular programming at some point on December 25th; they don't even celebrate Christmas in its entirety. I think that this is a symptom of a larger problem that we have in our society. We are too quick to move on to the next "big thing". Anyone who tries to buy a bathing suit in August is familiar with this phenomenon - the stores have already switched to autumn and winter clothes. We are losing our ability to live in and enjoy the moment.
As we celebrate Thanksgiving tomorrow, I urge everyone to take a deep breath and savor the present. There will still be plenty of time to decorate, shop and get ready for Christmas. Just don't lose one holiday in the rush to get to then next one.
Last weekend, we were in the car and discovered that two local radio stations had already switched to 24-hour Christmas music. I find this to be highly inappropriate; Thanksgiving should be celebrated and enjoyed before people's attention shifts to Christmas. To add to the problem, each year the stations that do this switch back to regular programming at some point on December 25th; they don't even celebrate Christmas in its entirety. I think that this is a symptom of a larger problem that we have in our society. We are too quick to move on to the next "big thing". Anyone who tries to buy a bathing suit in August is familiar with this phenomenon - the stores have already switched to autumn and winter clothes. We are losing our ability to live in and enjoy the moment.
As we celebrate Thanksgiving tomorrow, I urge everyone to take a deep breath and savor the present. There will still be plenty of time to decorate, shop and get ready for Christmas. Just don't lose one holiday in the rush to get to then next one.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Baseball thoughts
Now that baseball's regular season is over, it's time for some observations:
Triple Crown vs MVP
Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers led the American League in batting average, home runs, and RBIs. This Triple Crown had not been accomplished since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967.Even though it's really a statistical fluke, it's a great event that I didn't think I would see in my lifetime.
The big debate in baseball circles is whether Cabrera will win the Most Valuable Player award. The other main candidate is Mike Trout of the Angels. Trout is a rookie who was still in the minor leagues for the first month of the season, but nevertheless managed to put up impressive numbers. In addition to strong batting numbers, Trout is a dominant base stealer and plays excellent defense in center field (Cabrera is a below average third baseman).
Another factor that voters will consider is the teams' performance. Personally, I think that the MVP should go to the best player, regardless of how his team did, but many voters disagree. The Tigers are in the playoffs, due to winning the relatively weak Central division. The Angels had a better record than the Tigers, but missed the playoffs. For some reason, many will give Cabrera credit for this. (Not to mention that one of the reasons that the Angels missed the playoffs was their poor start, while they kept Trout in the minors).
Although both are fine candidates, I would vote for Cabrera. To me, the feat of winning the Triple Crown puts him over the top. I also predict that Cabrera will win the award.
Playoffs
This is the first year that MLB had "Wild Card Pay-In Games" in each league, pitting the top two non-division winners in a one game playoff to advance to the Division Series. As I've stated before, I really like this idea - it puts more importance on winning your division.
The Play-In games were yesterday, with the Orioles beating the Rangers and the Cardinals topping the Braves. The Cardinals-Braves game had some controversy due to an umpire's questionable calling of the Infield Fly Rule in the 8th inning. I guess MLB saw all the publicity that the NFL got from the Packers-Seahawks Hail Mary ruling, and wanted in on that action.
Preseason Prediction Review
Back in April, I posted my predictions, which you can see on the blog. I got four out of the six division winners right (Yankees, Tigers, Nationals and Giants). The two others that I predicted to win divisons (Rangers and Cardinals) ended up as wild card teams. Overall, not too bad. My origianl World Series prediction was for the Yankees to beat the Giants. I am now revising that prediction, as you will see below.
Playoff Predictions
Finally, it's time for my often inaccurate predictions!
Remaining teams in order of my preference for them winning the World Series:
1. Yankees
2. Nationals (have never even been to the World Series, even going back to their days as the Montreal Expos)
3. Orioles
4. Tigers
5. Reds
6. Athletics
7. Giants
8. Cardinals (they just won it last year)
Predictions:
Yankees over Orioles in 5
Athletics over Tigers in 5
Nationals over Cardinals in 4
Giants over Reds in 5
Athletics over Yankees in 6
Nationals over Giants in 7
World Series: Nationals over Athletics in 6
Enjoy the games!
Triple Crown vs MVP
Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers led the American League in batting average, home runs, and RBIs. This Triple Crown had not been accomplished since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967.Even though it's really a statistical fluke, it's a great event that I didn't think I would see in my lifetime.
The big debate in baseball circles is whether Cabrera will win the Most Valuable Player award. The other main candidate is Mike Trout of the Angels. Trout is a rookie who was still in the minor leagues for the first month of the season, but nevertheless managed to put up impressive numbers. In addition to strong batting numbers, Trout is a dominant base stealer and plays excellent defense in center field (Cabrera is a below average third baseman).
Another factor that voters will consider is the teams' performance. Personally, I think that the MVP should go to the best player, regardless of how his team did, but many voters disagree. The Tigers are in the playoffs, due to winning the relatively weak Central division. The Angels had a better record than the Tigers, but missed the playoffs. For some reason, many will give Cabrera credit for this. (Not to mention that one of the reasons that the Angels missed the playoffs was their poor start, while they kept Trout in the minors).
Although both are fine candidates, I would vote for Cabrera. To me, the feat of winning the Triple Crown puts him over the top. I also predict that Cabrera will win the award.
Playoffs
This is the first year that MLB had "Wild Card Pay-In Games" in each league, pitting the top two non-division winners in a one game playoff to advance to the Division Series. As I've stated before, I really like this idea - it puts more importance on winning your division.
The Play-In games were yesterday, with the Orioles beating the Rangers and the Cardinals topping the Braves. The Cardinals-Braves game had some controversy due to an umpire's questionable calling of the Infield Fly Rule in the 8th inning. I guess MLB saw all the publicity that the NFL got from the Packers-Seahawks Hail Mary ruling, and wanted in on that action.
Preseason Prediction Review
Back in April, I posted my predictions, which you can see on the blog. I got four out of the six division winners right (Yankees, Tigers, Nationals and Giants). The two others that I predicted to win divisons (Rangers and Cardinals) ended up as wild card teams. Overall, not too bad. My origianl World Series prediction was for the Yankees to beat the Giants. I am now revising that prediction, as you will see below.
Playoff Predictions
Finally, it's time for my often inaccurate predictions!
Remaining teams in order of my preference for them winning the World Series:
1. Yankees
2. Nationals (have never even been to the World Series, even going back to their days as the Montreal Expos)
3. Orioles
4. Tigers
5. Reds
6. Athletics
7. Giants
8. Cardinals (they just won it last year)
Predictions:
Yankees over Orioles in 5
Athletics over Tigers in 5
Nationals over Cardinals in 4
Giants over Reds in 5
Athletics over Yankees in 6
Nationals over Giants in 7
World Series: Nationals over Athletics in 6
Enjoy the games!
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
NFL Predictions - 2012
Another NFL season is upon us, so it's time for Bill's annual incorrect predictions! As always, I take no responsibilities for any bets that are lost as a result of reading these.
AFC East
Patriots
Bills
Jets
Dolphins
AFC North
Steelers
Ravens
Bengals
Browns
AFC South
Texans
Titans
Jaguars
Colts
AFC West
Chiefs
Broncos
Chargers
Raiders
NFC East
Giants
Eagles
Redskins
Cowboys
NFC North
Packers
Bears
Vikings
Lions
NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Panthers
Buccaneers
NFC West
49ers
Seahawks
Cardinals
Rams
Playoffs - First Round
Ravens over Chiefs
Texans over Broncos
Falcons over Bears
Eagles over Giants
Playoffs - Second Round
Steelers over Texans
Patriots over Ravens
49ers over Eagles:
Falcons over Packers
Conference Championship Games
Steelers over Patriots
49ers over Falcons
Super Bowl
Steelers 31, 49ers 17
MVP: Aaron Rodgers
Rookie of the Year: Robert Griffin III
Please note: the above are based more on guesses and wishful thinking than on facts or research. When in doubt, I went with the teams I like better. Enjoy the games!
Another NFL season is upon us, so it's time for Bill's annual incorrect predictions! As always, I take no responsibilities for any bets that are lost as a result of reading these.
AFC East
Patriots
Bills
Jets
Dolphins
AFC North
Steelers
Ravens
Bengals
Browns
AFC South
Texans
Titans
Jaguars
Colts
AFC West
Chiefs
Broncos
Chargers
Raiders
NFC East
Giants
Eagles
Redskins
Cowboys
NFC North
Packers
Bears
Vikings
Lions
NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Panthers
Buccaneers
NFC West
49ers
Seahawks
Cardinals
Rams
Playoffs - First Round
Ravens over Chiefs
Texans over Broncos
Falcons over Bears
Eagles over Giants
Playoffs - Second Round
Steelers over Texans
Patriots over Ravens
49ers over Eagles:
Falcons over Packers
Conference Championship Games
Steelers over Patriots
49ers over Falcons
Super Bowl
Steelers 31, 49ers 17
MVP: Aaron Rodgers
Rookie of the Year: Robert Griffin III
Please note: the above are based more on guesses and wishful thinking than on facts or research. When in doubt, I went with the teams I like better. Enjoy the games!
Sunday, August 5, 2012
More Olympic Thoughts
We are now at the midway point of the 2012 Olympics. I've been able to watch at least a little bit of the competition each day. Here are some random thoughts and observations:
The Broadcast
Overall, I am satisfied with how the Games are being televised by NBC. However, it would be nice to see a little more variety of events other than just the "big three" (swimming, gymnastics, and track). I realized that a lot of other events are being shown on other channels during the day, but like many people, I can only watch in the evenings, so it would be nice if every sport got a little "moment in the sun".
Speaking of the broadcast, there's been a lot of hand-wringing about the amount of tape-delay and the networks "spoiling" the results of events that haven't yet aired. I just can't get myself worked up over this issue. This may shock some people, but London is in a different time zone than the United States. There are no live competitions taking place while it is prime time in America. Of course, with the amount of money that NBC is paying for the broadcast rights, it is obvious that they will air most of the events when the viewing audience will be greatest. Regarding spoilers, get a grip people. It's just not that hard to avoid finding out who won. Here's an idea - tear yourself away from your electronic gadgets for a few minutes. Maybe even interact with other people.
Another common theme in the broadcasts has been the post-race interview. Each American athlete, before they can even catch their breath, has a microphone and camera shoved in their face and is asked some inane questions. Seriously, has any athlete, Olympic or otherwise, ever said anything interesting or insightful under such circumstances? This time would be better spent on replays or perhaps some technical explanations of the events.
Each sport also features special guest commentators, who are usually former Olympians. The quality and enthusiasm levels of these experts has certainly varied wildly. It seems that in swimming, the announcers are about to have heart attacks from the excitement, while in gymnastics, the commentators that I've heard have been so critical as to suck the joy away from the proceedings.
One final thought on the broadcasts - watching the parents in the stands has been a high level entertainment in its own right.
Other Olympic Thoughts
Who designed the warm-up jackets that the American athletes have been wearing during medal ceremonies? Seriously - gray?! Call me crazy, but how about a little bit of red, white and blue?
I like watching gymnastics, except for the balance beam. I get so nervous when they do flips and land back on the beam - I actually cringe and can only watch through half-open eyes.
Michael Phelps is a phenomenal athlete. However, the praise is getting to be a bit much. A Facebook friend posted that Phelps shouldn't swim, he should just walk across the water.
Certain events just look ridiculous. Synchronized diving is one example, but the greatest example may be the breast stroke, where the swimmers' heads keep popping out of the water. Speaking of swimming, why do they give medals for all the different strokes? The point of swimming races is to cover the distance in the shortest amount of time. Since freestyle is fastest, why do the other methods? They don't give track medals for running backwards, or hopping or skipping. (Yes, I know they give medals for race walking. See above comment regarding ridiculous-looking events).
Recommendation
I loved watching the Opening Ceremonies, but the Parade of Nations really highlights the inherent inequality of the Games. Some nations, such as the United States, send hundreds of athletes, while other nations send only a small handful. I was then struck with an idea that I think would level the playing field, and also help us better determine who the greatest athletes truly are. The idea is that each nation only send ten athletes - five men and five women. These athletes have to represent their nations in as many events as possible.
If that idea won't work, my other idea is for each athlete, regardless of sport, to compete while wearing a sombrero. I think the Sombrerolympics would be even more entertaining than what we have now.
Anyway, that's all my Olympic thoughts for now. Enjoy the rest of the Games, and I'll be back next week with some post-Olympic thoughts. Thanks for reading.
We are now at the midway point of the 2012 Olympics. I've been able to watch at least a little bit of the competition each day. Here are some random thoughts and observations:
The Broadcast
Overall, I am satisfied with how the Games are being televised by NBC. However, it would be nice to see a little more variety of events other than just the "big three" (swimming, gymnastics, and track). I realized that a lot of other events are being shown on other channels during the day, but like many people, I can only watch in the evenings, so it would be nice if every sport got a little "moment in the sun".
Speaking of the broadcast, there's been a lot of hand-wringing about the amount of tape-delay and the networks "spoiling" the results of events that haven't yet aired. I just can't get myself worked up over this issue. This may shock some people, but London is in a different time zone than the United States. There are no live competitions taking place while it is prime time in America. Of course, with the amount of money that NBC is paying for the broadcast rights, it is obvious that they will air most of the events when the viewing audience will be greatest. Regarding spoilers, get a grip people. It's just not that hard to avoid finding out who won. Here's an idea - tear yourself away from your electronic gadgets for a few minutes. Maybe even interact with other people.
Another common theme in the broadcasts has been the post-race interview. Each American athlete, before they can even catch their breath, has a microphone and camera shoved in their face and is asked some inane questions. Seriously, has any athlete, Olympic or otherwise, ever said anything interesting or insightful under such circumstances? This time would be better spent on replays or perhaps some technical explanations of the events.
Each sport also features special guest commentators, who are usually former Olympians. The quality and enthusiasm levels of these experts has certainly varied wildly. It seems that in swimming, the announcers are about to have heart attacks from the excitement, while in gymnastics, the commentators that I've heard have been so critical as to suck the joy away from the proceedings.
One final thought on the broadcasts - watching the parents in the stands has been a high level entertainment in its own right.
Other Olympic Thoughts
Who designed the warm-up jackets that the American athletes have been wearing during medal ceremonies? Seriously - gray?! Call me crazy, but how about a little bit of red, white and blue?
I like watching gymnastics, except for the balance beam. I get so nervous when they do flips and land back on the beam - I actually cringe and can only watch through half-open eyes.
Michael Phelps is a phenomenal athlete. However, the praise is getting to be a bit much. A Facebook friend posted that Phelps shouldn't swim, he should just walk across the water.
Certain events just look ridiculous. Synchronized diving is one example, but the greatest example may be the breast stroke, where the swimmers' heads keep popping out of the water. Speaking of swimming, why do they give medals for all the different strokes? The point of swimming races is to cover the distance in the shortest amount of time. Since freestyle is fastest, why do the other methods? They don't give track medals for running backwards, or hopping or skipping. (Yes, I know they give medals for race walking. See above comment regarding ridiculous-looking events).
Recommendation
I loved watching the Opening Ceremonies, but the Parade of Nations really highlights the inherent inequality of the Games. Some nations, such as the United States, send hundreds of athletes, while other nations send only a small handful. I was then struck with an idea that I think would level the playing field, and also help us better determine who the greatest athletes truly are. The idea is that each nation only send ten athletes - five men and five women. These athletes have to represent their nations in as many events as possible.
If that idea won't work, my other idea is for each athlete, regardless of sport, to compete while wearing a sombrero. I think the Sombrerolympics would be even more entertaining than what we have now.
Anyway, that's all my Olympic thoughts for now. Enjoy the rest of the Games, and I'll be back next week with some post-Olympic thoughts. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Let the Games Begin
Tomorrow, the Summer Olympics begin in London. This is my favorite sporting event, and I plan to spend some time watching every day for the next two weeks. To me, there is something about the Olympics that elevates it above the normal sport-watching experience. One of the best moments is the Opening Ceremony, when all of the athletes parade into the stadium. It can be jarring to see the differences in the number of athletes that each nation sends - the group from the U.S. seems to go on forever, while many nations only have a small handful of Olympians.
The first Olympics that I remember was the 1984 games in Los Angeles. I have no memory of the 1976 games, and I imagine there was little coverage in America of the boycotted 1980 games. In 1984, the Soviet Union and several other countries boycotted, which allowed the U.S to do exceptionally well in the medal count. For a short time, Carl Lewis, Mary Lou Retton and many others were household names.
One thing that I find interesting about the Olympics is how certain sports gain prominence during the Games, but are then completely ignored (at least by most Americans) for the next three years and eleven months. I guess we only have so much room for sports that aren't football, baseball, etc.
Back in 1996, the Olympics were held in Atlanta, and my Dad and I attended for several days. It was an incredible experience. We did get to see several of the "glamour" events, such as track and swimming, watching the badminton competition was equally compelling. Seeing the athletes who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of Olympic glory was awe-inspiring. But perhaps the greatest moment occurred at the track competition. One of the event we saw was a women's long distance race (it may have been 10,000 meters) that involved many laps around the track. As the race went on, one runner was hopelessly in last place, to the point were all the other competitors passed her and finished the race while she had a couple of laps still to go. I don't remember this woman's name, or even which she represented, but as the bell rang to signify that it was her last lap, everyone in the stadium stood and cheered for her to finish the race, which she did. This exhibition of sportsmanship remains one my fondest memories of watching sports.
Will the London Games give us a truly great moment that stands the test time? I plan on watching to find out, and I hope you will too.
Tomorrow, the Summer Olympics begin in London. This is my favorite sporting event, and I plan to spend some time watching every day for the next two weeks. To me, there is something about the Olympics that elevates it above the normal sport-watching experience. One of the best moments is the Opening Ceremony, when all of the athletes parade into the stadium. It can be jarring to see the differences in the number of athletes that each nation sends - the group from the U.S. seems to go on forever, while many nations only have a small handful of Olympians.
The first Olympics that I remember was the 1984 games in Los Angeles. I have no memory of the 1976 games, and I imagine there was little coverage in America of the boycotted 1980 games. In 1984, the Soviet Union and several other countries boycotted, which allowed the U.S to do exceptionally well in the medal count. For a short time, Carl Lewis, Mary Lou Retton and many others were household names.
One thing that I find interesting about the Olympics is how certain sports gain prominence during the Games, but are then completely ignored (at least by most Americans) for the next three years and eleven months. I guess we only have so much room for sports that aren't football, baseball, etc.
Back in 1996, the Olympics were held in Atlanta, and my Dad and I attended for several days. It was an incredible experience. We did get to see several of the "glamour" events, such as track and swimming, watching the badminton competition was equally compelling. Seeing the athletes who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of Olympic glory was awe-inspiring. But perhaps the greatest moment occurred at the track competition. One of the event we saw was a women's long distance race (it may have been 10,000 meters) that involved many laps around the track. As the race went on, one runner was hopelessly in last place, to the point were all the other competitors passed her and finished the race while she had a couple of laps still to go. I don't remember this woman's name, or even which she represented, but as the bell rang to signify that it was her last lap, everyone in the stadium stood and cheered for her to finish the race, which she did. This exhibition of sportsmanship remains one my fondest memories of watching sports.
Will the London Games give us a truly great moment that stands the test time? I plan on watching to find out, and I hope you will too.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
2012 Baseball Predictions
Now that the baseball season is in full swing, it's time for my annual predictions. As always, these are based almost entirely on wishful thinking and wild guesses. Here goes:
A.L. East
Yankees
Rays (WC)
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Orioles
A.L. Central
Tigers
Twins
Royals
White Sox
Indians
A.L. West
Rangers
Angels (WC)
Mariners
Athletics
N.L. East
Nationals
Phillies (WC)
Marlins
Braves
Mets
N.L. Central
Cardinals
Brewers
Cubs
Reds
Pirates
Astros
N.L. West
Giants
Diamondbacks (WC)
Dodgers
Rockies
Padres
A.L. Playoffs
WC game: Angels over Rays
Division Series: Yankees over Angels in 4; Rangers over Tigers in 5
ALCS: Yankees over Rangers in 6
N.L. Playoffs
WC game: Phillies over Diamondbacks
Division Series: Cardinals over Phillies in 5; Giants over Nationals in 4
NLCS: Giants over Cardinals in 5
World Series
Yankees over Giants in 5
A.L. East
Yankees
Rays (WC)
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Orioles
A.L. Central
Tigers
Twins
Royals
White Sox
Indians
A.L. West
Rangers
Angels (WC)
Mariners
Athletics
N.L. East
Nationals
Phillies (WC)
Marlins
Braves
Mets
N.L. Central
Cardinals
Brewers
Cubs
Reds
Pirates
Astros
N.L. West
Giants
Diamondbacks (WC)
Dodgers
Rockies
Padres
A.L. Playoffs
WC game: Angels over Rays
Division Series: Yankees over Angels in 4; Rangers over Tigers in 5
ALCS: Yankees over Rangers in 6
N.L. Playoffs
WC game: Phillies over Diamondbacks
Division Series: Cardinals over Phillies in 5; Giants over Nationals in 4
NLCS: Giants over Cardinals in 5
World Series
Yankees over Giants in 5
Sunday, March 4, 2012
New MLB Playoff Format
Major League Baseball recently announced a change in their postseason format, adding two additional wild card teams.
Before I discuss this new change, I think a short history lesson is in order.
When professional baseball began in the 1800s, there was no postseason. The team that was in first place at the end of the season was declared to have won the pennant. Starting in 1903, the first place teams in the American League and National League played in the World Series.
In 1969, the leagues expanded to 12 teams each, and split into East and West divisions. Therefore, the number of playoff teams doubled to four.
Since 1995, each league has been divided into three divisions. The three division winners and one wild card team (the team with the best record amongst all teams that didn't win their division) would advance to the playoffs. The total number of teams to make the playoffs each year was eight.
Baseball, more so than any other professional sport, is rooted in its traditions. At each point of expansion outlined above, millions of purists wrung their hands over how the sport was heading towards ruin and that baseball's regular season was being severely devalued. (On a side note, if you want to have an interesting conversation, ask a baseball fanatic for his opinion of the designated hitter).
One of the major complaints of the system that has been in place in recent years is with the wild card. Teams that did not finish in first place during the season were given a second chance at a championship; a chance on almost equal footing with the other teams. Once the playoffs began, there was very little difference between a division champion and a wild card.
The change that will begin in 2012 will have the top two wild card teams in each league reach the playoffs. These two teams will play a one game, do-or-die playoff, with the winner to move on to play a best-of-five series against the top team in the league. This will make winning a championship significantly more difficult for the wild card teams. The nature of a one-game playoff will require the teams to use their best starting pitcher, and then be at a disadvantage against a well-rested team in the next round.
So what do I think of this change? Let me start by outlining what I think would be the best playoff format for Major League Baseball. Currently, there are 30 teams. I would expand and add two more teams to make 32 (or, less appealingly, contract two down to 28). Each league would have two divisions of eight (or seven) teams each. Only the first place finishers would make the playoffs. In each league, the division winners would play a best-of-seven series to advance to the World Series. Basically, I am advocating for a system substantially the same as was used from 1969 to 1993. However, this would involve reducing the number of playoff teams from eight to four. For a variety of reasons (mainly financial), there is zero percent chance of this ever happening.
Having said all that, I LOVE the new change that is being made this year. If we are going to have a three division per league set-up, I feel that it is important to put a premium on winning the division. The reason why baseball's schedule is so long (162 games), is that the difference in quality between teams can often be quite subtle and take a long time to manifest itself. Teams that are of good but not great quality should have to face a significant disadvantage. Also, one game playoffs are inherently exciting. Each season, the postseason will kick off with two games of maximum consequence for the fans to enjoy. And if teams complain that a one-game playoff is unfair, then win your division and you won't have to worry about it.
Even though MLB has made some questionable decisions in recent years (not the least of which is giving home field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All Star Game), I think that they made the perfect change here. They simultaneously increased the number of teams that can claim to be playoff participants (making the networks happy), but also improve the chance of the better teams winning. Well done, Baseball.
Before I discuss this new change, I think a short history lesson is in order.
When professional baseball began in the 1800s, there was no postseason. The team that was in first place at the end of the season was declared to have won the pennant. Starting in 1903, the first place teams in the American League and National League played in the World Series.
In 1969, the leagues expanded to 12 teams each, and split into East and West divisions. Therefore, the number of playoff teams doubled to four.
Since 1995, each league has been divided into three divisions. The three division winners and one wild card team (the team with the best record amongst all teams that didn't win their division) would advance to the playoffs. The total number of teams to make the playoffs each year was eight.
Baseball, more so than any other professional sport, is rooted in its traditions. At each point of expansion outlined above, millions of purists wrung their hands over how the sport was heading towards ruin and that baseball's regular season was being severely devalued. (On a side note, if you want to have an interesting conversation, ask a baseball fanatic for his opinion of the designated hitter).
One of the major complaints of the system that has been in place in recent years is with the wild card. Teams that did not finish in first place during the season were given a second chance at a championship; a chance on almost equal footing with the other teams. Once the playoffs began, there was very little difference between a division champion and a wild card.
The change that will begin in 2012 will have the top two wild card teams in each league reach the playoffs. These two teams will play a one game, do-or-die playoff, with the winner to move on to play a best-of-five series against the top team in the league. This will make winning a championship significantly more difficult for the wild card teams. The nature of a one-game playoff will require the teams to use their best starting pitcher, and then be at a disadvantage against a well-rested team in the next round.
So what do I think of this change? Let me start by outlining what I think would be the best playoff format for Major League Baseball. Currently, there are 30 teams. I would expand and add two more teams to make 32 (or, less appealingly, contract two down to 28). Each league would have two divisions of eight (or seven) teams each. Only the first place finishers would make the playoffs. In each league, the division winners would play a best-of-seven series to advance to the World Series. Basically, I am advocating for a system substantially the same as was used from 1969 to 1993. However, this would involve reducing the number of playoff teams from eight to four. For a variety of reasons (mainly financial), there is zero percent chance of this ever happening.
Having said all that, I LOVE the new change that is being made this year. If we are going to have a three division per league set-up, I feel that it is important to put a premium on winning the division. The reason why baseball's schedule is so long (162 games), is that the difference in quality between teams can often be quite subtle and take a long time to manifest itself. Teams that are of good but not great quality should have to face a significant disadvantage. Also, one game playoffs are inherently exciting. Each season, the postseason will kick off with two games of maximum consequence for the fans to enjoy. And if teams complain that a one-game playoff is unfair, then win your division and you won't have to worry about it.
Even though MLB has made some questionable decisions in recent years (not the least of which is giving home field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All Star Game), I think that they made the perfect change here. They simultaneously increased the number of teams that can claim to be playoff participants (making the networks happy), but also improve the chance of the better teams winning. Well done, Baseball.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Book Review: "11/22/63" by Stephen King
In this book, King departs from the horror genre for which he is best known to tell a tale of a man who attempts to alter the course of history.
Jake Epping lives in Maine in 2011 and is told of a time portal that will transport a person back to 1958. His friend Al had previously used the portal to attempt to thwart the Kennedy assassination. However, Al developed terminal lung cancer and would not be able to finish the job. So Al returns to 2011 and convinces Jake to try. Jake travels back and assumes the identity of George Amberson. After preventing a horrific local crime, George makes his way to Texas to find Lee Harvey Oswald to determine if Oswald acted alone, then to determine how to prevent the assassination. During these years, George takes a teaching job, where he impacts many students, and also falls in love with the school librarian, Sadie.
As the time draws near, George discovers that the past is extremely resistant to change. Numerous obstacles crop up to get in the way. Also, George struggles with how much of his "past" (future?) to reveal to Sadie. A constant worry is of the "butterfly effect" and how much the future will be different when George/Jake goes back to 2011.
I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that I thought the ending was perfect and appropriate. I highly recommend the book, even if you're not a fan of Stephen King.
In this book, King departs from the horror genre for which he is best known to tell a tale of a man who attempts to alter the course of history.
Jake Epping lives in Maine in 2011 and is told of a time portal that will transport a person back to 1958. His friend Al had previously used the portal to attempt to thwart the Kennedy assassination. However, Al developed terminal lung cancer and would not be able to finish the job. So Al returns to 2011 and convinces Jake to try. Jake travels back and assumes the identity of George Amberson. After preventing a horrific local crime, George makes his way to Texas to find Lee Harvey Oswald to determine if Oswald acted alone, then to determine how to prevent the assassination. During these years, George takes a teaching job, where he impacts many students, and also falls in love with the school librarian, Sadie.
As the time draws near, George discovers that the past is extremely resistant to change. Numerous obstacles crop up to get in the way. Also, George struggles with how much of his "past" (future?) to reveal to Sadie. A constant worry is of the "butterfly effect" and how much the future will be different when George/Jake goes back to 2011.
I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that I thought the ending was perfect and appropriate. I highly recommend the book, even if you're not a fan of Stephen King.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
