The Reason Wrigley Field is Terrible

A lot of St. Louisans have an anti-Chicago bias. Most people seem to think it's a little brother complex, in the same way that Bostonians hate New York. I don't hate Chicago though. It's a great American city. It has produced so much of our culture--its enormous influence on the blues (and thus on rock and roll), on comedy, on our national folk heroes and antiheroes. But I'm not here to wax poetic about Chicago because it's not the kind of city that really commands poetry to be waxed--it's basically out there to be the country's biggest working-class city. New York is cool but it's a city that you associate no less with the hipsters of Brooklyn or Manhattan than you do the working-class enclaves of Italian or Irish Americans (among others). Los Angeles has lifers but it's a city that self-consciously pushes the image of glamour, of Hollywood, of transplants. Chicago isn't about movie stars or bohemians--it's about regular joes. I'm down with that.

Its sports teams by and large exemplify this. The Chicago Bears have never really had a glamorous quarterback: Other than Walter Payton, their most iconic players are generally linebackers. The Chicago Bulls, image of Michael Jordan notwithstanding, have been built for nearly their entire existence on rugged big men and tough perimeter defenders. The Chicago Blackhawks--have they ever had a player particularly known for finesse? And the Chicago White Sox, the preferred baseball team of the city of Chicago, do not masquerade--they play on the South Side of Chicago and they haven't had a good non-power player in fifty years. The most iconic White Sox player of my lifetime was nicknamed "The Big Hurt", for God's sake.

And then there's the Cubs.

The Chicago Cubs are the opposite of what the more tolerable Chicago teams represent. And their obnoxiousness is what makes a team that hasn't won a World Series in 105 years hateable. But this obnoxiousness is best exemplified by the godawful Wrigley Field.

The problem with Wrigley Field isn't that it's a shithole, though it is. The problem with Wrigley Field is that it's an intentional shithole. Wrigley, like Fenway Park in Boston, was built in an era where there was limitations--the stadiums are in cramped neighborhoods, have crazily small dimensions, and have certain unavoidable seating limitations. The difference is that Boston has proactively tried to adapt its old stadium over time. Notably, the seats on the top of the Green Monster. The Red Sox did this crazy thing where they, like, tried to give people what they wanted. And they made a lot of money and won a couple titles in the process. Win-win, right? Well, not the Cubs! The Cubs are so engrossed in their traditions, yet still with an eye on being the only people to make money, that they've effectively prohibited rooftop viewing from across the street. Like, the dickery of this can't be overstated. You have a stadium of 40,000 seats that sells out almost every game--you don't really need to stop a few hundred people from getting a terrible view of the game. Yet the Cubs won't expand the stadium--no sir. In fact, until a rule was put in place which would have prevented them from hosting playoff games, the Chicago Cubs didn't even have lights at their stadium until the year I was born.

The Cubs and their fascinations with day games is an obnoxious part of baseball history that we regrettably must remember. It was one thing to have exclusively day games in the 1930s when there weren't viable alternatives. But by the time, say, the 1950s rolled around, most teams were embracing night games. It's not because baseball is better under the lights, but it's because baseball fans are able to actually watch baseball during night games. If your Tuesday game starts at 1 p.m., most people can't watch, or at least can't watch a majority of it. Most people, including sports fans, have these things called "jobs", and for almost no job, whether you work a standard 9-to-5 or a second shift, is a baseball game going from 1 to 4 p.m. convenient. Luckily, Cubs fans found a workaround to this general problem--have fans who are rich, entitled dicks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0CDtEz_Bo

Keep in mind these are the words of a Chicago Cubs EMPLOYEE. I can't even imagine what people in other organizations were saying. Luckily, the Cubs came to their senses and decided to cater to its fans who might not be trust fund babies or retired ex-CEOs by putting lights in their stadi--oh, that's right, they added lights because if they didn't, the NL was going to mandate Cubs playoff games to be played at Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Luckily, this was never really an issue because the Cubs are almost always terrible, but they got lights and now begrudgingly play games that people can watch. 

And it's all for the sake of a terrible stadium where people pee in troughs. Seriously, it is 2013 and people are peeing in goddamned troughs. Because TRADITION! It has been recommended by many people over the years that regular night games at Wrigley might get the Cubs players on more regular body cycles and this might improves their chances at championships. But it's evident that championships are secondary, or maybe even tertiary, to Cubs fans. It's about the ability of rich assholes to go drink at a cramped stadium and pee in troughs.

MLB Awards Voters--Do They Really Suck THAT Badly?

In this little post, I go back several years and look at AL MVP, NL MVP, AL Cy Young, and NL Cy Young, and determine just how badly (if at all) the voters did in their votings.

2012

AL MVP Miguel Cabrera
Now THIS is a first award to discuss. Old school vs. new school (or the illiterates at ESPN would put it, "Nu Skool"). Traditional stats vs. modern stats. Assholes who claim people who disagree don't understand math vs. assholes who claim people who disagree live in their mom's basement and never played a sport in their lives. And since I don't live in my mom's basement, have played sports, and at least know math well enough to major in accounting, I'm the perfect reliable source! Now, Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout had similar offensive years, with Miggy being slightly better. I don't give a damn that he won the Triple Crown, but he led the league in SLG and OPS and only trailed in OBP by .006. And I'll give Miguel Cabrera unquantifiable credit for playing a defensive position he's worse at in order to help his team by squeezing Prince Fielder into the lineup. With that said, Mike Trout was an infinitely superior baserunner who played Gold Glove-caliber center field. I don't find this as terrible as most Trout supporters, but regardless they still made the incorrect decision.

NL MVP Buster Posey
You can't really make a statistical argument that Yadier Molina was a better catcher in 2012 than Buster Posey. Now, that isn't to say you can't make an argument using intangible factors. People smirk at intangibles as though they're voodoo, and I'm certainly not going to go by the old, insane, probably not actually true argument that Yadier Molina would be a starting MLB catcher if he batted .000, because he shouldn't be. But it seems silly to treat the comparison as though the things Yadier Molina does that can't be measured by stats (handling pitching staffs, calling games) aren't also handled well by Posey. Both have a pair of World Series rings and have turned so-so starters into ace-caliber guys. And with regards to tangible factors, Posey is better--materially higher OPS, much more effective at drawing walks, and still pretty damn studly defensive numbers. #2 in MVP voting was Ryan Braun, who had a somewhat higher OPS while playing an incompetent left field. You can argue for Molina but voters probably made the right decision.

AL Cy Young David Price
Pitchers are somewhat of a tenuous area for me, and really for fans as a whole. It all comes down to your go-to metric. Some guys use Win-Loss record. Some guys use ERA. Some guys use FIP/xFIP. Some guys use innings pitched (generally in conjunction with other stats). I disregard W-L (and saves, if we're talking relievers) and most highly weigh ERA but the other numbers at least matter. Price had a better ERA than Justin Verlander (he also had a better W-L, and I suspect this is the main reason he won), but it was only 0.08 better. Which matters but it isn't everything. Verlander, however, had a IP lead of over three complete games worth of innings. He also had 34 more strikeouts with only one more walk. The fact that Verlander only got one fewer first place vote than Price is actually a display of how far statistical analysis has come. He should have gotten more. Price had a really good year but Justin Verlander is out of this world.

NL Cy Young R.A. Dickey
I guess it's because his 2011 was better, but Clayton Kershaw had an insufficiently acclaimed 2012. He had a 0.2 run lower ERA and only had six fewer innings. R.A. had more strikeouts--by one. But more importantly, he had more wins. Which is weird because his team was terrible compared to Kershaw's. Things don't make sense sometimes. I would have voted Kershaw-Dickey-Cueto, though admittedly this would have been dispassionate as hell.

2011

AL MVP Justin Verlander

First of all, my AL Cy Young one for this year is going to be rendered useless. Because if Verlander deserved the MVP, he deserved the Cy Young. Now, it's really difficult to compare pitchers and batters and this is a case where I tend to use WAR a decent bit. I try to avoid it because, like most people, I don't know the formula to it, so it's basically taking a blind leap of faith that it accurately reflects player value. The reason I tend to lean Verlander over Ellsbury or Bautista is that Justin had an undeniably great season. By any measure, he was the best pitcher in the AL. Ellsbury had a solid offensive year combined with strong defense but a 7.1 BB% isn't going to excite me enough. Jose Bautista had the bat to win MVP but sucked in the field. Honestly, I can't argue against any of the three, though my ballot would go Verlander, Ellsbury, Bautista. I will argue against the dude who voted Michael Young MVP. That's just insanity.

NL MVP Ryan Braun

Forget that he did steroids, that's not the issue here. While Matt Kemp is an average-at-best fielding CF, Braun's around the same level at a less premium defensive position. And they had extremely similar hitting numbers. I'm tempted to go for my CYA guy here, but I'll leave him third and go Kemp at 1 and Braun at 2.

AL Cy Young Justin Verlander

Next.

NL Cy Young Clayton Kershaw

Holy shit was this a strong Cy Young year. Like, HOLY SHIT. You could basically flip a coin between the top two, who in spite of what bWAR would suggest were rightfully Clayton Kershaw and Roy Halladay. I really can't tell why exactly, but bWAR and fWAR each would indicate that Halladay was hands down better than Kershaw. Halladay was awesome with his command but Kershaw, in basically the same innings (0.1 fewer), managed 28 more strikeouts. By the absolute narrowest margins, I'd go Kershaw. Really can't argue against Roy, who unfortunately got pretty damn trounced in the final vote totals.

2010

AL MVP Josh Hamilton

The only guy who could compete with the bat with Hamilton in the AL was Miguel Cabrera, who was a poor fielding first baseman, while Josh Hamilton was playing surprisingly competent defense. Evan Longoria was also playing solid defense with a strong bat, but his hitting cannot be reasonably compared to Josh Hamilton's. Voters got this one right.

NL MVP Joey Votto

Votto vs. Pujols, the only position player that's really worth discussing with Votto, is impossibly close. Like, RIDICULOUSLY close. Votto won by a huge amount, which is sad, but their stats are so damn close that I can't even get that upset that Votto won because his team went to the playoffs. It's a terrible argument BUT THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE HERE. Votto had a higher OBP and SLG for a grand total OPS lead of .013. So Votto hit marginally better. Both fielded decently, with Pujols being slightly better. Pujols was a slightly better base runner. Like, really, there are probably Cardinals fans passionate about this one. Who cares? I think I'd probably go Votto-Pujols but maybe I'd go Pujols-Votto so that the margin of victory would more accurately reflect the difference in abilities.

AL Cy Young Felix Hernandez

Harold Reynolds had to have his brain melt when the 13-12 Hernandez won the Cy Young. But he deserved it. It wasn't particularly close, either. Let's compare him to David Price, who finished in 2nd (reasonably). Felix had 41 more innings, nine fewer walks, and forty-four more strikeouts. His ERA was 0.45 runs lower. To think that an era not long ago existed in which King Felix would not have won the Cy Young Award is horrifying.

NL Cy Young Roy Halladay

Well, he won unanimously, which probably isn't fair to Adam Wainwright. But because of Roy Halladay's insane control, I think I'll still go with him. Sorry to Ubaldo Jimenez, who inexplicably has an irrationally high WAR on both Fangraphs and Baseball Reference.

2009

AL MVP Joe Mauer

So I might as well get this out of the way right now--I'm basically in love with late-2000s Joe Mauer. He was just absolutely perfect. There have always been good hitting catchers who were also good fielders but how often was the single best hitter also the single best fielder? Now he can't stay healthy and Posey's a better hitter and Molina's a better fielder but Joe Mauer was awesome for a while. And when a Gold Glove caliber catcher leads in the league in on-base and slugging, he could have a hundred times caught stealing and I'm going to still pick him. Somehow he doesn't lead in bWAR (I'm confused B-R's WAR is devised to get the player Tony LaRussa would most get giddy about having on his bench, and hence Ben Zobrist always has an absurdly high number) or even fWAR, whose erection for Ben Zobrist's positional versatility is far less obvious, but I'm still going with Mauer.

NL MVP Albert Pujols

There were a few years when Albert Pujols just absolutely obliterated the field in MVP balloting and this is one of those years. Chase Utley had a strange ignored season given that his team ended up in the World Series and was the defending champion, finishing eighth while OPSing over .900 from second base, but even so, it's still Albert Pujols by a wide, wide margin.

AL Cy Young Zack Greinke

Interestingly, rightful 2010 winner Felix Hernandez might had won in 2009 under older methodology of player evaluation, but while his season was truly excellent, Greinke's was superior. He led the majors in ERA, FIP, and if you're one of those people who just HAS to look at Win-Loss percentage, he overcame being on the Royals to get sixteen wins.

NL Cy Young Tim Lincecum

There is a delusion among some Cardinals fans, and it was recently perpetuated by professional rambler Al Hrabosky, that the 2-3 finishers (Cardinals Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright, respectively) were robbed. Well, they weren't. If you combined Carpenter's productivity with Waino's inning count, then sure, but that's not how this works. Tim Lincecum combined excellence with tenure in 2009. Side note, Keith Law is still a moron for listing Javier Vazquez second on his ballot (when you base an awards argument solely on "predictive" stats and not on actual, past results and then the guy you predict is going to do even better after the fact has a 5.00+ ERA/FIP the next season, you're just hilariously wrong, though I'm sure he would explain to me that I simply don't "understand math" for holding this viewpoint).

2008

AL MVP Dustin Pedroia

2008 was an embarrassingly poor year for AL MVP candidates. Like, Chase Utley was busy putting up nearly 9 WAR in the NL and finishing 14th (and still not deserving to win, but that's a little way's away) while an inferior second baseman was winning in the AL. As weak as Pedroia's season was by MVP standards, there really wasn't one among batters that was better. And that's why I'm going slightly off the beaten path and saying the MVP should have been the guy who finished 12th--starting pitcher Cliff Lee. Even his season wasn't the kind of dominant performance you'd normally associate with a pitcher winning MVP but it was strong enough (2.54 ERA and 223.1 IP). This was also the weird year that the arguable best pitcher in baseball switched leagues mid-season.

NL MVP Albert Pujols

This was VERY nearly an unbelievably embarrassing result. First of all, the ballot should have been, in order: Pujols (who finished 1st), Chase Utley (14th), and Chipper Jones (12th). Again, they got the winner right and that's all that theoretically matters but #2 was the worst candidate among the top ten, including CC Sabathia WHO DIDN'T JOIN THE NL UNTIL JULY. Ryan Howard finished 2nd, and actually got a TON of first place votes, presumably because he hit 48 home run. Which isn't nothing. But he, a mediocre fielder at the least important defensive position, had a .881 OPS, which is respectable but not even close to MVP caliber even if he'd been a slick-fielding shortstop or something. bREF puts his WAR at 1.72. Among MLB batters, his FanGraphs WAR for 2008 (again, this doesn't even count pitchers) ranked SEVENTY-SEVENTH. THIS GUY FINISHED 2ND PLACE AND GOT TWELVE FIRST PLACE VOTES FOR MVP! I'm sure some Howard voters scoffed at the guy who voted Brad Lidge MVP (which is also dumb), but even HE was more deserving. Pujols won though so all is well.

AL Cy Young Cliff Lee

Well, I had him as MVP, marginally. I also have him as Cy Young, marginally (Roy Halladay was really good too, just not as good).

NL Cy Young Tim Lincecum

It was weird when Tim Lincecum came on the scene. I guess it's because Cy Youngs kept being won for a long time by guys who were in the majors when I first started watching baseball (Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, et al). But Lincecum, for all of his current mediocrity, was dominant for a few years. Ton of strikeouts, low ERA, gobbled innings. Johan Santana had a fair case, with a slightly lower ERA with slightly fewer innings, but Lincecum just had too many more strikeouts to resist.

2007

AL MVP Alex Rodriguez

A-Rod is a rare guy who won a ton of awards and probably deserved more. Assuming I get to his Mariners/Rangers year before I get bored of this concept, I'll go into more depth then, but Alex Rodriguez was terrific. Bonds was a better hitter and while he was a decent fielder, he was playing left field. A-Rod was killing it at the plate while playing Gold Glove-caliber shortstop and/or third base. And if you're going to give Miguel Cabrera credit for playing third to help the team, you have to give credit to A-Rod. But yeah, this one was pretty easy (save for whoever voted Magglio Ordonez). He killed it on standard metrics, he had the highest OPS in the league, he played a tough defensive position, and he even swiped 24 bases in spite of being comprised primarily of steroids.

NL MVP Jimmy Rollins

I enjoy this because I'm going with a guy who received zero first place votes. Hell, my #2 would have also been a guy who didn't get any first place votes. #3 I'll go with a guy who got first place votes but didn't win (Matt Holliday). #2 is Albert Pujols, who led the NL in bWAR and played solid defense while OPSing nearly 1.000. But #1 is, like in my AL ballot, a third baseman who put up excellent batting numbers to go with a glove--David Wright. But 2007 was a weird year. Rollins didn't really deserve to win and he might not even crack my Top 5 but the gap between him and the guys I'd pick to win aren't THAT astronomical.

AL Cy Young CC Sabathia

The gap between the top 4 vote-getters (who were rightfully, in some order, the top four) is hard to really evaluate. Sabathia, Josh Beckett, John Lackey, and Fausto Carmona (as he was known at the time). But I'm going to opt for Sabathia because of the four, he combined a low ERA with strikeouts. Beckett had more strikeouts but a higher ERA and fewer innings. Fausto had comically low strikeout totals so I'll drop him from the ballot. I guess I'll go with Lackey at 2 and Beckett at 3--while Beckett had the strikeouts, it's hard to pass up an ERA and innings edge. But yeah, I'm going with CC Sabathia and given how this vote would look six years later, I'm pretty damn content with myself.

NL Cy Young Jake Peavy

It's really easy to forget that Jake Peavy won a Cy Young Award for the San Diego Padres not that long ago. But, well, he did. And he deserved it. The only other pitcher worth mentioning is Brandon Webb (speaking of "Remember him?" guys), who had 13 more innings but also allowed 16 more earned runs.

2006

AL MVP Justin Morneau

Sometimes the lengths to which MVP voters will avoid a pitcher winning is comical. And thus Justin Morneau wins the MVP over his more deserving teammate. And I'm not talking about Joe Mauer, though he also was more deserving of the MVP than Morneau, who hit mildly well but couldn't field. The top vote getters are littered with guys who can't field (among the top five, Derek Jeter is the BEST fielder). But Johan Santana, who rightfully won the Cy Young, had a really strong year, going about 11:2 K:BB ratio with a 2.77 ERA (in a still relatively offensive-driven era). He was clearly the best pitcher and probably the best player.

NL MVP Ryan Howard

Now, Ryan Howard is the most overrated player in the Major Leagues of the last ten years. He generally combines terrible defense with a general inability to get non-homer base hits, yet gets his share of homers and somehow warranted a $20 million/year contract. 2006 was not one of those years that commanded this reputation--he was excellent. But Albert Pujols was better. He was a better fielder. He was a better (less terrible) baserunner. He had a higher on-base percentage and a higher slugging percentage. He hit 49 home runs, while Howard had 58. Strangely, I think Pujols gets at least a few more first place votes if he gets to 50. Obviously that one home run would greatly improve his value. For what it's worth, Carlos Beltran's .982 OPS while playing stellar defense in center field should have finished second.

AL Cy Young Johan Santana

Yep.

NL Cy Young Brandon Webb

Trevor Hoffman came REALLY close to winning this thing. Now, I'm something of a moderate on relief pitcher value. On one hand, they pitch way fewer innings, but on the other hand, they generally pitch MUCH more high-leverage innings. With that said, a reliever better be FILTHY and there better not be a standout starter for me to consider one for Cy Young (people who refuse to vote a reliever for Cy Young but do so for MVP are adorable). Anyway, and it's close, but I'd put Brandon Webb second. In about fifteen fewer innings, Roy Oswalt allowed eight fewer runs (again, this is close) and had a slightly higher K:BB ratio. My ballot would have gone, in order: Oswalt, Webb, Chris Carpenter. You could reverse this list and I couldn't really put up a strong argument against it.

2005

AL MVP Alex Rodriguez

Alex Rodriguez and David Ortiz came relatively close in MVP voting. Their offensive numbers were similar, though A-Rod's were by any measure other than RBI (which is a stupid measure) better. On principle, I refuse to discriminate A-Rod so-so defense against him when comparing him to a designated hitter. Like, a player's defense better be absolutely ABYSMAL for me to consider it more of a detriment in weighing MVPs than not playing defense at all. A-Rod deserved his victory here.

NL MVP Albert Pujols

After four years of being awesome and not getting a sniff at MVP because Barry Bonds, Pujols finally won in 2005. Frankly, I'm amazed in retrospect that he beat Andruw Jones. Considering that Andruw Jones is the best defensive center fielder since Willie Mays (YES HE IS, JIM EDMONDS FANBOYS) and considering he put up 51 home runs while leading the league in RBI, he makes for a great standard MVP candidate. Hell, he only hit .263 and I still don't hate his candidacy because he isn't Ryan Howard in the field. With that said, Albert Pujols was an undeniably better hitter and thus I'd still go with him. My ballot goes Pujols, Derrek Lee (who led the league in OPS but couldn't field or run to save his life), and Andruw Jones. These three were the top 3 in MVP voting (though actual results have Jones and Lee flipped). Such harmony. I'd start singing Ebony and Ivory but I don't think any MVP voters are minorities so it doesn't really apply here.

AL Cy Young Bartolo Colon

Sabermetrics, schmabermetrics. Like, who cares if Colon wasn't even the best pitcher in his own rotation (and that guy, John Lackey, got zero votes)? Amazingly, the #2 vote-getter was a closer who didn't even toss 80 innings and he still managed to put up a higher bWAR than Colon, who had a fairly pedestrian 3.48 ERA to go with a bunch of wins. I'd even consider Mariano Rivera, because as I've said before I like closers more than most people who care about things like OPS, if Johan Santana hadn't put up the season he did. 0.61 runs lower ERA, an unfathomable EIGHTY ONE more strikeouts in only nine more innings. I think I'd go as far as Rivera second, with Santana winning and Mark Buerhle getting third. Bartolo isn't THAT far removed from 3rd, but he is pretty damn far removed from first.

NL Cy Young Chris Carpenter

Sorry, Cardinals fans: Carp didn't deserve the Cy Young Award. Actually, let me clarify this--he had a perfectly good season. But Roger Clemens had a better one. The Rocket had a material innings deficit of 30.1 but the numbers he put up in his innings were just goddamned awe-inspiring. Carp's ERA was far from bad and Clemens had one that was almost a full run lower. Carp had a better BB:K ratio, and yes, that does count, but a 1.87 ERA for a 200+ inning pitcher. Holy hell. Ballot goes Clemens, Chris Carpenter, and the formerly good Dontrelle Willis.

2004

AL MVP Vladimir Guerrero

I have a hard time deciding whether the sabermetric revolution helped or hurt Vlad Guerrero's reputation. On one hand, quiet guys in irrelevant markets who can't speak English get more attention. On the other hand, Vladimir Guerrero's plate discipline was approximately the same as mine if I'm playing a video game. Regardless, Vlad's 2004 was a very good season but it wasn't a great season. It was probably the best of the guys who received votes, but a few guys slipped through the cracks. Namely Ichiro. Yes, I know he had a .399 BABIP and that his impossibly high BABIP totals he's put up for 12 years are due for regression soon, but a .372 batting average is pretty awesome. Ichiro never was great at drawing walks but even so he pulled off a .414 on-base and continued to be the best fielding right fielder ever (I spend a lot of time ridiculing corner outfielders and first baseman as irrelevant defenders but Ichiro was so damn good he made the position relevant). Among offensive players it wasn't all that close. More on the pitchers in a minute.

NL MVP Barry Bonds

Holy shit, the 2004 MVP grouping. You want to know how unbelievable the list of NL candidates were? Albert Pujols put up 8.43 bWAR with 46 home runs and a 1.072 OPS. He finished third and honestly probably didn't deserve to finish that high. Because Adrian Beltre and Scott Rolen, two of the best fielding third basemen I've ever seen, both cleared the 1.000 mark on OPS. And they didn't even deserve the MVP that year either! It was ludicrous, really, how good Barry Bonds was in the early 2000s. His numbers look like one enormous typo. Here's a few ones: He had more walks than Adrian Beltre, Albert Pujols, and Scott Rolen COMBINED. His .812 slugging percentage is better than the OPS of Juan Pierre, who received 9 MVP vote points. People can shout steroids all they want but there's just no way he just had THAT much better of steroids than everybody else in baseball. Barry Bonds is the best offensive baseball player I've ever seen. It's not that terribly close.

AL Cy Young Johan Santana

Going over this is reminding me of just how good Johan Santana was. He wasn't quite Pedro Martinez in his prime but he was the best pitcher in baseball for a few years. He rightly won the 2004 CYA over Curt Schilling, who shockingly was the guy who deserved to finish 2nd. And I can't argue against #3 being Mariano Rivera. Cool, guys.

NL Cy Young Roger Clemens

You know how I think Roger should've won in 2005? Well, he shouldn't have in 2004. Which, like, he was good. But Randy Johnson was an all-timer. In a weird way, I think Randy Johnson's '04 was the pitching equivalent to Barry Bonds. Let's compare the two. Randy Johnson had a 0.38 run edge in ERA, which is arguably his smallest edge. He also pitched 31.1 more innings and put up a silly total of 44 walks and 290 strikeouts. Like, that's just not even fair. Of course, he went 16-14 (presumably this has nothing to do with run support and it purely reflects Randy Johnson's pitching abilities) so therefore he lost to Roger Clemens, who ARGUABLY deserved to finish second.

2003

AL MVP Alex Rodriguez

It took a while for MVP voters to warm up to the idea of Alex Rodriguez getting votes for things. Well, at least when he was with Texas (an era which ended after this season). He played on terrible teams and thus people who couldn't quite grasp the concept that a guy can't single-handedly carry a baseball team to the playoffs were afraid. And thus he barely won. But he should have won by a ton. Only two guys were statistically close offensively, and they were arguably better hitters, but this was still during A-Rod's shortstop years. One of the great mysteries of modern baseball is why mediocre fielder Derek Jeter got to stay at the toughest field position while the really good defensive player Alex Rodriguez got moved over to awkwardly hang out at third. Regardless, he was a really good defensive player. The two other guys were first baseman Carlos Delgado and Worst Fielder I've Ever Seen Manny Ramirez.

NL MVP Barry Bonds

This was the closest Albert Pujols came to supplanting Barry Bonds as a deserving MVP candidate and had the Cardinals made the playoffs, he might have pulled it off (for dumb reasons). But in what was the most bleh season Barry Bonds had over a four year run, he had a mere .529 OBP, only hit 45 home runs, and only drew 148 walks. What a bum.

AL Cy Young Roy Halladay

I for some reason forget that Roy Halladay was winning Cy Youngs when I was a freshman in high school. But he was, apparently. Fuck if I remember. I was too busy deluding myself into thinking I might get popular all of a sudden and listening to Puddle of Mudd unironically. But anyway, this was a classic case of results vs. innings, which is really hard to evaluate most of the time. On basically a sliding scale, the top three getters went in order from least-to-most effective to most-to-least innings. But in spite of the fewer innings, Pedro Martinez was just ridiculously effective. Can't argue against Halladay but, like, Pedro Martinez was pretty awesome in 2003. And in most years. He also had a little person he seemed to keep as a pet. Baseball used to be a lot more fun than it is now.

NL Cy Young Eric Gagne

As I've said, I'm not opposed to relievers winning Cy Young Awards. So it really boils down to "Is there a worthy starter?" And the answer is an emphatic "I guess." The best is probably Mark Prior or maybe Jason Schmidt (lol 2003) and perhaps I'm saying this with the retrospect of knowing that neither Mark Prior nor Jason Schmidt had careers beyond like two years from this point, but Eric Gagne was absolutely unfathomable as a closer. As good as Rivera was for sustained excellence, I believe that Eric Gagne was, for a couple years, the best closer in MLB history. WAR disagrees with me, and I can't really justify this all that well, but I'll go with Gagne, followed closely by Prior and Schmidt.

2002

AL MVP Miguel Tejada

This had to be a real dilemma for Billy Beane. On one hand, Tejada's your guy. On the other hand, everything you stand for professionally says that giving Miguel Tejada the MVP award is insane. I mean, Tejada had a decidedly okay year. Like, TRANSCENDENTALLY okay. But Alex Rodriguez had a terrific offensive year and, as with 2003, the only guys comparable to the slick-fielding shortstop were either first basemen (Jim Thome, Jason Giambi) or an honorary first baseman (Manny Ramirez). So A-Rod was a clearly deserving winner. 

NL MVP Barry Bonds

Are you sick of me gushing over Barry Bonds? Yes? Well, he had an on-base percentage of .582 and a slugging percentage of .799. That is all.

AL Cy Young Barry Zito

Pedro Martinez did a thing for a while where he pitched insufficient innings but absolutely destroyed in them. And if I'd pick him over Halladay in 03, I'm pretty sure I have to pick him over Zito in 02. Sorry, Brad Pitt.

NL Cy Young Randy Johnson

This is about as easy as it gets. And hell, this is easy in a year where Randy Johnson actually won it! #2 is Curt Schilling, who also had an awesome year but with a 3.23 ERA instead of a 2.32 ERA. fWAR says Schilling was better by 1.3 wins. bWAR picks Unit by 2.18. Weird. I'm picking Randy Johnson. Also, I want to create a statistics website calling Going Yard Statistics so that I can call my WAR formula GWAR. This can't go wrong.

2001

AL MVP Ichiro Suzuki

First of all, I've never quite decided of whether I want to refer to him as "Ichiro Suzuki" or just "Ichiro". I think it's fair to use them interchangeably, personally. Unfortunately, and I say this as somebody who LOVES Ichiro on a "I love watching him play because he's just so damn fun" level, he didn't deserve the 2001 MVP. Voters, it seems, were awfully infatuated with his story (being a 28 year old rookie from the Japanese league) and neglected the truth--while he had a league-leading batting average and had a cannon arm in right field, his average was only marginally better than Jason Giambi's, who drew over four times as many walks in fewer plate appearances and also had actual power numbers. Ichiro was undoubtedly the most valuable player in the AL in terms of a fielding/running combination but Giambi was a FAR superior hitter. My #2 would be A-Rod, who finished sixth and garnered zero first place votes.

NL MVP Barry Bonds

This was the first year of Albert Pujols and thus the first year than Cardinals fans irrationally tried to argue early-2000s Pujols, who was awesome, was better than early-2000s Bonds. And he had a good year but Barry Bonds was just other-worldly in this and every year. Actually, by the insane standards he set, this year in which he merely had a .515 OBP was lackluster, but he also slugged a ridiculous .863. Oh, and he also hit 73 home runs. #2 was Sammy Sosa, who hit 64 home runs, which I forgot happened. Ah, steroids. Fourth on my ballot (the ballots only go to three) would have been Luis Gonzalez, who hit .325 and hit 57 home runs. Things are weird.

AL Cy Young Roger Clemens

Because wins are everything in pitcher evaluation, Roger Clemens won a Cy Young in one of his more nondescript seasons. There really wasn't a tremendous season that year that overwhelmed the competition but the statistically best was Roger's teammate Mike Mussina. He only finished fifth, not even coming close, but he finished a close second in ERA while exhibiting terrific control and still putting up respectable strikeout totals. My ballot goes Moose, Freddy Garcia, Mark Mulder. With Clemens at fourth.

NL Cy Young Randy Johnson

There are only two guys worth even mentioning, and Curt Schilling barely merits conversation as well. He showed solid control and put up strong strikeout numbers by comparison to pretty much anyone that isn't named Randy Johnson. But Randy Johnson was putting up 13.41 strikeouts per nine innings. Seriously. Read that again. Voters actually got this ballot 100% correct: Johnson 1, Schilling 2, Matt Morris a distant but deserving 3.

2000

AL MVP Jason Giambi

Honestly he deserved an MVP in 2001 and didn't in 2000, so I guess there's some sort of cosmic justice in the baseball universe. Now, his 2000 was arguably better than his 2001 but 2001 didn't include Pedro Martinez, who was busy being incredible for his few years. More on Pedro when I get to Cy Young, but a couple standouts: My #2 is Alex Rodriguez, who played terrific defensive shortstop and had a .035 lower OPS than DH Frank Thomas yet still got fewer first place votes. My #3 is Darin Erstad, who parlayed his strong hitting, awesome defending season into being one of the most peculiarly overrated players I've ever seen (in that he was HORRIBLE yet was generally considered good, though not great).

NL MVP Jeff Kent

Okay, while Jeff Kent didn't deserve the NL MVP, his election wasn't NEARLY as horrible as most people think it was. And it pains me to say this because Jeff Kent might be my single least favorite baseball player ever, and I'm old enough to have experienced at least some of the Albert Belle era. History remembers this as Kent vs. Bonds, an interesting battle of teammates who hated each other. It was an interesting dynamic because it was interracial, intergenerational (judging by Jeff Kent's mustache I'm estimating he was born in 1950), and because it was the battle of up-front prick Barry Bonds versus the much more image-conscious Jeff Kent. But Bonds, who had a better OPS but played in fewer games and didn't play a relevant defensive position, didn't deserve it either. MVP should have been Todd Helton, who led the NL in OPS while playing 160 games and playing solid first base (to clarify, while good defense at first will never be a reason for me to vote for a guy for MVP, it's nice to know he didn't completely suck at it). My ballot goes Helton, Bonds, Kent, and in that order.

AL Cy Young Pedro Martinez

I will choose not to argue this because I can't imagine somebody disagreeing with me. But here is a statistical comparison of Pedro Martinez and David Wells, who finished third and who FanGraphs gives the second highest WAR among AL pitchers that year (personally I'd put Mussina over Wells but this is just for simplicity, neither is close to #1).

Pedro Martinez: 29 starts, 18-6, 217 IP, 32 BB, 284 K, 1.74 ERA

David Wells: 35 starts, 20-8, 229.2 IP, 31 BB, 166 K, 4.11 ERA

BUT WELLS GOT MORE WINS! I kid. Even Cy Young voters, who often cared way too much about win totals, rightfully gave the Cy Young to Pedro Martinez unanimously. They're bad but they're not THAT bad.

NL Cy Young Randy Johnson

These competitions were really silly for a while because Randy Johnson was just so excellent. And by his lofty standards this wasn't even a totally absurd season. His ERA was a tick higher than Kevin Brown's but in just 18.2 more innings, he had 131 more strikeouts. Kevin Brown, who is wildly underrated in terms of being a guy who is a proven steroid user who played really well that nobody seems to give a damn about, somehow only finished sixth in MVP balloting (I'd put him second), and Greg Maddux had a "ho-hum I'm Greg Maddux so all of my seasons are good even though my stats implied regression for fifteen years" season and should have (and did!) finished third.

Johnapedia's Six Greatest Albums of All-Time (Right Now)

Lists of the greatest music albums ever are arbitrary and pointless. They are inevitably nitpicky, and about the most subjective entertainment group of them all. But still, I want in this action, so here are the Six Greatest Albums of All-Time (as of this moment, in my opinion)!

No rules or restrictions to this list. I'm allowed to list with regards to any genre and with no limits to how many of a certain band, era, style, etc. These are simply the six best albums there are in my opinion. It was hard to restrict some of my absolute favorite bands but in my opinion, none had individual albums as great as these.

6. The Cars--The Cars (1978): The "controversial" pick of the list, in that this is the album on here least likely to pop up on anyone's greatest ever list. Though I'm not sure why. It is a remarkably consistent album and you could argue it's the album whose worst track (probably "My Best Friend's Girl" or "All Mixed Up") is probably the best. It's a relentlessly fun album that doesn't exactly claim to make any sort of grandiose statement on life or love or whatever. Also, unlike virtually every other New Wave album, legitimate guitar solos! Couldn't find a one-video encapsulation of the album but this guy has a constantly looping playlist of the album's songs in sequential order and of good audio quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BDBzgHXf64&playnext=1&list=PL23C71D00D0D12AE8&feature=results_main

5. The Stone Roses--The Stone Roses (1989): It's a pop album in the kind of mold I'd like all pop to be built. It's not about hooks and it's not about style--it's about a collection of great, well-written songs. The album has a few tracks that are clearly beneath the quality of the album's best, but the standouts are absolutely fucking brilliant. I'm thoroughly convinced that Ian Brown and John Squire didn't write "I Wanna Be Adored", and that they actually discovered it naturally while tripping their balls off on peyote in the desert somewhere. A close #2 in terms of song qualities is "I Am the Resurrection", which is half solid rock song and half insane jam band shit. It also has the coolest breakdown basically in song history. The below video is actually the deluxe version of the album, which is the same as the original except it has Fools Gold (which is an awesome 10 minute song that is very much in the same vein as the album) at the end. Consider it a bonus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MvBrEkL1Q

4. Purple Rain--Prince (1984): The fact that I admire the hell out of Prince for his versatility and showmanship is of relatively little significance in evaluating this album--the fact that it is a terrific collection of songs is what matters. In spite being one of the biggest commercial hit albums of the 1980s, it's pretty damn experimental--it has funk, R&B, pop, hard rock, gospel, new wave--and all of it is equally strong. It would be higher on the list in all likelihood if it weren't for "I Would Die 4 U". That song sucks. To the surprise of absolutely nobody in the history of the internet, this album is not on YouTube, but I did stumble across the title track somehow up here and not replaced by generic muzack because Prince said so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKvUeIz44w

3. Revolver--The Beatles (1966): To me, the relative quality of Beatles music in relation to the time is a bell curve. They started off making lame pop songs and ended making burned-out pop songs and in between they made some great shit, peaking with this album. In spite of "Good Day Sunshine", this is the most consistent Beatles album and piles classics upon classics, alternating between songs that you could imagine the Beatles making in 1963 ("Got To Get You Into My Life") and songs that would have sounded insane and ahead of their time had they been released in 2006 ("Tomorrow Never Knows"). In contrast to the vastly overrated Sgt. Pepper's, the album holds up as a great listen. Also, you could argue it includes the best composition of Lennon ("Tomorrow Never Knows"), McCartney ("Eleanor Rigby"), and Harrison ("Taxman").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEz2YD-w2jc

2. Definitely Maybe--Oasis (1994): In contrast to the band's stateside reputation as "the band that did Wonderwall", their debut is a heavy hard rock album. I fell in love with this band within the first thirty seconds of "Supersonic" and will never not love blasting "Columbia" as I drive down the highway with my window down during the summer. The lyrics are relatively terrible ("relatively" because Oasis phoned in even trying even more on their next album) and some of the songs blatantly ripoff major elements of other songs (though not identical in an Under Pressure/Ice Ice Baby way, the IMMENSE similarities between the guitar riff of "Cigarettes and Alcohol" and T. Rex's "Bang a Gong (Get It On)"). But I love listening to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAp8sH1h2iY

1. Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols--The Sex Pistols (1977): Another fun album, but one whose pure joy is sadly neglected in the annals of history. Music snobs will dismiss the album because they think Johnny Rotten can't sing (if I like the sound coming out of his voice, he can sing to me) and because Sid Vicious can't play bass (he can't but he also barely appears on the album so it doesn't matter), but the album, like my #2, is heavy and fun and full of life, but also with a pseudo-political awareness. It's not high intellectual stuff, but it projects a legitimate anger that set off a goddamned firestorm in England when it came out. I think I would rioted over it just because I wanted an excuse to hear the guitar solo in "Holidays in the Sun" more and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJwSON85F2o

Lennay Kekua Thinks Matt Holliday is Unclutch

Any time during a St. Louis Cardinals baseball game that Matt Holliday gets an RBI hit, there is an inevitable chorus of Cardinals fans (and by fans, I also include sportswriters) mocking those who dismiss Holliday. Those who say he's not worthy of the most lucrative batter's contract in Cardinals history. Those who say Matt Holliday is terrible. Those who say Matt Holliday isn't trying. Those who allegedly exist.

But where do they exist? I certainly don't follow them. I'm not one to constantly stalk the #stlcards hashtag on Twitter but are there really people who think Matt Holliday should ride the pine? Because I haven't seen these fans. Maybe there's a random crazy here or there, but in a world in which there is a decent following of people who think Joe Kelly should replace Jaime Garcia in the Cardinals rotation, is the occasional loon really worth giving attention unless he's representative of a major trend?

The fact that there are fans calling out the "haters" should not be a huge surprise to anyone--Cardinals fans are interesting like that. More than any other fans in sports, it seems, fans regard the St. Louis Cardinals truly as a religion. And not in the way that Green Bay Packers fans regard the team as religion--they're specifically regarding the team's wins and losses as the gospel. The Cardinals players aren't merely vessels to lead to world championships--they're deities. To insult Matt Holliday, or any other Cardinal, is blasphemy.

The problem is how St. Louis Cardinals "media" (henceforth to be known as media) continue to push this notion of a mass anti-Holliday uprising. References to the "Church of Clutch" or "Clutchy McClutcherson" imply a sufficiently large group of people. I'm not trying to take a major stance on Matt Holliday here--that's what statistics are for. Statistics will indicate that he's a really good hitter, a mediocre fielder, that he had a pretty good 2011 NLCS and an abysmal 2011 World Series. But what I will indict is media taking the easy way out.

Media criticizing fans who criticize the team is the equivalent to political commentators saying that both major parties are crooks--whether they're right or wrong in their assessment, the reason they're saying it is because it makes it sound like they're taking a stance when in reality they're taking about as inoffensive of one as is humanly possible. It's the equivalent of the DJ 2000 from The Simpsons--"Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns." It's a non-starter.

The thing is that obsessively positive coverage of Matt Holliday (or Yadier Molina, or Adam Wainwright, or Albert Pujols when he was a Cardinal, or anyone really) is reflective of a uniform lack of skepticism in St. Louis sports media. Now, I recognize that the Sports pages are more or less a secondary Entertainment section, but at least that section has negative reviews for movies. I'm not advocating that sports media needs to be the Enquirer or something. But considering that this is the city's baseball writers who, upon the biggest star in the city being discovered to be harboring androstenedione in his locker, effectively blackballed the reporter who reported the story. If Steve Wilstein was Woodward and Bernstein, local sports media wasn't Richard Nixon--it was G. Gordon Liddy.

With this said, I understand why the myth of the Holliday haters, as well as countless other made-up "haters", continues to exist. It's not because the reporters themselves are still effectively entertainers. If you're a Cardinals beatwriter or columnist or something like that, you aren't Deadspin. You aren't running some kind of exposé meant to expose a dark undercurrent. Nor perhaps should you be. This is sports we're talking about--not military reporting. And sports fans, but Cardinals fans especially, don't seem to really want to know that their heroes aren't probably every bit the scum that their adversaries are. We could talk about how even Fernando Vina and Cody McKay were taking steroids back in the day. We could talk about how we stole a highway segment named after MARK FREAKING TWAIN to name it after Mark McGwire. But it's a lot more fun to yell "MVPee!" and pat ourselves on the back anyway.

The Difference Between Kyle Lohse and Albert Pujols

Scale.

That's about it, really. And the fact that Albert Pujols had been a lifelong Cardinal up until 2011 and that Kyle Lohse had been a journeyman. But when it comes down to it, from THEIR perspective, Pujols and Lohse did the exact same thing. Each took more years and more money to go to a slightly worse team. And both had fans upset that they did not give a fairly unrealistic "hometown discount" to the Cardinals (in spite of the fact that Lohse is from California and Pujols is from Kansas City by way of the Dominican Republic). But much, MUCH moreso with Pujols was there red-hot anger. But why?

With both Albert Pujols and Kyle Lohse, my feeling when I heard they had officially signed with Not The Cardinals was not happy nor was it sad--it was relieved. Albert Pujols was the best player over the previous decade but there was no way in hell he was going to, starting at age 31, be worth $254 million over ten years. Not a chance. With Kyle Lohse it was even more obvious--besides the fact that Kyle Lohse at his absolute peak wasn't a GREAT pitcher, the Cardinals had a stable full of young arms ready to go. So why burn money on an unnecessary veteran?

Yet even with the many fans who agree with this and that 10/254 for Pujols would have been a waste of resources, they STILL despise him. Yet Lohse they're fine with. I legitimately am just trying to figure out what the difference is, why fans would be okay with Lohse yet angry at Pujols. Do we just expect Albert Pujols to be a commodity for the Cardinals whereas Kyle Lohse is a fully functioning human being? Do fans really think Albert Pujols was more "just in it for the money" than Kyle Lohse (spoiler alert: They both were, and that's their rights as goddamned Americans)? Just wondering. Any alternative theories would be terrific in the comments.

John Takes a Survey for High Schoolers

Hey, people who are roughly my age, remember when you were like a freshman or sophomore in high school and the biggest thing in the world you could do if you didn't have friends was to fill out a question with fairly generic personal questions? Of course you do! I do, and I remember doing them with a relative sense of earnestness. Well, a decade after starting high school, I think now is the right time to answer one of these again.

This is seriously going to get personal, you ready?

Um, I guess.

If you were caught cheating, would you fess up?

Nope, I'd lie my ass off. "No, I didn't cheat." "But John, I saw you cheat. Hell, I have it on camera." "Wasn't me." Thanks for the life guidance, Shaggy. Appreciate it!

The last time you felt honestly broken?

I haven't. I had to get stitches in my head when I was four so that's probably the closest I have come to feeling broken.

Are you craving something?

No, I just ate some tortilla chips with salsa. Tasted okay. Not great but serviceable. I'd give it a 7/10. Thanks for your concern!

If you could have one thing right now what would it be?

Something better to do than this survey, probably.

Would you rather have ten kids, or none?

None. I hope I never meet the kind of person who would answer "ten." Like, that's horrifying. If you want a kid or two, that's fine, but ten? Why do you hate yourself?

What do you hear right now?

Dan McLaughlin's voice. As I was typing that, I started hearing Al Hrabosky's voice. I hate my life.

Is your bed against more than one of your walls?

I think it's only against one. Honestly, I spend so little time in my bedroom that I'm not positive. I'd go check but I can't fathom how this fact would be relevant. Like, if your bed is against two walls, does that make you more likely to be a serial killer? Because I could see that.

What’s on your mind right now?

Thank God these questions are such softballs. If I get to the end of this survey and they start asking questions about subliminal sexual desires or something, this is going to get uncomfortable. I guess if you're making a survey for teens, you probably don't want to get too, um, intense with it.

Are you there for your friends?

No, I'm in my living room right now.

Last person to see you cry?

Shit, I can't remember the last time I cried. I'll go with my mom. This seems like a reasonably safe guess. I guess if I were really a teenager answering this question, I would have just cried myself to sleep listening to Senses Fail or some shit last night. Oh well. I am what I am.

What do you do when you get nervous?

I do shit. If I'm nervous because I have some sort of daunting work assignment, I do it. If I'm nervous because I'm in an awkward social situation, I leave or I try to make the situation better.

Be honest, do you like people in general?

I hate everybody. Especially people who read my blog.

How old do you think you will be when you finally have kids?

22. This is going to be a challenge since I'm 24 and, to my knowledge, do not have any children at this present moment, but I'm going to go with 22. Gotta figure the odds are pretty long--worth putting a buck down on.

Does anyone completely understand you?

Fuck, I don't completely understand me.

Do you have a reason to smile right now?

Yes. Ty Wigginton just recorded the final out of an inning by throwing a ball to Matt Adams. As a fellow fat person, seeing positive role models such as these men succeed makes me know that the younger generation of lardasses will have positive self-images.

Has anyone told you they don’t ever wanna lose you?

Yeah, when I was five and had to hold a parent's hand when walking through parking lots.

Would you be happier if life had a rewind button?

No. Because a rewind button doesn't change what happens. And I'd probably fuck up like I do with TV rewind buttons and go back too far. Like I'll hold it and somehow wind up in 1998 and I'll have no idea how to get back because I won't have the internet. Also I won't be able to check Twitter, and fuck that.

Do you tell your mum or dad everything?

Well, no, but mum? I'm taking a British people survey? No wonder these questions have no resonance for me.

Does it matter to you if your boyfriend or girlfriend smokes?

Yes, it matters a lot to me. Especially because I don't have a girlfriend (or boyfriend) and frankly, whether they smoke or not, I'm pretty goddamned curious who they are.

Are you going to get hurt anytime soon by someone?

How the fuck would I know? Seriously, how would I have even the slightest capacity to know the answer to this?

This time last year, can you remember who you liked?

Let's see--April 7, 2012. Lance Berkman. I was a big Lance Berkman fan.

Do you think more about the past, present, or future?

No.

How many hours of sleep do you get a night?

I average about 7.42.

Are you easy to get along with?

You people know better than I do.

Do you hate the last girl you had a conversation with?

The last girl I had a conversation with was my mom. She's okay.

What was the last drink that you put in your mouth?

Diet Mountain Dew. Though I'm curious what the interesting answer to this would be. Is this where high school freshmen try to sound cool and pretend they're drinking a lot? I was never that guy then, and I'm definitely not that guy now.

What size bed do you have?

That kind where you could fit two people but not very comfortably. Double? Is Double a type of bed?

Do you start the water before you get in the shower or when you get in?

After,  because I'm not a psychopath. If you start water in a shower that you aren't in, you are a wasteful sack of shit and please don't tell me you're this person because if I know, I will defriend you on Facebook, block you on Twitter, and possibly seek a restraining order.

Do you like the rain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esEdC0c3YI4

Oh, and not really.

Do you think someone is thinking about you right now?

I just tweeted a couple of minutes ago so it seems possible. If somebody who isn't on Twitter is thinking of me, that's just weird. If you were, deny it.

Have you ever done something you told yourself you wouldn’t do?

Of course I did; I went to Truman State.

Would people refer to you as a goodie goodie, bad news, or neither?

People who know me in real life would probably say goodie goodie because I obey the rules. People who know me online only probably just think I'm a friggin asshole.

Who were you last in the car with, besides family?

Oh damn, it's been a while. Let me think here...I was in the car with people on the way back from my friend's bachelor party. That was like a month ago almost. I live a sad life. *Turns on Boys Don't Cry by The Cure*

What’s the last movie you saw in theaters and with who?

You want to know how much I don't go to theaters? The Hangover, with my sister. I'm going to listen to Boys Don't Cry again. I'm not upset or anything; I just like the song, assholes.

Have you ever kissed someone who had a boyfriend/ girlfriend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9hOFOgqOds

Have you ever been hurt by someone you never thought would hurt you?

Do car accidents count?

Your parents are out of town. Would you throw a massive party?

Probably not. Then again, I don't live with my parents and I have the option to throw massive parties pretty much every night and don't.

Do you regret a past relationship?

I've never been married, so no.

Would you rather spend a Friday night at a concert or a crazy party?

I'd rather spend my Friday night at work than at a crazy party. So I guess the concert.

Do you tend to fall for the same type of person over and over?

Yes. I tend to fall for women a lot.

Have you made a joke about somebody that made them cry?

No, but shit, that sounds fun. If any of you have any recently deceased pets, let me know.

Do you care too much about your appearance?

Lol.

Are you a jealous person?

No. My life rules. What am I going to be jealous of that I can't go out and have if I don't want it?

Have you bought any clothing items in the last week?

I don't think I've bought any clothing items in the last year.

Do you miss anyone?

I miss my dog. I haven't seen my dog in a month. Does that count?

Last person who made you cry?

Do I have to post the link again?

Does your ex piss you off?

Everybody pisses me off. I thought this was covered.

What are you doing tomorrow?

Good money says I'm going to work. But maybe I'll try to relate to the people this survey was designed for by writing poetry on my Xanga page all day.

Are you the type of person who has a new boyfriend/ girlfriend every week?

Oh yeah, these people exist when you aren't an adult.

Is there anyone you want to come see you?

Yeah sure. Come on by if you're reading this.

Have you ever been cheated on?

Again, this survey is designed for fourteen year olds. How many goddamned relationships did everybody but me apparently have when they were fourteen? You've been cheated on, you have an ex you still think about, are you an O.C. character or something?

Ever given your all to someone who walked away?

Repeat my previous answer here.

Do you like cotton candy?

Well, this was a dramatic departure from the previous question. And the answer is not particularly. I liked cotton candy and then I hit puberty and started eating actual foods primarily.

Who was the last person you had a serious conversation with?

The woman at Mobil on the Run this morning. Regarding my 50 cent large soda. It was a "serious" conversation.

Are you planning to get knocked up or knock someone up by age 17?

Yes.

Do you have siblings?

Yes.

Have you ever fallen asleep on someone?

My mom, when I was three.

How has the past week been for you?

Aite. This is starting to bore me

Do you have a friend of the opposite sex you can talk to?

No, absolutely not. Not one. You know, this is actually a benefit to being an adult is that you can speak to the opposite sex as a person and not like they're some mutant life form. But the answer is yes. Actually, better question--how can you have a friend of the opposite sex (or same sex, really) that you can't talk to? How the hell are you defining friendship? Or is this a literal thing? Like, you can talk to them because they have vocal chords.

What’s on your mind right now?

Didn't this question come up earlier?

What were you doing at midnight last night?

Watching TV in basically the exact same seating position I'm in right now.

What is your current mood?

Annoyed.

Who was the first person you talked to today?

My sister.

Will this week be a good one?

Maybe?

Anything happen to you within the past month that made you really happy?

Ask me in a few minutes when this goddamned survey is over.

Who were you with last night?

The coolest guy in the world.

Did you talk to someone until you fell asleep last night?

Yes, I have been to a sleepover before.

Next time you will kiss someone?

Today. Yes, today. I'll be home all day, ladies.

Who should start the kiss, the girl or the boy?

Nobody. They should just jump straight into the fornications.

Do you have any plans for the weekend?

For it to end in a few hours?

A Quick Thought on Roger Ebert

As you assuredly know by now, former Chicago Sun-Times film critic and TV personality Roger Ebert died today at the age of 70. There are thousands of tributes to Roger Ebert online and know full well that this reasonably short tribute to Mr. Ebert will say what many have said already. But it cannot be said enough.

Roger Ebert may, both directly (through being an avid fan of his writing) and indirectly (through influencing the styles of many writers I enjoy), have influenced Johnapedia more than any other writer. Most people will always turn to his time on At The Movies with Gene Siskel, and later Richard Roeper, and while I do enjoy both incarnations of the show, his writing will always be his apex, as far as I'm concerned. Roger Ebert was one of the first major film critics who spoke to people such as myself (or at least how I perceive myself, and also how most would like to perceive themselves)--he wrote towards people who were selective with their movie tastes but who also like to be entertained. 

An example I came up with would be how critics would react to Anchorman. A pre-Ebert film critic would excoriate it for being silly and for not being directed by Ingmar Bergman. Too many modern critics would immediately call it the funniest movie ever made in order to pander to popular opinion. Roger Ebert would tell the truth. He would evaluate the movie with a critical eye but he wouldn't bash a less prestigious movie just to seem like an intellect.

Roger Ebert spoke with an admirable snark (his review for the truly abysmal movie "North" is the stuff of legend), but he wasn't just going for hit pieces. The problem with some of the intense critics of the modern era (blogs, random internet people mostly) is that they don't appreciate. If a critic hates everything, who gives a damn if he doesn't like a movie? If a critic, however, enjoys film and shows a deep appreciation for it, then his detracting will hold some weight. Roger Ebert was that guy.

I don't feel like giving you links to great Roger Ebert articles or great Roger Ebert TV clips. I wouldn't be able to stop. Roger Ebert is a true legend, the single greatest and most important film critic in the history of the United States. Rest in peace.

The Five Most Important Songs of the Rock and Roll Era

This is not a list of the greatest songs of the rock and roll era (1954 to present). It is merely a list of the most important songs. Songs which influenced not only music but also society. Nothing about this list is scientific. It is merely my own irrelevant opinion. I intentionally avoided many Elvis and Chuck Berry songs that some might think would fit here for a simple reason--we're assuming that each song is its own separate entity. If Chuck Berry hadn't released Maybellene, he would still have Johnny B. Goode. These are songs which, on their own power, influenced the world.

5. Happy Birthday, by Stevie Wonder: For those who don't know basic history, it was once a REALLY controversial idea to have Martin Luther King Jr. Day be a thing. The controversy never made much sense to me. To paraphrase Chris Rock, you really hate MLK more than you like a day off of work? Anyway, Stevie Wonder, taking advantage of his position as universally loved and respected by all people of all races regardless of their preferred musical genres, released an inexplicably closer-to-public-domain-than-that-other-song happy birthday song to MLK. The song's popularity helped (though I reject the theory that it was a primary cause) Martin Luther King Jr. Day become a holiday.

4. Courtesy of the Red White and Blue, by Toby Keith: Hey guys, remember back when Toby Keith was a thing? Actually, better yet, do you remember back when the Dixie Chicks were a thing? If you're my age or older, of course you remember when the Dixie Chicks were a thing--they were fucking massive. As in "the biggest female country music act ever". I never cared much for them, because I was a cynical little nine year old asshole when Wide Open Spaces came out, but they were a big deal. And their careers were effectively ended by this musically insignificant Toby Keith song. But obviously that's not the biggest deal about this song--how about IT MADE EVERYBODY WANT TO GO TO WAR WITH THE WRONG GODDAMNED COUNTRY? Music is a powerful thing. Now, I have to say in fairness to Toby Keith--while I do think this song is stupid regardless, it doesn't really imply Iraq, so even if its politics are clearly hawkish, they're not inaccurate so that's okay. But perception is what matters here. Darryl Worley's knucklehead douchebag anthem "Have You Forgotten?" was much more manipulative and there is a special place in hell for said "person" when he dies, but it was also far less popular. And it also didn't kill the Dixie Chicks' career. Which is weird, because neither song mentions the Dixie Chicks. And it's not like Sweet Home Alabama killed Neil Young's career. 2002 was weird, guys.

3. God Save the Queen, by The Sex Pistols: Musically, it was important, because it's one of the early punk songs, but it wasn't the first (New Rose--The Damned) nor was it the first by the goddamned Sex Pistols (the also-political Anarchy in the UK). The reason this song makes this list is because Britain lost its collective shit (this phrase is acceptable as a self-aware tribute band that performs songs by Collective Soul, and I don't mind if you steal this). Hell, there was a (likely real) conspiracy to make sure Rod Stewart was #1 when the Sex Pistols rightfully should have been, because the song was released in conjunction with Queen Elizabeth II's (yep, she was a thing in 1977 too) silver jubilee. At least I think it was silver. Oh, who the hell cares? Anyway, this song also rules which is part of why it cracks the top three even though it didn't really affect the only country that matters.

2. Darling Nikki, by Prince: There are two groups of people--people who think Prince is a musical genius in the vain of David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Trent Reznor, and whomever else is associated with versatile virtuosity; and people whose opinion on Prince is wrong. Decades of being erroneously compared to Michael Jackson, strictly a (good) pop musician, has caused Prince's career as a boundary-pushing funk rocker to be sadly ignored by way too many people. And never was he more boundary-pushing (or perhaps trollish) than when Darling Nikki was included on the Purple Rain soundtrack. It wasn't a single and it's not really considered a great Prince song (I personally think it's awesome, even in comparison to other Prince songs, but that's besides the point), but it's an IMPORTANT song because of the time Al and Tipper Gore's daughter listened to it. And Tipper walked in. And she was horrified by the song's extremely sexual content. And rather than prohibiting her daughter from listening to it like a normal overprotective parent, she started the PMRC (Parents Media Resource Center, I think. NOBODY IS GOING TO READ THIS ANYWAY I'LL RESEARCH AS MUCH AS I DAMN WELL PLEASE, INTERNET). And the PMRC tried to push for censorship. It failed like hell at that (John Fucking Denver offered a major testimonial in favor of the smut-pushers) though it did result in the iconic "Parental Advisory" sticker now worn as a badge of honor by gangster rappers and heavy metal bands and one time on an instrumental Frank Zappa album, for some reason. Ever see Michael Jackson cause a great moral panic? Nope? Okay then.

1. Helter Skelter, by The Beatles: This song had dramatic implications both on the music world and the world world. First, music. Helter Skelter is, with good reason, often regarded as the first heavy metal song. I don't know that I'd categorize it as heavy metal but it's certainly a forerunner. The guy who would eventually write Silly Love Songs writing and performing a song The Stooges would be proud to call their own in 1968 was terrific. It's been covered by legions of terrible bands since. But it's not just that! He also inspired Charles Manson, who my research indicates was a leader of a semi-political, semi-religious, mostly drug fueled cult before existing purely to troll NBC interviewers as he has done for the last thirty years. You see, Charles Manson interpreted a song about a big slide as being about a race war in which he and his followers would go to an underground city after blacks killed whites in a race war and then they would emerge after the black people were incapable of running society so they'd be viewed as the elites but that in order to get the ball rolling they would have to kill the marginal actress wife of the guy who directed Rosemary's Baby. You know, because LSD.