Albert Pujols is taking his talents to South Metro Los Angeles.
I'm sure this news is startling to you, as the media has been pretty silent about the topic, but apparently, Albert Pujols signed a deal with the Los Angeles Angels, better known as "that team that was good that one year Darin Erstad decided to not be terrible for once." His contract, which will ensure that for the next decade he will not be playing for the defending champions of baseball but rather a team which seems destined to become also-rans with the emergence of their divisional rivals in Texas, is worth $254 million over the next 10 years.
But it's not about the money.
Rather than go back to St. Louis, which I won't argue has the best fans in baseball because it's an arbitrary term but certainly has good fans, and likely get a statue built in his honor, he's going to go to the second most popular team in its own metropolitan area and play in the suburban eyesore known poetically as Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Rather than play for a defending World Champion who is re-adding one of the ten best starting pitchers in baseball to be their unquestioned ace, he's going to play for a team whose most notable achievement in the last decade, aside from giving out terrible contracts like they're pedophiles giving out popsicles, was having one of its best players suffer a career-altering injury on a walk-off home run celebration.
But it's not about the money.
Rather than get the biggest free pass in baseball since Mickey Mantle, being able to do no harm for adoring fans, to joining a team in the second biggest metro in the country which will be as scrutinized of a team as there is in baseball this year.
Screw it. It's about the money.
And the thing is, I don't really fault Albert Pujols for chasing after the money. I know he makes a ton of money, but I can't argue with an additional several million dollars. I won't even use the overplayed notion of "the few extra million don't matter to him", because although this is probably true, I don't know that. Here's the thing--I work at a job that I'm generally content with. At least I don't spend my whole life whining about it. I would categorize my company loyalty as "some." But if a competitor came in with a fairly similar job and was offering me several millions dollars more, you better believe I would take it. That's essentially what Pujols did. However...
I will freely admit I'm in it for the money. Most people are. I don't care how much you make--it's your right as an American to be in it for the money, and while I question the story that a man who attended Glenn Beck's rally because he was told it wasn't political actually aced his citizenship test, Pujols is an American who is allowed to do as he pleases. But if I got the millions of dollars in raises, I would at least be freaking honest about it. I'd go into work tomorrow and tell my boss "I'm leaving because I'm gonna make a few million more elsewhere. I know you guys can't match it, but you and I both know I can't pass this up." And I can say with 100% certainty that my boss would understand. But the point is that I, in this hypothetical, made it very clear--while work conditions and my personal happiness are important, my main prerogative is the money. And the same applies to Pujols. Through this, he has made the same idiotic and pointless mistake that Alex Rodriguez made in 2001. You can't leave your obsessive fan base on a strong team for a less tolerant bunch on a weaker team and successfully argue that you aren't in it for the money. Just do it for the money. Everybody else is.
But for the Cardinals fans bemoaning the loss as a death blow for the organization (which, I must admit, is an impressively low percentage of fans), the Cardinals won nine World Series titles without Pujols. We're getting Adam Wainwright back--the difference in wins Pujols gives us versus the wins Waino gives us is, like, maybe three. Lance Berkman can play first and Allen Craig can play right field once he gets healthy. And now we don't have to pay $25 million-plus to a guy who for the latter half of the deal will be wildly overpaid. This is actually a huge benefit for us--once we get Lohse and Westbrook off the books and the rotation is headlined by Adam Wainwright and a seasoned Jaime Garcia/Shelby Miller, things will be looking up. And unlike when we were going to be paying $42 million for two players (one of whom, and this can't be stressed enough, is the softest player in the history of a St. Louis Cardinals outfield that once included J.D. Drew), we can afford to keep them.
Life is good, Cardinal nation.
P.S.--This title, a Spanish translation of The Mercenary for those of you who are very stupid, is a blatant ripoff of the blog El Maquino (Spanish translation of The Machine, which I guess is slightly less obvious than El Mercenario), which you should read. http://elmaquino5.wordpress.com/
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
The Lee Corso "Controversy"--Aww, Fuck It
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOBryz4sbm8
Seriously, how great is that? Just nonchalantly saying "Aww, fuck it" on national TV as a crowd having the time of their admittedly pathetic lives roars? Unfortunately, some disagree that this was a great moment in the history of television and actually argue the other way. It should be noted that most people don't seem too terribly offended, but apparently the amount was enough (or perceived to be enough) that ESPN forced Lee Corso to apologize.
Hopefully, it won't go further than this. I kind of don't think it will, but I'm scared enough that I felt compelled to write this. But I have a very simple question for those who were offended by Lee Corso's exclamation: Why?
What is offensive about a man saying "Fuck it", even if it was premeditated? Even if you think it's unnecessary, what about it is bad? It would be one thing if Lee had said "God damn it" (taking the Lord's name in vain) or if he'd told Chris Fowler to go fuck himself (saying something derogatory and mean towards somebody), but he did neither of these things. Now, I'm presuming most people who are offended are offended by the word fuck. This word was created by people at least a millennium after the arrival of Jesus. Nobody was ever damned in the Old Testament because they said the word fuck, because the word fuck didn't exist. Jesus never asked his followers not to say the word, because it didn't exist.
An easy parallel would be several other notable gaffes in which the word fuck was used, such as the legendary "Bill O'Reilly Flips Out" or the time Ernie Arnastos said "Keep fucking that chicken." But while these amuse me, I can at least rationalize why they'd be deemed offensive. With Bill O'Reilly, he is clearly being threatening and uncomfortable towards a defenseless, unseen man. With Arnastos (who claims that the line was an accident), there's at least a sexual connotation and I guess you could argue it encourages bestiality or something. It doesn't make sense, but it makes more sense than condemning Lee Corso. But honestly, what does "Fuck it" mean? Essentially it means "Whatever", which isn't typically considered offensive. It's just a phrase.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason 95% of people who use the phrase use the phrase is to get a rise out of the people who are offended. Because people get on their moral high horses about the use of the word fuck, it has a special elevated place in the American vernacular. It's trolling on a somewhat minor and very easy to use level. People don't use the phrase "fuck it" in spite of the fact that it offends people--they use the phrase because it offends people. Or at least because it grabs the attention of people.
From a legal perspective, Lee Corso did nothing wrong. The FCC has zero jurisdiction over ESPN, since ESPN is not a broadcast TV network, and even if Corso had said this on network television, I'm pretty sure the FCC has more important things to worry about. Like whether or not Janet Jackson exposes her breast to me when I was fifteen. Still no investigations into showing the ultra-violent D-Day scenes in Saving Private Ryan on network TV.
Basically, what I'm saying is if you want to complain about Lee Corso saying the F word on television, it's your right to do so. Just be forewarned that most of us don't really fucking care.
Seriously, how great is that? Just nonchalantly saying "Aww, fuck it" on national TV as a crowd having the time of their admittedly pathetic lives roars? Unfortunately, some disagree that this was a great moment in the history of television and actually argue the other way. It should be noted that most people don't seem too terribly offended, but apparently the amount was enough (or perceived to be enough) that ESPN forced Lee Corso to apologize.
Hopefully, it won't go further than this. I kind of don't think it will, but I'm scared enough that I felt compelled to write this. But I have a very simple question for those who were offended by Lee Corso's exclamation: Why?
What is offensive about a man saying "Fuck it", even if it was premeditated? Even if you think it's unnecessary, what about it is bad? It would be one thing if Lee had said "God damn it" (taking the Lord's name in vain) or if he'd told Chris Fowler to go fuck himself (saying something derogatory and mean towards somebody), but he did neither of these things. Now, I'm presuming most people who are offended are offended by the word fuck. This word was created by people at least a millennium after the arrival of Jesus. Nobody was ever damned in the Old Testament because they said the word fuck, because the word fuck didn't exist. Jesus never asked his followers not to say the word, because it didn't exist.
An easy parallel would be several other notable gaffes in which the word fuck was used, such as the legendary "Bill O'Reilly Flips Out" or the time Ernie Arnastos said "Keep fucking that chicken." But while these amuse me, I can at least rationalize why they'd be deemed offensive. With Bill O'Reilly, he is clearly being threatening and uncomfortable towards a defenseless, unseen man. With Arnastos (who claims that the line was an accident), there's at least a sexual connotation and I guess you could argue it encourages bestiality or something. It doesn't make sense, but it makes more sense than condemning Lee Corso. But honestly, what does "Fuck it" mean? Essentially it means "Whatever", which isn't typically considered offensive. It's just a phrase.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason 95% of people who use the phrase use the phrase is to get a rise out of the people who are offended. Because people get on their moral high horses about the use of the word fuck, it has a special elevated place in the American vernacular. It's trolling on a somewhat minor and very easy to use level. People don't use the phrase "fuck it" in spite of the fact that it offends people--they use the phrase because it offends people. Or at least because it grabs the attention of people.
From a legal perspective, Lee Corso did nothing wrong. The FCC has zero jurisdiction over ESPN, since ESPN is not a broadcast TV network, and even if Corso had said this on network television, I'm pretty sure the FCC has more important things to worry about. Like whether or not Janet Jackson exposes her breast to me when I was fifteen. Still no investigations into showing the ultra-violent D-Day scenes in Saving Private Ryan on network TV.
Basically, what I'm saying is if you want to complain about Lee Corso saying the F word on television, it's your right to do so. Just be forewarned that most of us don't really fucking care.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Schadenfreude of Beady Eye
Last March, I spent ten dollars for an album hoping that it would suck.
That album was Different Gear, Still Speeding by Beady Eye, the band formed by the remaining members of Oasis when Noel Gallagher quit the band. And I, like many, had always followed the belief that Noel Gallagher was the brilliant and talented songwriter who guided a ragtag bunch to musical greatness while the other members, particularly his brother Liam, rode his coattails and selfishly grabbed unwarranted attention. And given my belief, I wanted to listen to this album and just absolutely fucking hate it. I wanted to find it a collection of godawful, tuneless mess of songs clumsily attempted by the arrogant, spoiled guys who surely were the ones to blame for the downfall of the greatest band of my lifetime (yeah, I said it).
What I heard, rather, was the best album I'd heard since, conservatively, the Black Keys album Brothers. But rather than rave about how Beady Eye wildly surpassed my expectations, I'm going to talk about why I'm an idiot.
Whether or not the Beady Eye album was good is beside the point. I think so, and you all should check it out, but why would I want the album to fail? Unless you have some kind of personal vendetta against a musician (I don't against Beady Eye; I questioned their collective talents but it's not like Gem Archer punched my mother or something), why would I want Beady Eye to fail? To substantiate my own bullshit theories that 1. Nobody cares about, and 2. I don't have any sort of stake upon being correct?
There's a big difference between music and sports. If somebody does well in sports, it means somebody else does poorly, and vice versa. So if I root against the Yankees, it's also partially because I want to see the underdog (even if relatively so) succeed. But in music, success (as defined not by record sales but by making good music) benefits the world as a whole. The fact that The Beatles were changing the world musically in the 1960s didn't in turn make The Kinks worse--if anything it made them better, but certainly there is no good reason to root against the Beatles to make good music.
But this doesn't even just apply to bands you like. Take Journey, a band that, if you've read this blog, you know that I completely fucking despise. I hate everything about Journey--their pretension, their sycophantic lyrics, their masquerading as a great band. But should I root against them? If Journey, with their stupid little karaoke singer, records the modern day White Album, should I get mad? Or should I be happy that I can now listen to a wonderful piece of music? Well, I should be happy, but maybe I'm just an inconsolable douchebag. And thus it's entirely possible I'd be mad. Not bad at their success as much as mad that I was wrong.
The absurd Schadenfreude extends well beyond music though. Look at movies. For instance, this Friday will mark the release of the new Adam Sandler movie Jack and Jill, which will probably be terrible. Probably. But what if I watch the movie and enjoy it? Maybe I will find it hilarious. Maybe I'll find it life-altering and worthy of Oscar buzz. Again, probably won't happen, but why should I go into a movie expecting that the next hour and a half plus of my life are going to be a complete waste of time? Would my life not be better if I watched it and thought it was good? It's not like I'm in some kind of pool where I'm betting for Jack and Jill to suck. If Jack and Jill is the best movie I've seen since Fargo, then that is a good thing. It doesn't matter who makes it.
So why root against Beady Eye or Adam Sandler or any performer? Would the world be better if we'd instantly dismissed The Godfather as another of Marlon Brando's underdeveloped vanity pieces or if we deemed Led Zeppelin IV as pretentious garbage by the bunch of stoned hippies who couldn't tell if they were metal or folk because they were too stoned to tell the goddamned difference? I personally think not. And if you disagree, than you, sir or ma'am, are worse than Hitler.
That album was Different Gear, Still Speeding by Beady Eye, the band formed by the remaining members of Oasis when Noel Gallagher quit the band. And I, like many, had always followed the belief that Noel Gallagher was the brilliant and talented songwriter who guided a ragtag bunch to musical greatness while the other members, particularly his brother Liam, rode his coattails and selfishly grabbed unwarranted attention. And given my belief, I wanted to listen to this album and just absolutely fucking hate it. I wanted to find it a collection of godawful, tuneless mess of songs clumsily attempted by the arrogant, spoiled guys who surely were the ones to blame for the downfall of the greatest band of my lifetime (yeah, I said it).
What I heard, rather, was the best album I'd heard since, conservatively, the Black Keys album Brothers. But rather than rave about how Beady Eye wildly surpassed my expectations, I'm going to talk about why I'm an idiot.
Whether or not the Beady Eye album was good is beside the point. I think so, and you all should check it out, but why would I want the album to fail? Unless you have some kind of personal vendetta against a musician (I don't against Beady Eye; I questioned their collective talents but it's not like Gem Archer punched my mother or something), why would I want Beady Eye to fail? To substantiate my own bullshit theories that 1. Nobody cares about, and 2. I don't have any sort of stake upon being correct?
There's a big difference between music and sports. If somebody does well in sports, it means somebody else does poorly, and vice versa. So if I root against the Yankees, it's also partially because I want to see the underdog (even if relatively so) succeed. But in music, success (as defined not by record sales but by making good music) benefits the world as a whole. The fact that The Beatles were changing the world musically in the 1960s didn't in turn make The Kinks worse--if anything it made them better, but certainly there is no good reason to root against the Beatles to make good music.
But this doesn't even just apply to bands you like. Take Journey, a band that, if you've read this blog, you know that I completely fucking despise. I hate everything about Journey--their pretension, their sycophantic lyrics, their masquerading as a great band. But should I root against them? If Journey, with their stupid little karaoke singer, records the modern day White Album, should I get mad? Or should I be happy that I can now listen to a wonderful piece of music? Well, I should be happy, but maybe I'm just an inconsolable douchebag. And thus it's entirely possible I'd be mad. Not bad at their success as much as mad that I was wrong.
The absurd Schadenfreude extends well beyond music though. Look at movies. For instance, this Friday will mark the release of the new Adam Sandler movie Jack and Jill, which will probably be terrible. Probably. But what if I watch the movie and enjoy it? Maybe I will find it hilarious. Maybe I'll find it life-altering and worthy of Oscar buzz. Again, probably won't happen, but why should I go into a movie expecting that the next hour and a half plus of my life are going to be a complete waste of time? Would my life not be better if I watched it and thought it was good? It's not like I'm in some kind of pool where I'm betting for Jack and Jill to suck. If Jack and Jill is the best movie I've seen since Fargo, then that is a good thing. It doesn't matter who makes it.
So why root against Beady Eye or Adam Sandler or any performer? Would the world be better if we'd instantly dismissed The Godfather as another of Marlon Brando's underdeveloped vanity pieces or if we deemed Led Zeppelin IV as pretentious garbage by the bunch of stoned hippies who couldn't tell if they were metal or folk because they were too stoned to tell the goddamned difference? I personally think not. And if you disagree, than you, sir or ma'am, are worse than Hitler.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Song 2 vs. Seven Nation Army: The Stadium Song Battle to the Death
In one corner, we have a gritty, riff-heavy, grunge-influenced rocker from art rockers from London. In another corner we have the favorite of scarf-donning soccer crowds throughout Europe, courtesy of Detroit garage rockers. We, of course, have Blur's "Song 2" versus The White Stripes's "Seven Nation Army."
Now some of you may not be familiar with these songs, and if you aren't, then congratulations on waking up from a coma after fifteen years. The world has changed a lot. We have a black president now, too.
Anyway, let's get to who leads in the aspects that make a song a great stadium song:
The Hook: It doesn't matter that Song 2 has a tremendously solid drum intro or that Seven Nation Army has a strong guitar solo--everyone knows the hooks. Song 2 has the part where Damon Albarn yells "Whoo hoo!" and Seven Nation Army has Jack White's best-of-the-decade guitar riff. It's hard to pick because both hooks are great, but I have to side with Blur on this one. There are tons of great guitar riffs, but it's pretty rare to have a scat vocal that's as big of a deal as this one.
The Crowd Impact: Would you rather hear a packed house at a hockey game yell "Whoo hoo!" or a soccer crowd sing along to "Da, dum dum dum, da, dum, dum!" It's of course a matter of opinion, but give me the latter any day. It's harder to emulate a guitar riff than a yell, so the gloriously off-key sound of Seven Nation Army's attempts amuse me to no end. Advantage to the Stripes.
The Versatility: I've heard both songs in basically every type of sporting event, so versatility would *seemingly* be a push. But Song 2 holds an edge here for me. Seven Nation Army is more or less just a good song that gets played and sung along with because it's a good song. Song 2 is a naturally exciting song. It can be played in any situation--when the team needs to rally, when the win is in the bag, and just tow ake the crowd up. Thus, Song 2 is the perfect stadium song. Thanks for playing, Seven Nation Army--you put up a valiant fight. But apparently a Song 2 could hold you back.
Now some of you may not be familiar with these songs, and if you aren't, then congratulations on waking up from a coma after fifteen years. The world has changed a lot. We have a black president now, too.
Anyway, let's get to who leads in the aspects that make a song a great stadium song:
The Hook: It doesn't matter that Song 2 has a tremendously solid drum intro or that Seven Nation Army has a strong guitar solo--everyone knows the hooks. Song 2 has the part where Damon Albarn yells "Whoo hoo!" and Seven Nation Army has Jack White's best-of-the-decade guitar riff. It's hard to pick because both hooks are great, but I have to side with Blur on this one. There are tons of great guitar riffs, but it's pretty rare to have a scat vocal that's as big of a deal as this one.
The Crowd Impact: Would you rather hear a packed house at a hockey game yell "Whoo hoo!" or a soccer crowd sing along to "Da, dum dum dum, da, dum, dum!" It's of course a matter of opinion, but give me the latter any day. It's harder to emulate a guitar riff than a yell, so the gloriously off-key sound of Seven Nation Army's attempts amuse me to no end. Advantage to the Stripes.
The Versatility: I've heard both songs in basically every type of sporting event, so versatility would *seemingly* be a push. But Song 2 holds an edge here for me. Seven Nation Army is more or less just a good song that gets played and sung along with because it's a good song. Song 2 is a naturally exciting song. It can be played in any situation--when the team needs to rally, when the win is in the bag, and just tow ake the crowd up. Thus, Song 2 is the perfect stadium song. Thanks for playing, Seven Nation Army--you put up a valiant fight. But apparently a Song 2 could hold you back.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Easiest Decision Mo Will Ever Have to Make
There are several valid picks for who should be the next manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. There is only one truly correct pick, though. I'll get to that in a moment. But the easiest decision John Mozeliak will ever have to make is to pass on Jose Oquendo.
When you're a big deal, and the St. Louis Cardinals are a big deal (they have to be considered a top five managerial job in baseball), you don't have to make weak picks like hiring from within. Weak because it generally doesn't work. You remember when Notre Dame hired from within by hiring Bob Davie to replace Lou Holtz? Or when Bill Stewart replaced Rich Rodriguez at West Virginia? Does it work?
But let's be fair to Oquendo and just view his resume on its individual merits. He was a mediocre player (as have many managers). And now he exists as a base coach. Bench coaches often get hired, or pitching coaches, but what special expertise does one get from being a third base coach? And how does it translate to being a Major League manager?
Basically, here is my verdict on Jose Oquendo: He could end up good. But he's a gamble. Let the Nationals hire him. The Cardinals can afford to hire somebody with an actual track record. The whole notion that Albert Pujols will leave unless the Cardinals hire Jose Oquendo is utterly absurd--what MLB manager would have more of a rapport with Pujols than anyone the Cardinals hire?
But anyway, the easiest decision John Mozeliak can ever make is to hire Joe Maddon. Maddon, with a huge cast of nobodies and castoffs, consistently wins. In Tampa Bay. And he grew up a Cardinals fan. And unlike LaRussa (and Oquendo), he's a fan-friendly charmer. This doesn't really matter as much as the record, but it's nice I suppose. Terry Francona is an acceptable pick, but do we really want the guy who let his players drink beer in the clubhouse during games manage a team whose president verbally thanked Budweiser as their victory parade? Either way, though, the Cardinals pick a manager worthy of the pedistil.
Let's abandon this insane notion that we need to get a Cardinal for life. Maddon may not be a "true" Cardinal, but you could not possibly have been less of a Cardinal than Tony Larussa. Screw sentimentality.
And here is my 100% guarantee: If Joe Maddon is hired as manager, and Albert Pujols reacts by signing elsewhere, and we don't sign anyone exceptional (but still get Wainwright back), we will end next year with a better record than this year. Craig can play right and Berkman can play first. Don't deprive the Cardinals of the best manager in baseball because of the fickle nature of somebody who may not come back anyway.
When you're a big deal, and the St. Louis Cardinals are a big deal (they have to be considered a top five managerial job in baseball), you don't have to make weak picks like hiring from within. Weak because it generally doesn't work. You remember when Notre Dame hired from within by hiring Bob Davie to replace Lou Holtz? Or when Bill Stewart replaced Rich Rodriguez at West Virginia? Does it work?
But let's be fair to Oquendo and just view his resume on its individual merits. He was a mediocre player (as have many managers). And now he exists as a base coach. Bench coaches often get hired, or pitching coaches, but what special expertise does one get from being a third base coach? And how does it translate to being a Major League manager?
Basically, here is my verdict on Jose Oquendo: He could end up good. But he's a gamble. Let the Nationals hire him. The Cardinals can afford to hire somebody with an actual track record. The whole notion that Albert Pujols will leave unless the Cardinals hire Jose Oquendo is utterly absurd--what MLB manager would have more of a rapport with Pujols than anyone the Cardinals hire?
But anyway, the easiest decision John Mozeliak can ever make is to hire Joe Maddon. Maddon, with a huge cast of nobodies and castoffs, consistently wins. In Tampa Bay. And he grew up a Cardinals fan. And unlike LaRussa (and Oquendo), he's a fan-friendly charmer. This doesn't really matter as much as the record, but it's nice I suppose. Terry Francona is an acceptable pick, but do we really want the guy who let his players drink beer in the clubhouse during games manage a team whose president verbally thanked Budweiser as their victory parade? Either way, though, the Cardinals pick a manager worthy of the pedistil.
Let's abandon this insane notion that we need to get a Cardinal for life. Maddon may not be a "true" Cardinal, but you could not possibly have been less of a Cardinal than Tony Larussa. Screw sentimentality.
And here is my 100% guarantee: If Joe Maddon is hired as manager, and Albert Pujols reacts by signing elsewhere, and we don't sign anyone exceptional (but still get Wainwright back), we will end next year with a better record than this year. Craig can play right and Berkman can play first. Don't deprive the Cardinals of the best manager in baseball because of the fickle nature of somebody who may not come back anyway.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Albert Pujols is Really Good, but...
Albert Pujols is not the greatest player in the history of baseball.
Now, his performance last night in Game 3 of the World Series was nothing short of epic. Last night he was a phenom, hitting three home runs and becoming the third person to do so (Babe Ruth did it twice, Reggie Jackson did it once, as I'm sure you've been reminded repeatedly). He's great. He's the greatest Cardinal of my lifetime (I'm 22 and thus it's not even close) and one of the best players in Cardinals franchise history. But he's not the greatest player ever.
In light of his inspired Saturday night, Larry Bowa claimed that if he had Babe Ruth on deck, Reggie Jackson in the hole, and Albert Pujols at the plate, he would walk Pujols. Now that's just silly. I'm even willing to be pragmatic and say that Pujols is close enough to the Bambino that I would not consider walking Ruth to get to Pujols, but let's be reasonable. Albert Pujols is a really, really good player. He's a great player. He should make the Hall of Fame (I always hesitate to say he will make the Hall of Fame--all he needs is one unsubstantiated steroid allegation and it can all fall apart). But he ain't Stan Musial. He ain't even close to Babe Ruth.
For those of you who don't know just how good Babe Ruth is, let's just say you can't simply look at his numbers. 714 home runs is really good but it's not gargantuan on the surface. But consider his peers. In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 home runs: an impressive total by any measure (it's more than Albert has ever had in an individual season). #2 in the league was George Sisler, himself a Hall of Fame player for the St. Louis Browns. He had nineteen. Babe Ruth nearly tripled the second best home run hitter in the American League. Pujols has never done this. Nobody has had this kind of dominance.
The most dominant player of my lifetime in baseball was Barry Bonds in the early 2000s (dominant not only in power numbers and whatnot, but dominant in that he had on-base percentages over .600 for seasons--that is not a typo). Bonds never came close to tripling the next highest guy. Bonds, often referred to erroneously as the greatest power hitter ever as a result of having the most home runs, had 1.28 times the home runs of Luis Gonzalez in his 73 home run season of 2001. In 1920, Babe Ruth had George Sisler beat by 2.84 times. Oh yeah, and Babe Ruth hit at least 54 three more times. Oh, and for what it's worth, Babe Ruth was also one of the best pitchers in baseball before moving to the outfield so that he could reinvent hitting more frequently. Basically, what I'm saying is that it isn't sacrilegious to compare Albert Pujols to Babe Ruth--it's just wildly inaccurate.
But anyway, Albert Pujols is awesome. And now everybody is freaking out about how much money he's going to make in the off-season and how Albert Pujols is going to cash in. Well, I hate to break it to everybody, but in spite of what the Jayson Werth signing may have suggested to you, MLB GMs aren't that dumb. It's not as though somebody was only going to offer Pujols $20 million and now after one game that total is up to $30 mil. Yesterday will have very little, if any, impact on how much Albert Pujols makes. He's been playing for eleven years--his resumé has been written.
As a Cardinal fan, it actually makes me a bit worried. Albert is going to cash in somewhere and I'm convinced that it will be in St. Louis--for way too much. Albert deserves to get paid more than A-Rod got paid a decade ago, but the important caveat is Alex Rodriguez didn't deserve 10 years and $252 million in the first place. Individual players matter because baseball is essentially a combination of a bunch of individual matchups, but one player doesn't matter that much. WAR enthusiasts (and I am one) will often point out WAR (of which Albert is routinely at or near the top, because he's a damn good player as has been established by basically any metric) and note something to the effect of: "Oh, Albert Pujols has a WAR of 10 and they won the division by four games; therefore, Albert got them to the playoffs." But what people often ignore is that 1. The money that would theoretically be saved on Pujols would be spent on something else which would improve WAR at other positions, and 2. There's generally other guys who make up for that total. If that situation happened and Holliday or Berkman had WARs of eight, didn't he also get them in the playoffs? That's not to say they're as good, because they aren't, but from a practical standpoint, it didn't matter. Pujols can't survive without contributions from other players just as they can't survive without him.
To test my theory on WAR, I looked at the eleven seasons in which Albert Pujols has played for the Cardinals. Of his seven playoff seasons, his WAR exceeded the team's margin of getting into the playoffs four times. Which is cool. But in how many of those seasons did he directly make the difference, even just in compared to the replacement level (for those unfamiliar with the concept, imagine a situation in which he's lost for the year and replaced by Mark Hamilton).
The four years where WAR>Margin were 2001, 2006, 2009, and 2011:
Now, his performance last night in Game 3 of the World Series was nothing short of epic. Last night he was a phenom, hitting three home runs and becoming the third person to do so (Babe Ruth did it twice, Reggie Jackson did it once, as I'm sure you've been reminded repeatedly). He's great. He's the greatest Cardinal of my lifetime (I'm 22 and thus it's not even close) and one of the best players in Cardinals franchise history. But he's not the greatest player ever.
In light of his inspired Saturday night, Larry Bowa claimed that if he had Babe Ruth on deck, Reggie Jackson in the hole, and Albert Pujols at the plate, he would walk Pujols. Now that's just silly. I'm even willing to be pragmatic and say that Pujols is close enough to the Bambino that I would not consider walking Ruth to get to Pujols, but let's be reasonable. Albert Pujols is a really, really good player. He's a great player. He should make the Hall of Fame (I always hesitate to say he will make the Hall of Fame--all he needs is one unsubstantiated steroid allegation and it can all fall apart). But he ain't Stan Musial. He ain't even close to Babe Ruth.
For those of you who don't know just how good Babe Ruth is, let's just say you can't simply look at his numbers. 714 home runs is really good but it's not gargantuan on the surface. But consider his peers. In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 home runs: an impressive total by any measure (it's more than Albert has ever had in an individual season). #2 in the league was George Sisler, himself a Hall of Fame player for the St. Louis Browns. He had nineteen. Babe Ruth nearly tripled the second best home run hitter in the American League. Pujols has never done this. Nobody has had this kind of dominance.
The most dominant player of my lifetime in baseball was Barry Bonds in the early 2000s (dominant not only in power numbers and whatnot, but dominant in that he had on-base percentages over .600 for seasons--that is not a typo). Bonds never came close to tripling the next highest guy. Bonds, often referred to erroneously as the greatest power hitter ever as a result of having the most home runs, had 1.28 times the home runs of Luis Gonzalez in his 73 home run season of 2001. In 1920, Babe Ruth had George Sisler beat by 2.84 times. Oh yeah, and Babe Ruth hit at least 54 three more times. Oh, and for what it's worth, Babe Ruth was also one of the best pitchers in baseball before moving to the outfield so that he could reinvent hitting more frequently. Basically, what I'm saying is that it isn't sacrilegious to compare Albert Pujols to Babe Ruth--it's just wildly inaccurate.
But anyway, Albert Pujols is awesome. And now everybody is freaking out about how much money he's going to make in the off-season and how Albert Pujols is going to cash in. Well, I hate to break it to everybody, but in spite of what the Jayson Werth signing may have suggested to you, MLB GMs aren't that dumb. It's not as though somebody was only going to offer Pujols $20 million and now after one game that total is up to $30 mil. Yesterday will have very little, if any, impact on how much Albert Pujols makes. He's been playing for eleven years--his resumé has been written.
As a Cardinal fan, it actually makes me a bit worried. Albert is going to cash in somewhere and I'm convinced that it will be in St. Louis--for way too much. Albert deserves to get paid more than A-Rod got paid a decade ago, but the important caveat is Alex Rodriguez didn't deserve 10 years and $252 million in the first place. Individual players matter because baseball is essentially a combination of a bunch of individual matchups, but one player doesn't matter that much. WAR enthusiasts (and I am one) will often point out WAR (of which Albert is routinely at or near the top, because he's a damn good player as has been established by basically any metric) and note something to the effect of: "Oh, Albert Pujols has a WAR of 10 and they won the division by four games; therefore, Albert got them to the playoffs." But what people often ignore is that 1. The money that would theoretically be saved on Pujols would be spent on something else which would improve WAR at other positions, and 2. There's generally other guys who make up for that total. If that situation happened and Holliday or Berkman had WARs of eight, didn't he also get them in the playoffs? That's not to say they're as good, because they aren't, but from a practical standpoint, it didn't matter. Pujols can't survive without contributions from other players just as they can't survive without him.
To test my theory on WAR, I looked at the eleven seasons in which Albert Pujols has played for the Cardinals. Of his seven playoff seasons, his WAR exceeded the team's margin of getting into the playoffs four times. Which is cool. But in how many of those seasons did he directly make the difference, even just in compared to the replacement level (for those unfamiliar with the concept, imagine a situation in which he's lost for the year and replaced by Mark Hamilton).
The four years where WAR>Margin were 2001, 2006, 2009, and 2011:
- In 2001, his WAR was 6.9 and the team's margin was 3, meaning he needed a WAR of 3.9 to keep them in the playoffs. Also with a WAR of 3.9 or higher that year: Jim Edmonds, J.D. Drew, Placido Polanco, and Darryl Kile.
- In 2006, his WAR was 8.3 and the team's margin was 1, meaning he needed a WAR of 7.3 to keep them in the playoffs. He stood alone.
- In 2009, his WAR was 9.2 and the team's margin was 8, meaning he needed a WAR of 1.2 to keep them in the playoffs. Also with a WAR of 1.2 or higher that year: Brendan Ryan, Matt Holliday, Yadier Molina, Colby Rasmus, Ryan Ludwick, Skip Schumaker, Adam Wainwright, Chris Carpenter, Ryan Franklin, and Joel Piniero.
- In 2011, his WAR was 5.4 and the team's margin was 1, meaning he needed a WAR of 4.4 to keep them in the playoffs. Lance Berkman also did this.
I'm not saying Albert Pujols isn't the best Cardinal of my lifetime. He is. He is a fantastic player and I truly hope the Cardinals re-sign him. I'm just saying that the team will survive with or without him. The Cardinals had the NL record for World Series titles before he ever donned a Cardinal uniform and it will still be a proud organization once he leaves, whenever that may be. From a practical standpoint, think of it this way--Berkman goes to first, Craig plays in right, and how much worse are they? Craig had a WAR of 2.9 in limited time this year; theoretically this means we lose 2.5 wins. And we get Adam Wainwright back. And we have over $20 million to spend on upgrading the roster at large.
Yes, Cardinal fans. We are going to be fine.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Ten Famous People Everybody Irrationally Hates
It's one thing to hate Bin Laden or somebody who actually, you know, warrants derision. But for some reason, many of us are such cynical bastards that we must hate even people who enrich the world. And here's ten of them.
10. Buster Olney--This entry could have been tons of people, but Olney symbolizes it better than anyone else I could think of. Basically, he's mocked by fans (most of whom played no higher level of sports than Olney) as a dweeb who doesn't know sports. When in reality, the criticism is not only unfair but also inaccurate--Olney is not a sports analyst, by and large, but is a sports reporter. Woodward and Bernstein couldn't hit a ball 450 feet ever and they got played in the movies by eventual Oscar winners. See also: John Clayton.
9. Spike Lee--Critics call Spike Lee a racist hate monger, a man who uses his platform to spread a propagandist message of hatred towards white people. But, well, this doesn't actually happen. Did people actually see Do the Right Thing? The most sympathetic character other than Spike's protagonist was Richard Edson's (white) friend of Spike Lee. Basically none of the characters come off as total saints and even the ostensible villain (Danny Aiello) isn't a complete ogre--subtly racist, maybe, but it's not like he was burning crosses at black churches or something. And given that Spike Lee's second most important movie is about an assassinate black civil rights leader, it's fairly hard not to make white oppression of African Americans are a fairly critical theme. Those who don't hate Lee generally overrate him--Spike Lee is basically one of many good directors of his era, like the Coen Brothers more than like D.W. Griffith. Michael Moore also fits into this category, because his reputation of propaganda is overrated and his reputation for film-making is underrated, but, well, it's kind of sort of warranted a little bit.
8. The Speaker of the House--It doesn't matter to me if we're talking about when it was Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner, they both have a reputation of being politically narrow-minded douchebags that really come from nowhere. They're both slightly more partisan than their party at large, but neither is an extremist--they're both hard-working civil servants who got elected heads of their hundreds-strong delegations in the House of Representatives because they have earned respect. But the thing that really doesn't make sense is how much more blame Pelosi or Boehner get than, say, the heads of the more powerful body of Congress. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell get free passes by comparison.
7. Joe Buck--I say the reason people dismiss Joe Buck as a condescending douchebag is that there just aren't notable announcers in the way that there was in his daddy's day. Besides Al Michaels, where are the iconic voices? And while Buck may occasionally come off as smug, there's also a reason he's the top choice to broadcast baseball and football for the flagship networks of the sports--he's good at it. The next time you hate on Joe Buck, consider this--would you rather him or Thom Brenaman? Would you rather have Joe Buck or Dick Stockton? Joe Buck is to modern broadcasting when guys who hit nine home runs a year were to the dead ball era--it may not look that good, but you have to consider it in relative terms.
6. Jay Leno--People hate on Jay Leno either because he's not Johnny Carson or because NBC screwed over Conan O'Brien. Both of these things are true. But while Leno may suck at that time slot compared to Johnny Carson, why does nobody mock the wildly unfunny David Letterman? And regarding Conan O'Brien being pushed out of the Tonight Show slot, do you think Leno had a hand in this? If Billy Devaney, proving his infinite genius, decided to push Sam Bradford out of the Rams QB role and bring back Tony Banks, it would be a terrible move. You'd feel bad for Bradford for being the victim of such idiocy. But would you blame Banks? I know I wouldn't. How do you pass up that opportunity?
5. Mark Zuckerberg--I'm going to limit this to his day-to-day operations of Facebook rather than his Social Network persona. People regularly trash Facebook for its constant layouts changes and its seemingly hellbent desire to condense all social media into one all-stop shop like Wal-Mart. But, like people who hate McDonald's, the point of it all is that EVERYBODY USES IT. Facebook is free to use and thus free to exit; Facebook has steps which invade privacy, but ONLY IF YOU VOLUNTEER THE INFORMATION. The people who knock Facebook and decide it must be stopped seem to not realize that it's voluntary.
4. Bill Gates--Bill Gates, the evil corporate raider who build the evil corporation that allows me to write this blog today. The world hates Bill Gates essentially because he's really, really successful. And thus he must be corrupt. Perhaps he was ruthless, but consider that the primary side effects are an interconnected planet and the biggest individual charity in the world. Bill Gates gave the world exactly what it wanted and want more.
3. Tim Tebow--Tim Tebow is vilified in the media for being overrated, overhyped, and being a Jesus freak. But he also might be the perfect human being. Tebow is the child of missionaries, he has a deep and unsanctimonious faith (Remember when he was asked about his virginity as a presser in conference and said he was a virgin and the media jumped on the story? Did anyone actually care?), he is an extremely hard-working player, and he seems like one of the nicest people possible in interviews. Even Colin Cowherd, who continuously bashes on Tebow's playing, referred to him as "The nicest person I've ever met."
2. Derek Jeter--Nobody likes Derek Jeter. Similar to Tebow, he's a hard worker who is very successful and clutch. Unlike Tebow, he parties in New York City and dates supermodels. Nothing wrong with that either.
1. Bono--"Oh, Bono is an arrogant douchebag. He thinks he's God. I hate him sooooo much!" Here is a list of observations about Bono, most of which aren't even all that subjective.
10. Buster Olney--This entry could have been tons of people, but Olney symbolizes it better than anyone else I could think of. Basically, he's mocked by fans (most of whom played no higher level of sports than Olney) as a dweeb who doesn't know sports. When in reality, the criticism is not only unfair but also inaccurate--Olney is not a sports analyst, by and large, but is a sports reporter. Woodward and Bernstein couldn't hit a ball 450 feet ever and they got played in the movies by eventual Oscar winners. See also: John Clayton.
9. Spike Lee--Critics call Spike Lee a racist hate monger, a man who uses his platform to spread a propagandist message of hatred towards white people. But, well, this doesn't actually happen. Did people actually see Do the Right Thing? The most sympathetic character other than Spike's protagonist was Richard Edson's (white) friend of Spike Lee. Basically none of the characters come off as total saints and even the ostensible villain (Danny Aiello) isn't a complete ogre--subtly racist, maybe, but it's not like he was burning crosses at black churches or something. And given that Spike Lee's second most important movie is about an assassinate black civil rights leader, it's fairly hard not to make white oppression of African Americans are a fairly critical theme. Those who don't hate Lee generally overrate him--Spike Lee is basically one of many good directors of his era, like the Coen Brothers more than like D.W. Griffith. Michael Moore also fits into this category, because his reputation of propaganda is overrated and his reputation for film-making is underrated, but, well, it's kind of sort of warranted a little bit.
8. The Speaker of the House--It doesn't matter to me if we're talking about when it was Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner, they both have a reputation of being politically narrow-minded douchebags that really come from nowhere. They're both slightly more partisan than their party at large, but neither is an extremist--they're both hard-working civil servants who got elected heads of their hundreds-strong delegations in the House of Representatives because they have earned respect. But the thing that really doesn't make sense is how much more blame Pelosi or Boehner get than, say, the heads of the more powerful body of Congress. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell get free passes by comparison.
7. Joe Buck--I say the reason people dismiss Joe Buck as a condescending douchebag is that there just aren't notable announcers in the way that there was in his daddy's day. Besides Al Michaels, where are the iconic voices? And while Buck may occasionally come off as smug, there's also a reason he's the top choice to broadcast baseball and football for the flagship networks of the sports--he's good at it. The next time you hate on Joe Buck, consider this--would you rather him or Thom Brenaman? Would you rather have Joe Buck or Dick Stockton? Joe Buck is to modern broadcasting when guys who hit nine home runs a year were to the dead ball era--it may not look that good, but you have to consider it in relative terms.
6. Jay Leno--People hate on Jay Leno either because he's not Johnny Carson or because NBC screwed over Conan O'Brien. Both of these things are true. But while Leno may suck at that time slot compared to Johnny Carson, why does nobody mock the wildly unfunny David Letterman? And regarding Conan O'Brien being pushed out of the Tonight Show slot, do you think Leno had a hand in this? If Billy Devaney, proving his infinite genius, decided to push Sam Bradford out of the Rams QB role and bring back Tony Banks, it would be a terrible move. You'd feel bad for Bradford for being the victim of such idiocy. But would you blame Banks? I know I wouldn't. How do you pass up that opportunity?
5. Mark Zuckerberg--I'm going to limit this to his day-to-day operations of Facebook rather than his Social Network persona. People regularly trash Facebook for its constant layouts changes and its seemingly hellbent desire to condense all social media into one all-stop shop like Wal-Mart. But, like people who hate McDonald's, the point of it all is that EVERYBODY USES IT. Facebook is free to use and thus free to exit; Facebook has steps which invade privacy, but ONLY IF YOU VOLUNTEER THE INFORMATION. The people who knock Facebook and decide it must be stopped seem to not realize that it's voluntary.
4. Bill Gates--Bill Gates, the evil corporate raider who build the evil corporation that allows me to write this blog today. The world hates Bill Gates essentially because he's really, really successful. And thus he must be corrupt. Perhaps he was ruthless, but consider that the primary side effects are an interconnected planet and the biggest individual charity in the world. Bill Gates gave the world exactly what it wanted and want more.
3. Tim Tebow--Tim Tebow is vilified in the media for being overrated, overhyped, and being a Jesus freak. But he also might be the perfect human being. Tebow is the child of missionaries, he has a deep and unsanctimonious faith (Remember when he was asked about his virginity as a presser in conference and said he was a virgin and the media jumped on the story? Did anyone actually care?), he is an extremely hard-working player, and he seems like one of the nicest people possible in interviews. Even Colin Cowherd, who continuously bashes on Tebow's playing, referred to him as "The nicest person I've ever met."
2. Derek Jeter--Nobody likes Derek Jeter. Similar to Tebow, he's a hard worker who is very successful and clutch. Unlike Tebow, he parties in New York City and dates supermodels. Nothing wrong with that either.
1. Bono--"Oh, Bono is an arrogant douchebag. He thinks he's God. I hate him sooooo much!" Here is a list of observations about Bono, most of which aren't even all that subjective.
- Bono is the greatest rock frontman since Freddie Mercury
- Bono is the voice behind some of the most widely loved songs in rock history
- Bono has displayed an unprecedented range in creating Earth-shattering songs, going from edgy post-punk like "Sunday Bloody Sunday" to heartbreaking ballads like "One."
- Bono, unlike most rock frontmen, devotes a lot of his time and money to improving the world. Even if you don't like when he is compared to Mandela or Mother Teresa, the fact is that he is still devoting more time to charity than basically everyone else in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Besides maybe Sting, who's even close?
That dick...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)