The Unique Pop Perfection of Prince's "Kiss"

Prince is, in spite of famously being a perfectionist, not actually a musical artist whose appeal generally centers around his perfection. Most of his best songs--pretty much anything off of Purple Rain is a good example of this--center around Prince warping a relatively basic song around his own personal eccentricities and tastes. 

Take, for instance, "Let's Go Crazy"--it's a great song, but it's not perfect. No pop-rock song needs to have a spoken-word intro meditating on the meaning of life and the afterlife, and no song tailored towards Top 40 radio is supposed to conclude with a blistering, unapologetically pretentious guitar solo of sheer "I'm the best damn guitar player on the planet and if you disagree because I'm a 5'2" scrawny black guy wearing purple stilettos I'm going to prove you so damn wrong right now" audacity. Don't get me wrong--"Let's Go Crazy" is awesome, but it's not perfect. Arguably, it's its lack of perfection that makes me love it. Similarly, look at "When Doves Cry", a song which, if your only exposure to it is through the radio, you may not be aware is nearly six minutes long. It has really cool pop hooks, even if it's done in a minimalist way, but the second half of it gets weird. The album version of "When Doves Cry" is a fine song from the beginning but it takes so many twists and turns that it won't be until a dozen times or so that it really hits you just how dense it is.

"Kiss", however, may be the single most perfect pop song in the rock and roll era.

In 1987, Michael Jackson released Bad, in which Michael Jackson does, for all intents and purposes, an impersonation of Prince. As somebody who prefers Prince to MJ, I'm perfectly okay with this--as immense of a talent as Michael Jackson was, I tend to prefer the rougher edges of Prince, so to see Michael Jackson move a bit more in that direction is fine by me. But in 1986, Prince made a bit of a move towards Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, after years of being the dictator of his own, weird little musical municipality known as the Minneapolis Sound. That move was "Kiss".

"Kiss" opens with nine chiming guitar notes before any other instrumentation or vocals are to be heard. It sets the stage for the frequently overlooked guitar work on the song--it doesn't have a long guitar solo like "Purple Rain" or "Little Red Corvette" but it holds the entire song together. And it draws inspiration from some of the seminal guitar stylists of the era--Johnny Marr, Peter Buck, Bernard Sumner--men on the fringe of the musical mainstream whose chiming, eccentric guitar playing allowed them to be more influential than popular. Of course, Prince was already a megastar by 1986, so he was allowed to do this sort of thing while being massively popular.

Once the intro is over and the vocals kick in, two things are immediately noticeable--Prince's karaoke staple falsetto vocals, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the understated and sparse guitar riff buried low in the mix. The vocals, as an extension of Prince's voice in general, are often mimicked. It's so common to hear a 21st century singer go for the highest notes that it's easy to forget that this wasn't always a pop staple. Prince didn't invent this extreme nature of high-pitching singing--he certainly drew from Stevie Wonder, who drew from Little Richard, and so it goes to the beginning of music as an institution. But the next time you hear "Blurred Lines", listen to the first verse, and come back and try to convince me that Marvin Gaye was the vocal legend that Robin Thicke was mimicking. And as far as the guitar: it manages to somehow, inexplicably be both dense and minimal. The riff is so simple and there's so little else going on in the song and yet it still manages to find the background. It's less a part of pop music and more a staple of most experimental forms of rock--I'll take this moment to interject how Trent Reznor has cited Prince as one of his main inspirations when he was recording the first Nine Inch Nails album Pretty Hate Machine. 

Bet you didn't think I was going to simultaneously call a Prince song his attempt to write a true pop song as well as Prince inspiring one of the weirdest, darkest alternative rock icons of the 1990s, did you?

The chorus, sung in three unique styles by Prince--first, in a relatively straightforward manner; second, venturing into falsetto; and the third, with Prince going full-fledged James Brown and screaming his ass off. Lyrically, the song isn't poetry, but that doesn't mean the song is imperfect; the song isn't meant to be a poem. Critics tend to fall into the trap of construing complex, meaningful words as an asset when often times, they're a distraction. To use another Nine Inch Nails analogy, take the song "Hurt" (or the Johnny Cash version--both excel for the exact same reason). The musical is small and understated because the lyrics are dark and brooding and if "Hurt" had a three minute guitar solo, it wouldn't make any sense. At the same time, "Closer" lacks introspection but instead is built upon stark drum machine and keyboard sounds. Without the music to compliment its often vulgar and uncomfortable lyrics, "Closer" would have been inclined to scare off listeners. With the music, it works. And likewise, "Kiss" isn't a sonnet but it isn't supposed to be. And its music matches its lyrics. Even a clever quip like "Act your age, not your shoe size" isn't overbearing: It settles in so nicely with the music that you can probably hear the song and most of the time, not consider how dated its reference to the TV series Dynasty is.

"Kiss" is pop perfection because it is everything. Every style, every sentiment, everything that can be great about pop music is incorporated. It's a song that would've been worthy of any of the great rock and roll showmen in history but was best placed in the worthy hands of one Prince Rogers Nelson.

A Birthday Present: Age Differences in Twentysomething Dating

Note: Because today, May 20, is his birthday, I promised my friend Nick (@grobot05 on Twitter) that I would write a blog post about the topic of his choosing. This is the topic of his choosing.

My name is John and I am 26 years old. The inspiration for this post, Nick, is 25 years old. We both live in a society in which an enormous amount of attention is given to the age of women. It's weird, because nobody cares how old I am. Most people don't, at least. As far as most people are concerned, I might as well be 21 or I might as well be 38. That is, of course, unless my age has to be given consideration in relation to a woman.

Being in our mid-twenties, people such as myself and Nick are put in a unique scenario when it comes to dating. We're old enough that it is no longer considered scandalous to date somebody who is slightly younger (when I was a junior in high school, I had a friend of mine who dated a freshman, and you'd have thought this was worse than Watergate) but we're also young enough that it's considered somewhat strange, if not outright taboo, to date somebody more than a year older than we are. But the question I ask, to ironically borrow a phrase from one of the world's most famous asexuals, "What difference does it make?"

Now, don't get me wrong--there should be age boundaries on dating. Here is the boundary: I, as an adult man, should not date somebody who is under the age of consent. It is illegal and it is illegal for good reason. But that's it.

Aside from somebody who is underage, context is critical is determining whether or not a relationship with a great age disparity is legitimate. For instance, although I am 26, in many ways I feel that I am younger: I have far more friends who are younger than I am than who are older than I am; it took me a couple years and a few jobs after college to feel like I was truly past the 22 year-old phase of my life, even though I was in reality probably 24; I *feel* much closer to 24 or 25 than 26. This is a subtle difference, and it's neither an inherently good nor bad thing, but it does change the equation a little bit. In theory, a 24 or 25 year old would be the ideal age for me to date, but this works under the faulty assumption that all people other than me are created equal. Some 21 or 22 year olds are culturally closer to 24 or 25. Some 28 or 29 year olds are culturally closer to 24 or 25. Particularly for those in their twenties, there is a wide range of people with a wide range of lifestyles and attitudes.

But a stigma exists, and its basis is actually surprisingly sexist. Towards both genders, really, but more disturbingly towards women. The notion is that if I were to date, say, a 19 year old girl (I don't think I even know any 19 year old girls, but I assume they still exist), it's solely because of physical attraction and not for any sort of intellectual stimulation. It feeds into a "men are pigs" narrative I don't particularly like, but I guess I can live with it. Men can be pretty terrible, after all. But what does this imply for 19 year old women? It seems to imply a few things: One, that 19 year old women lack agency and are incapable of making educated decisions about whom to date; two, that 19 year old women are incapable of being particularly smart; three, that 19 year old women have some kind of obligation to only date 19 year old men. This final implication disturbs me the most. The world is full of stupid adolescent men who believe that women owe them--that because they're "nice guys", they deserve women as some kind of prize. Screw that. As a former 19 year old male, I can assure you that 19 year old males are, generally speaking, shitheads. Some are okay, and if 19 year old women decide to date 19 year old men, that's their choice. But the idea that they are beholden to dating 19 year old men, or 26 year old men, or men in general, or ANYBODY, is despicable.

In general, I think the "half your age plus seven" rule is a good baseline. This means that I can date anybody who is twenty or older. But while this is a good baseline, it's not a good rule. There's a lot of twenty-something year old women who are emotionally and intellectually vapid and there are also a lot of women who are under twenty who are smart, funny, and good people.

Bonus Blog: Nick has asked me to objectively rate the attractiveness of several famous people. I will then follow this with a comment on the exercise as a whole.

Ariana Grande: She has a very nice smile. I find her hair oddly distracting and 5'0" is probably a little bit too short for me (I don't really care about height in evaluating female attractiveness, but the idea of being a full foot taller than a woman is a bit much for me; if you're shorter than Prince, you're pushing it). She has a nice singing voice, too, even though her music isn't really my cup of tea. Overall, if I knew a girl who looked like Ariana Grande, I'd probably think she was a nice looking girl--maybe not jaw-dropping, but attractive.

Sarah Hyland: She's not bad looking, but I don't really see her as some kind of jaw-dropping celebrity. You could go to a department store on a Saturday afternoon and see a dozen women who are more attractive than Sarah Hyland.

Selena Gomez: Like Ariana Grande, she looks very young, though I think I find Gomez more attractive. She has pretty eyes and seems to be more attractive as time goes on.

Shailene Woodley: She was really good in The Descendents and she looks really good with short hair. And I, for one, prefer female celebrities who have something somewhat different to their look. I tend to find a lot of women attractive but don't find a lot of women that attractive, so something about a uniqueness like Shailene Woodley's short hair is a nice feature.

One of the stupidest things that we as people (and I'm absolutely every bit as guilty as ANYBODY on this) do is mock people (particularly men) for being attracted to young-looking girls. It doesn't make sense at all. For instance, Ariana Grande looks really young. Like, she looks like she's in high school. And people (me) make fun of guys who think she's hot. But the key thing is she ISN'T a high schooler--she's 21, almost 22, years old. She's an adult and it's perfectly healthy and normal to be attracted to somebody who is an adult. And the reason that an age of consent exists isn't so that people don't engage in sexual relations with people who look young--it's so that people don't engage in sexual relations with people who are young. Like, emotionally. Like, intellectually. It's illegal for a damn good reason for an adult to be with a 15 year old even if he or she looks 30--that person is deemed unable to make good enough decisions about that sort of thing. If the person looks 15 but is 30, it means they are deemed able to make good decisions. People are weird, man.

My Crumbling Marriage With the St. Louis Rams

For the last twenty years, I have been married to the St. Louis Rams. The Rams have been my heart and soul. To borrow a phrase I’ve used myself many times, possibly in something many of you have read before: The Cardinals are their team and the Rams are my team. In this marriage, I’ve had to put up with my share of annoyances—the first three Rams seasons of my adulthood garnering a combined record of 6 wins and 42 losses was not pleasant, for an obvious example. But they were still my team. A good marriage doesn’t end because one of its members doesn’t age gracefully because the other member shouldn’t care. That’s not what it’s about. Marriage is about undying loyalty; it’s about being there for somebody when things are rough for them and it’s about them being there for you when you need somebody by your side.

And the sad reality is that my marriage with the St. Louis Rams is crumbling.

That is not to say that the marriage is over, but it’s getting there. And now, I must come to terms with what this marriage is and what it will be going forward. This isn’t about what it was in the past—I will always love Super Bowl XXXIV and will try to at least be civil enough with the Rams to retain some kind of joint custody for the sake of Vince.

The truth of the matter is all that I can ask of the Rams is loyalty. I was amped from the get-go before 2010, coming off the single worst three year stretch in NFL history, because I was enamored enough with the very idea of my relationship with the Rams that I was willing to accept something that others won’t accept. And the Rams gave up on that. And you know what? They don’t deserve me. I’m better than that.

And now that the Rams are openly cavorting with somebody else, I need to do one of three things. The first thing is something that I will tell you right off the bat will not be happening—ignoring it. Plenty of people have ignored adultery in their marriages or, worse, have rationalized that it’s their fault. And you know what? It’s not my fault. The Rams are cheating on me because they think they can do better. They’re wrong, but what do I know about marriage? Less than the Rams owner, whose marriage is the greatest business move he ever made, that’s for sure.

The second thing I can do is leave the marriage. It’s unhappy; my partner seems unwilling to change; this makes sense. In a lot of ways, I wish I had the strength to do it. But I don’t. I keep coming back to the happy memories and stupidly telling myself that things can be as good as they were years ago, even as the rational part of me knows that this is an impossibility. I won’t discount the possibility of divorce, but for better or worse, I’m not quite ready emotionally to go there yet.

The third thing I can do is accept that I am in an open marriage. I can accept that the Rams only care about me to the extent that I benefit their bottom line. I can accept that the only reason the Rams haven’t left me is because they don’t yet know for absolute certain that they can do better than me. And I can react by cheating right back on them. Now, I don’t want to cheat on them for revenge, but rather as a way to quell my own general lack of fulfillment. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to be told that I can’t.

I’m not investing another penny in the Rams until they show the loyalty they haven’t showed in me since the end of the Georgia Frontiere era. And while I fear the unchartered territory of NFL courtship, it may be the only realistic option for me to ever feel what I once felt (and sometimes, against my better judgment, still feel) with the Rams. And although my potential suitors aren’t perfect, they may indeed be a viable alternative to staying the course with the current state of heartache and misery.

Why I Hate Fredbird

I went to an elementary school that is across the street from a Veterans Administration hospital. And when I was in sixth grade, my class would often volunteer at the hospital.

One of the days we were volunteering, there was an assembly--I don't recall the exact reason why, but those at the hospital got a catered lunch and there were some patriotic bands that performed. It's essentially a smaller version of how I've always imaged a USO show goes. But one of the guests was Fredbird.

Before the show began, the Star Spangled Banner played. The 11 and 12 year olds volunteering stood and looked at the flag. The patients who could stand stood and looked at the flag while those confined to wheelchairs looked in hushed awe. The teachers and parents, including my mother, who were also at the hospital, stood and looked at the flag. The caterers and hospital employees stood and looked at the flag.

Fredbird, as seems to be his only basic move, jumped around like an imbecile. As the song played, he (I've heard that a majority of the people who portray Fredbird are female, but for simplicity's sake, I refer to Fredbird simply as "he") danced around and did that thing where he chewed on people's heads with his oversized peak, including veterans. 11 and 12 year old kids are among the dumbest people in the world and every single one of them, without having to be asked twice, knew to be quiet and respectful, and Fredbird did not.

Not long after his buffoonery began, my mother ran up to Fredbird and told him to knock it off. She told him the obvious--that he was being disrespectful to the anthem and that it was particularly insensitive to act in such a manner at a VETERANS HOSPITAL.

This took place in (estimating on month, not on year) April 2001. Certainly, after 9/11, people got more cautious. But Fredbird should have known better. And I recognize that perhaps a different actor may have acted more wisely but when it comes to it, being maniacal is Fredbird's only move. This isn't the Phoenix Suns Gorilla dunking on trampolines or something like that--all Fredbird can do is be obnoxious. I realized this quite clearly at twelve and have not backed down from my opinion since.

Three Things I Learned from Giving Up Meat for Lent

For the first time in my life, in 2015, I gave up something for Lent. Like, actually gave up something for Lent. Not like a facetious “I’m going to give up cocaine for Lent” kind of thing but an actual, conscious attempt to give up something that I was probably going to do during that period if I didn’t make a specific effort to not do it.

I gave up meat.

To be specific (and pretentious, if inadvertently), I adhered to a lacto-vegetarian diet. I did not eat fish, as is so common on Lent Fridays, nor did I eat eggs (I made an effort to avoid eating foods in which eggs were used as an ingredient, though admittedly this wasn’t a part I went super out of my way about), but I did consume dairy. Anyway, I’ve made some observations about it so, yeah, here they are.

1. Giving up meat is surprisingly easy to do: I guess before I go any further, I should explain why I gave up meat. As far as Lent goes, I’m not Catholic, nor even particularly religious, but I have plenty of family and friends who are, and I do respect the tradition. Even if you don’t believe a word of the Bible, I do think it’s a pretty solid humanist value to be moderate and to break free of your own vices. It’s something I’ve done a lot lately in my life.

As I’ve written about before, I reached a peak weight in late 2013 of what I approximate to be somewhere in the range of 260 to 270 pounds. As of Saturday morning, at my now-weekly weigh-in, I weighed 157 pounds. I did this essentially through cold-turkey dieting—I ate a huge amount of food on a Sunday, felt bad thinking about it throughout the day on Monday, stopped off at Schnucks for a bunch of Slim Fast and Lean Cuisine meals on the way home from work, and didn’t eat fast food for nearly six months, haven’t had a non-diet soda since, etc. After I got my weight under control, in September 2014, I recognized that I had become addicted to caffeine. Not “I like caffeinated drinks”, as I’d previously rationalized it, but that I needed it to function. I had a Diet Mountain Dew on a Thursday, suffered through a long weekend of headaches and rough sleep, didn’t have a drop of caffeine for a month, and have reached what I consider a respectable point of moderation (it’s currently been 22 days since I had caffeine and when I do have caffeine again, I’ll be sure to not have it the next day—simple things like that to avoid a relapse).

Anyway, I thought meat was going to be like my psychological addiction to junk food or my physical addiction to caffeine. Not that I’m particularly carnivorous by nature, but I’ve never been one to necessarily avoid meat. I even tried to wean myself off meat a little bit before Lent started, going a few days at a time without eating it. But I figured a week or so into it, I’d really be craving meat. But…nope. Not really.

I had more vegetables than I normally did but I also ate a bunch of other foods, too. The notion that you need meat for protein in the 21^st century is completely insane, and the notion that you need meat in order to eat enjoyable food is even crazier. I still ate fast food—somewhat less, but when the weather got nice, I enjoyed walking the mile-plus to Taco Bell for bean burritos or to Subway for a Veggie Delite sandwich. I enjoyed taking advantage of the Blues scoring three goals and winning and thus allowing for half-priced Papa John’s, and thus allowing me to spend four bucks on a small cheese pizza. I also drank as much beer as I damn well felt like. Throughout the process, in contrast to the majority of the preceding fifteen months, I wasn’t losing substantial amounts of weight. I ate a pretty fair amount. It wasn’t the healthiest vegetarian diet, sure, but it’s not like I was going to be super-healthy around the construct of omnivorism, either.

There was occasional “event food” that I missed. I went to a couple family gatherings with ample appetizers I could not eat. But really, that was about it. As a decidedly not picky eater, any meat I briefly desired was quite easy to replace in my diet.

2. People care if you eat meat and I’m not sure why: I told as few people as possible that I was giving up meat for Lent. This was largely because my least favorite part of vegetarianism is the smugness associated with it. Like I said, it’s not difficult to do. But it was also because people resent vegetarianism. Like, not resent people who brag about being vegetarians—these people are objectively annoying. People resent people for their diet.

I’ve read comparisons of the social norm of eating meat to the social norm of being religious and, really, how crazy is that? You shouldn’t discriminate against somebody for being nonreligious but I guess I get it—religious beliefs often form one’s worldview and sense of ethics, so a person fears somebody does not adhere to their sense of right and wrong because of their religion. But how shallow is a person who considers their eating meat to be a fundamental part of who they are? How is it not just a pretty minor attribute? To quote humorless vegetarians The Smiths, “What difference does it make?”

My mom was extremely worried about my brief flirtation with vegetarianism. Mind you, my mom was not worried when I was, as is categorized by the World Health Organization, “severely obese”, at least not vocally. I got more than a few blank stares if somebody heard about my diet. The idea of being “other” scared people, even though there are many, many, many people I saw multiple times during Lent that noticed nothing different about me because they didn’t know I wasn’t eating meat because, again, it doesn’t really matter.

3. I guess I’ll eat meat again…if I feel like it: I think the ethical arguments against eating meat are strong. But I don’t necessarily think they are irrefutable. Let’s put it this way: I find zoos far less ethical than eating meat. I place more of a premium on treating animals in an ethical way than on keeping them alive, though I can understand if the nuts and bolts of this philosophy raises a few eyebrows.

Anyway, after the last forty days, I’m willing to at least consider placing more stock in the ethical dilemma of eating meat if for no other reason than it’s kind of easy to do. The modern world has made a wide variety of food so easy, so convenient, and so cheap that I’m willing to actually consider the world at large because, frankly, it doesn’t inconvenience me too much to do so, as horribly selfish as that may sound. In the meantime, I’m in no rush to eat meat. I’m not going to spend my afternoon downing beef jerky. I didn’t spend last night giddy with excitement that once midnight struck, I could hit up McDonald’s and just go to town on it. I’m not going to do it for the sake of doing it. If I decide I really want to cook a nice chicken breast to go with broccoli for dinner, I suppose I will. If I decide I want the whole wheat penne with meat-free pasta sauce that I ate even more than usual (which was often) since Ash Wednesday, I’ll do that too.

I can’t imagine any of you care what I’ll eat for dinner tonight, but then again, I’m often amazed what people bother to care about.

2015 MLB Predictions

Nothing too fancy here.

AL East

1. Orioles--They won 96 games with a suspended/ineffective Chris Davis and a hurt Matt Wieters and their only major loss is Nelson Cruz. Pecota has them finishing in last and this division is a crapshoot but I don't get why.

2. Blue Jays--They added Russell Martin and Josh Donaldson and for some reason the friggin White Sox got more attention for their offseason.

3. Red Sox--Their lineup is really good, even though Hanley Ramirez could be a mess in left field, but their third starter is still Joe Kelly and he isn't even healthy.

4. Rays--They weren't great last year and they no longer have David Price and Ben Zobrist, who were replaced with very little of note.

5. Yankees--They could be pretty good if everybody stays healthy, but everybody is old and they have no depth. Brian Cashman is so terrible at his job.

AL Central

1. Tigers--In a few years they're going to REALLY suck but they still have enough. Yeah, they lost Scherzer, but we all picked them to win the Central last year when they didn't have David Price.

2. Indians--Jonah Keri picked them to win the World Series but he also thinks Montreal is a good baseball city so take it with a grain of salt. Could be pretty good if Bourn and/or Swisher figure something out.

3. Royals--James Shields isn't THAT big of a loss. They're taking a step back but not that far back.

4. White Sox--They won 73 games and they added Jeff Samardzija and Adam LaRoche. They also added a superfluous closer for way too much money. People are picking them to win the division and I don't get it.

5. Twins--Buxton and Sano are probably a year away.

AL West

1. Angels--People really quickly soured on a 98 win team that didn't lose anything major. Their rotation is shaky but it was shaky last year too.

2. Athletics--Never doubt Billy Beane Devil Magic. Aside from Donaldson they have most of the core from before they loaded up on rentals last year (and were in first place) and added Zobrist and Brett Lawrie and they're good baseball players.

3. Mariners--They have Robinson Cano, Felix Hernandez, and Kyle Seager. Who is their fourth best player? They're a vogue division pick.

4. Rangers--I picked them to win the division last year because I'm stupid and could've rationalized them as a Wild Card threat before Darvish got hurt. But he did and so now they're resigned to merely be better than Houston.

5. Astros--Jeff Luhnow passed on Kris Bryant for Mark Appel.

NL East

1. Nationals--Anybody who doesn't pick the Nationals to win this division is a hipster attention whore.

2. Mets--Young pitcher injuries but, like, they have several good young pitchers.

3. Marlins--They have an exciting young core with Stanton, Yelich, Jose Fernandez, Henderson Alvarez, etc., but I do think they're a few pieces away from being a true playoff contender.

4. Braves--I don't think they're going to be the disaster a lot of people think they're going to be, but they may have the lowest upside in the majors. We know their players and we know what they are--they aren't a 100 loss team but they aren't good either.

5. Phillies--I think the 2008 Phillies could beat the 2015 Phillies in a game, and several players on the 2008 Phillies have been retired for years.

NL Central

1. Cardinals--Their worst position last year was right field and now they have Jason Heyward playing there. No reason they shouldn't be favored to repeat as division champs.

2. Pirates--Cervelli is worse than Martin but the young core is a year more seasoned and as a whole, they're probably about as good as the team that pre-2012 would've been a Wild Card last year.

3. Reds--Billy Hamilton will mature, Jay Bruce can't be that bad again, Todd Frazier and Devin Mesoraco appear to be bona fide studs, a healthy Joey Votto is healthy, Aroldis Chapman is probably the best reliever in the game, and people need to start acknowledging how good Johnny Cueto is. With that said, Jason Marquis is in their rotation.

4. Cubs--I feel like a lot of people are going to want me to defend why I picked a team that won 73 games last year and added Jon Lester and an average catcher to finish in fourth this year.

5. Brewers--They fell apart down the stretch last year and they traded away their ace.

NL West

1. Dodgers--They are relying entirely too much on Brandon McCarthy and Brett Anderson to stay healthy (relying on the former is fine, relying on the latter is insane) but you're just trying to be cute if you don't pick them to win the division.

2. Giants--I don't think a team that lost Pablo Sandoval and nothing else of consequence goes from an 88 win team to mediocre overnight, especially when their rotation looks straight up good if either Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain regain their old form (I would never bet on both to do so, but one seems plausible enough).

3. Padres--Wil Myers is playing center field for them. Their infield is abysmal. They have a couple good starters and then nothing much beyond that. They have the talent that I could see them finishing 2nd but I could also see them disappointing a whole bunch of people.

4. Rockies--Their lineup is actually quite good and interesting when healthy, even if their rotation isn't great. I could see a scenario where they finish ahead of the Padres but this requires them to all be healthy, which means depending on Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez to remain healthy, which is not generally a good bet to make.

5. Diamondbacks--Not that anybody is saying they are good but I think you should look at their roster and digest just how unimpressive it is. The four worst teams in the NL by a mile are the bottom two in the East and West.

Awards

AL MVP--Mike Trout. He's really good and I think his team is going to win its division so yeah.

NL MVP--Yasiel Puig. He keeps getting better and will combine the exciting narrative elements with being a really good baseball player.

AL Cy Young--David Price. In picking awards, I always pick a good player on a good team and of my division winners, he's quite clearly the best pitcher among them so yeah, okay, sounds good to me.

NL Cy Young--Clayton Kershaw. Well, he won MVP last year, so I guess technically I'm predicting regression.

AL ROY--Daniel Norris. He lives in a van down by the river and people like stories.

NL ROY--Kris Bryant. Have you heard about him.

Playoffs

AL Wild Cards: Athletics, Blue Jays

NL Wild Cards: Pirates, Giants

AL Champion: Angels

NL Champion: Nationals

World Series Champion: Nationals

Audio Johnapedia 44--Top NHL Players to Build Around

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SWQ-mpsBHQ&feature=youtu.be