Dear TGWNA,

Yo. It's me Aaron Rowand. I used to play center field for the Philadelphia Phillies, but I'm now unemployed. I doubt I'll be out of a job for long, but apparently I had to wait for some dude named Torii (what kinda name is that?) to get signed so everyone could figure out how much they were willing to pay me. They say I'm going to get paid less; not a whole lot, maybe 10 percent less overall. OK, that's cool, considering dude just got signed for $18 milly a year to play in that place by Disney Land. Heh. I like the tea cups ride.

Anyways, my only question is: Why is this Torii guy going to get paid more than me, exactly? Don't get me wrong, he seems like a cool guy and everything, and I've seen him on Sports Center robbing dudes of home runs and stuff, which is cool. But, hey, you might have noticed me on Sports Center a couple of times to, face-planting into fences. Alls I'm saying is that it's not like he's got a monopoly on highlight catches. He may jump, but is he willing to look like a fucking hockey player for the rest of his career? Yeah, I didn't think so. If he only knew how much the broads dug steri-strips.

So, if it's not the highlight catches, then what is it? As far as I can tell, I'm as good as the dude. Maybe better. My boy Diesel got me some numbers on this shit, and told me to paste 'em on here.

Aaron Rowand career OPS+: 106
Torii Hunter career OPS+: 104

Aaron Rowand WARP3, 2005-2007: 19.1
Torii Hunter WARP3, 2005-2007: 19.0

Aaron Rowand Age: 29
Torii Hunter Age: 31

Also, on defense, Diesel told me it's basically a wash. Hunter has a slightly higher "range factor" and "zone rating," I got a higher "fielding runs above replacement" figure, and we got the same fielding percentage.

Yeah, I'm like you: I don't have a motherfucking clue what WARP3 is, either (Diesel also said something about my VORP being higher than Torii's last season, but I told his geek ass to shut it already), but I think it's pretty cool that the stats are saying I'm better than the other guy who's gonna get paid more than me.

Hold on, that's not cool at all. That's actually really fucked up.

Guess who's back?!?

That's right, mofos: One of the true O.G.s in the team-killing G.M.-ing game is back in business. Give a hand to the humongous, yet strangely empty, dome of Eddie Motherfuckin' Wade, A.K.A. The Shitty Reliever Whisperer.

I'm sure Frenchy has some pointed barbs for Wade, but I'm appreciative of the opportunity to get in here first. Listen, Ed Wade is not only a horrible G.M., he might actually be one of the worst I've ever seen, regardless of the sport. Unlike other horrible G.M.s who have to juggle the demands of their stunning levels of incompetence with tightwad/meddling/corporate ownership, Ed Wade actually managed to skullfuck the Phillies without outside interference. He was permitted a competitive payroll, a great market, and some really good young players around whom to build. And yet, he managed to make the kind of franchise-killing mistakes one usually reserves for the likes of Kevin Malone.

Part of what makes this so much fun is I was just listening to an interview with Michael Lewis today, and (not surprisingly) the subject of Moneyball came up. On that subject, he commented that most surprising about the response to the book was that other teams didn't rush out to try and ape Beane's now-exposed strategy, and instead mocked it (though, with the caveat that many GMs now started paying attention to OBP a little more). That was true a year after the book came out, and is apparently still true now. There is no less-deserving man in America of another G.M. post than Ed Wade, yet he's been handed the keys to another franchise. At least the cupboard is so bare in that franchise that there won't be the added torture for Astros fan of watching Wade destroy a good thing.

I don't want to start throwing around the "-isms" here, because it's done too often and rarely well-defended. But I am going to say that there are a lot of "non-traditional" candidates for G.M. positions right now — including Kim Ng, Ruben Amaro, DePo, Logan White, etc. — that have been on the shelf for a while now, waiting for some club with a little bit of imagination to take a shot. I'm not saying that all are equally qualified, or good fits for the Astros, or are even most deserving of a job when held up against the field. But I do know that baseball is a fuck of a lot more discriminatory in its hiring practices that just about any other major business out there. It's not even about race or sex so much as it is simply about the fact that the strongest force in the game is inertia. Ed Wade has done everything in his power to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he's not fit to run a group of beer vendors, not to mention a major league team. Yet, he's another in a long list of old, white men who find that it's virtually impossible to not get a job in baseball once you've already had one. Unless your name is Cito Gaston.

What are you talking about?

I'll try to be as brief as I possibly can here. Your criticisms of both me and Easterbrook are based on the notion that "(Rowling's) non-discussion is simply her default position on religious matters."

Once again: EXCEPT FOR THOSE QUOTES FROM THE BIBLE SHE PUT IN THE LAST BOOK!

When an author starts quoting the Bible, she's bringing religion into the discussion. And do you really think that Gregg Easterbrook is the only person of the millions who read the book capable of recognizing a quote from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians? Or Matthew 6:19? We're talking about two relatively well-known passages in two of the most often-read books in the most widely distributed, studied, and taught document in the history of the world. And you're seriously going to claim the following???:

"No one knew they were Bible quotes. Not the reviewers, more than likely not the children, and as far as we know, no one besides Easterbrook."

I really hope you're just searching for premises on which to base your disagreement, arguing for the sake of arguing, because that's one sorry-ass piece of support. Two sentences later, you say it's the most widely read and quoted book in the history of the world -- but none of the literally millions of people who read Harry Potter can recognize well-known quotes from it? None of those legion children who attend Sunday school every week? None of the book reviewers who probably had to study Paul's letters in Lit classes (I did)? Only Gregg Easterbrook? Come on. Even most of your baseball arguments make more sense than that.

Other issues:

-- In terms of spiritual content, quoting the Bible is always a whole hell of a lot different from quoting Shakespeare. That's because there's a religion with hundreds of millions of followers based on the Bible. With Shakespeare, not so much.

But rather than acknowledging that she's pretty clearly invoking the Bible in those passages, you'd have us believe that, after writing a few thousand pages of an incredibly successful series of books for children and making millions of dollars while not mentioning God, J.K. Rowling decided to throw a couple of direct Bible quotes into the final one not because she was trying to get something across, but because "the quotes sounded good and fit the scenes she was trying to create." Or that she didn't know they were Bible verses, and just happened to quote them verbatim, anyway.

This is the kind of argument on which D-level literary analysis papers are based. Things like Biblical quotations don't happen by accident in books. Successful authors tend to be a bit more selective than writing whatever sounds good and seems to fit.

-- I never said most 200-page novels discuss god at some length. I said they mention him in some sense. There's a big difference. But you know that, since you so love semantics.

In other words, it's a significant absence when a book doesn't mention God at all. Moreso when a multi-thousand-word series doesn't. If you'd like to contend that point, please do.

-- I'd like to respond to this, which I'm quoting here lest I be accused (again) of misquoting your argument.

However, what really made no sense to me — honestly — was you additional take on children's books and religion. Are you saying that religion should be addressed in children's books (as Easterbrook suggests)? Or are you simply saying that any religious material should be well-documented so parents are aware of what's being fed to their children (a position I whole-heartedly support)? Part of my confusion here stems from the fact that Rowling made no real mention of religion or god in her books — I'll get to the Bible passages in a second — so there's nothing really here for parents to worry about in that regard (the mystical/supernatural/whatever stuff is another story, but I think(?) everyone's at least anecdotally familiar with that aspect of the series by now, so it's not like parents are flying blind here). The only person who brought up religion visa vis the Potter series is Gregg Easterbrook. It's an invention of his, not Rowling's. Thus, Rowling need not concern herself with disclosing anything about religious content with her books; there is none.

This is really puzzling. Where did I (or Easterbrook, for that matter) say anything remotely like "religion should be addressed in children's books"? Or that religious material should be "well-documented"? Find me a place where I said that. You're pretty blatantly putting words in my mouth for effect.

And you really support requiring "documentation" of religious material in books? What kind of documentation? Do you want warning stickers, a la Tipper Gore, or do you want Yellow Stars on the covers of Jewish books? A pretty strange stance for a Libertarian, no?

Your confusion stems from your stubborn, illogical belief that Rowling made no mention of God. Once again: her books have no religious content EXCEPT FOR THE FUCKING BIBLE QUOTES! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

My "take" on religion in children's books was stated pretty succinctly in my original post: The issue of God and religious belief is even more important in children's books, I think: parents should understand and appreciate whether and how their children are being indoctrinated by what they read (and watch, and hear, for that matter).

So no, I don't think there should be warning labels on children's books that say "Parental Advisory: Religious Content." And I don't care one way or the other how (or whether) their authors choose to address God -- that's their prerogative. What I think is that parents should read with their children and discuss the books so that they can be aware of and counteract any possible indoctrinating effects. I know that's probably a pipe dream in contemporary America, but I think it's the most reasonable solution.

-- I don't want to belabor it too much, but your use of "mystics" was a stretch at best. The world is almost invariably defined in relation to religious knowledge. TV psychics don't have that, and most of them, I would assume, don't even claim to communicate with a god. And since you're an atheist, and don't believe in god, using the word to defend psychics from a guy you're calling a zealot is a particularly odd choice.

Yes, this is ostensibly a sports blog, but ...

It's not every day one can be accused of being both "incoherent" and "irresponsible" — criticism that seems tailor-made for Jesse Jackson — but while I take no offense, I do think you quite missed the boat completely here. The bottom line is that Easterbrook did make the "controversy" surrounding Rowling's non-inclusion of religious content out of whole cloth.

First, let's be clear: Easterbrook was making no simple observation here. He clearly accuses Rowling — using the lame "perhaps" qualifier that you and I have both criticized other writers for using in the past when making accusations they can't prove — of avoiding the issue of god and religion because she doesn't want the controversy involved. Had Easterbrook simply noted that, in contrast to the two other series, the Potter books have been free of religious content, I would have no objection.

But he didn't stop there, and your defenses of Easterbrook end up being as "incoherent" as anything I wrote. First, I fail to see how the fact that most other 200-plus page discuss god at some length — a point I'd contend, though this could simply be an issue of different experiences and literary histories — somehow means that there exists an obligation to do so for all authors who write more than short stories. I'm sorry, but that's asinine. It's not only acceptable for any author to bypass all religious/god discussion in his or her work, it's actually welcomed, particularly if he or she doesn't have anything beyond the trite or cliché to offer readers.

When you use the word "skirt," much like Easterbrook suggested that Rowling made a conscious decision to not get into the topic for feat of controversy, you ignore the possibility that her non-discussion is simply her default position on religious matters. Neither of you know what Rowling was thinking while writing (besides "I'm going to buy a baby cash!"), and I think it's irresponsible to present the assumption that she actively avoided the subject with no evidence outside of your (misguided?) assumptions about what children's books should be.

However, what really made no sense to me — honestly — was you additional take on children's books and religion. Are you saying that religion should be addressed in children's books (as Easterbrook suggests)? Or are you simply saying that any religious material should be well-documented so parents are aware of what's being fed to their children (a position I whole-heartedly support)? Part of my confusion here stems from the fact that Rowling made no real mention of religion or god in her books — I'll get to the Bible passages in a second — so there's nothing really here for parents to worry about in that regard (the mystical/supernatural/whatever stuff is another story, but I think(?) everyone's at least anecdotally familiar with that aspect of the series by now, so it's not like parents are flying blind here). The only person who brought up religion visa vis the Potter series is Gregg Easterbrook. It's an invention of his, not Rowling's. Thus, Rowling need not concern herself with disclosing anything about religious content with her books; there is none.

As for the Bible passages bit, I think that Easterbrook himself correctly identified the reason why they don't serve to make his criticism appropriate: No one knew they were Bible quotes. Not the reviewers, more than likely not the children, and as far as we know, no one besides Easterbrook. Beyond complementing him for a sharp eye and an encyclopedic knowledge of biblical verse, is there really anything else here to say? While the Bible is clearly and ecclesiastical work, it's also the most widely read and quoted book in the history of the world. Quoting the bible, in this situation, isn't all that different from quoting Shakespeare, in terms of spiritual content. Rowling quoted two fragments of larger biblical verses, didn't identify them as such, and in the context of a larger work that deals with religion not at all. She may have intended for this to be an "Easter Egg" for astute readers, but she could just have easily thought the quotes sounded good and fit the scenes she was trying to create. Or, maybe she didn't know they were bible verses at all; point is, I don't know, and neither does Easterbrook. But, suffice to say, these two lines alone don't justify harping on the author for the religious content of her works, or lack thereof.

Two notes:
- I refer to anyone who makes any claims of supernatural abilities as a "mystic." This includes TV psychics, palm readers, horse whisperers, or religious figures like priests or rabbis who claim to serve as conduits of some god. Hell, I even call people who believe in the intercessory power of prayer "mystics." I believe, further, that my using the term "mysticism" in this case is semantically correct. I thus fail to see how I am guilty of "pap" in this regard.

- I didn't hit on it in my letter, but you're right to point out that Easterbrook of all people should be the last to do something so stupidly glip as refer to anyone as a "jihadi." I think it further underscores his inability to reconcile his religious views, which appear to have been the cause of both this overstatement and his previous forehead-slapper about Jews that almost cost him his career. Not that I think that kind of reaction is justified here, and I'm less concerned with an apology than perhaps him using this as an opportunity to intelligently explain to everyone why statements like that can not only undermine one's credibility, but serve to further lower the level of discourse in this country, which is already subterranean.

Wasn't it nice writing about something else than the Phillies?

Cuntjustification, Pt. 2

I actually have a post on baseball free agency almost completely written out, mainly because I (stupidly) didn't think the MT stuff would be very compelling to anyone but me. I was pleasantly mistaken. So, that'll come another day. Tease: Juan Pierre's contract is outrageous! Bet you can't wait.

Where to begin? A request has been made for some further substantiation of the claims made against MT, and it's proven to be a relatively difficult task when one is restricted to the interweb (my interest in the issue isn't great enough to buy anything about it). But I have found some things of interest (sorry, D, no "stats," though I fail to see what stats one could actually get on the subject, since MT refused to publicize anything except the mythology surrounding her order), that are worth mentioning. One of them is a Slate article by Chris Hitchens, who wrote a book called The Missionary Position that was all about our favorite Calcuttian.

(Aside on Hitchens: What does his drinking have to do with anything? Not only is he honest about his drinking — probably even proud of it — I challenge anyone to read something he's written and show me an example of how the scotch has diluted his ability to think or write one bit. To dismiss Hitchens' points because of his drinking is to engage in behaviour fit only for Republican presidential candidates)

There's also the book written by the timid-looking man who was interviewed in the Penn & Teller clip: The Final Verdict by Aroup Chaterjee, a Calcutta native who did extensive research on MT before her death. He's published the first three chapters online, and they make for some interesting reading. In the interest of offering a preview, here's a part that caught my eye:

On 30 August 1996, at around 5 p.m., I found a small commotion in front of Shishu Bhavan's entrance - a 'very poor' woman, Noor Jehan (name slightly changed at her own request), was wailing at the top of her voice. She had with her, her two children, both girls, the younger one about 10 months and the older about 2 years old. The 10 month old was obviously suffering with diarrhoea and was ill; the 2 year old was miserable and fed up and was lying on the pavement, screaming.

I asked Noor Jehan what the matter was. She told me that she had been thrown out of her home (she lived in a slum near the Calcutta docks) by her violent husband the night before and she had arrived at Shishu Bhavan at 10 p.m. hoping to get some help for her children. She had been let in by the night porter and had been allowed to sleep in the courtyard - they had even given her a sheet for her children. Promptly at 5 a.m. however, she had been thrown out on to the pavement with a cup of tea. From then on, she had been alternately pleading and demanding to be let in, so that the children could have something to eat and somewhere to sleep.

Noor Jehan's entreaties for help were not entertained by the nuns - the door remained firmly shut in her face. The baby's hungry wails were ignored. The local shopkeepers took pity on the woman and gave her some tea and bread; somebody brought some milk for the children. By the time that I arrived at 5 p.m., a small crowd of about a dozen people had gathered and had turned quite hostile towards the nuns.After a lot of loud banging, a nun appeared at the door. I asked her why they would not give the woman and her children some food, and shelter for that night only. The nun explained that they could do that, but only after the mother had handed over the absolute rights of her children to the Missionaries of Charity. In other words, the 'form of renunciation' had to be signed, or in this case, had to be imprinted with the impression of Noor Jehan's left thumb. The children would then, in due course, be adopted by a good Catholic family in the West - the last bit is my own presumption; the nun did not actually say it.

A couple of other things I stumbled across: An article in The New Statesman and an article by a former member of her order.

In reference to D's criticism of my criticism: Of course MT's done more "good" for the poor than I have. But I submit that MT has also done more harm to the poor than I have, both with her Skinner-esque approach to "helping" the poor and the use of her political capital to wage war against abortion and divorce. Furthermore, I submit MT had the ability to do much more good than she actually did, as evidenced by the money she raised under the auspices of helping the poor and eventually used to build convents instead. While I realize that charitable giving isn't a zero-sum equation, it's plausible to suggest that lots of people who wished to give to the poor would have diverted their funds to more honest sources had the truth — or at least some of the accusations — regarding MT's ministry been told in her lifetime. So, I'm willing to count against MT the good that wasn't done by her as, at least, lost "opportunity cost." Thus, she's a cunt.

Mark: I understand your point completely, but I'm not sure I see much moral distinction between the ends of your three options (welfare, religious organizations or abandonment). Both welfare and religious organizations have perpetuated the problem of poverty, in my opinion, by either attempting to buy off those who suffer from it, or tell them that to be decrepit is noble. At least in the case of abandonment, we don't take an active role, which isn't any more "wrong" than actively abetting poverty itself.

I realize the validity of the, "Well, at least the church is willing to do something," argument, but that doesn't make it any less troublesome. Society ends up paying a pretty extreme price in return for religion taking care of the abject, usually in the form of having to tolerate the organizations themselves. MT is a perfect example of this: If any other Nobel Prize winner got up on stage and said something as utterly insane as abortion being the "greatest destroyer of peace," he or she would become an instant punchline. But no one wanted to take MT to task for saying it, because she had become the world's guilt eater, and both the Peace Prize and the pass she got for her indefensible views were her wages (not to mention an attempt at accelerated sainthood by the previous Pope, before he cashed out, too). So, I end up asking this: Is it worth it, all of this baggage, to avoid guilt over not being poor but knowing poverty exists for others? That's ultimately a personal question, and my answer is no. But I understand if someone feels otherwise, provided they do so realizing the bargain they're making.

And, ultimately, I don't have a problem with others thinking that MT was more good than bad, or just good period. I have offered my cuntjustification; do with it what you will.

Cuntjustification

I like that word so much I'm going to make it a new label, and I'll probably put it on every post from here on in. It just kinda rolls off the tongue.

Cuntjustification.

Anyway, on to the reason for my little linguistic bundle of joy: A couple weeks back, a few of you mofos asked me what my beef was with the late Mother Theresa, a woman I have called a "cunt" on more than a few locations. Mercifully, since I was drunk, the conversation didn't go long, because I am somehow incapable of remaining dispassionate on the subject of this thieving whore.

But if any of you are curious, here's a short, funny, and accurate account of the basic beefs with Mother Theresa. If you need even more reason to hate this bitch after this, then I'll be more than happy to finish the job.

Sabbatical over

I can't exactly explain why I haven't posted anything in a while. There were plenty of interesting topics, but for some reason nothing I had to say about any of them were particularly interesting. Plus, I spent a few nights writing a guide to Rome for a couple of friends of mine that certainly didn't turn out like I had spent that much time on it; for someone who writes as infrequently as I do these days, I sure do seem to go through a lot of slumps. But, I'm feeling good today, so I'm going to try and play catch-up.

(Justin-like side note: I've been having some really weird pains in my chestal area lately. Despite the bad rap I get for my shaky wheels, I'm not particularly prone to fits of hypochondria, but it's been an unsettling thing for me this past weekend. The funny thing is, beside the smoking and drinking, I've actually been pretty healthy lately. But, of course, the ridiculousness of that last sentence identifies the whole problem, doesn't it? I really wish I wanted to quit smoking sometime outside the hours of 1 a.m.-8 a.m.)

1. What I've been trying to say is that David Stern is racist

The post I've lamely been trying to cobble together was a thesis piece on why the NBA commish obviously hates the black man. My inability to actually get it done is something I attributed to a "slump," but it might also be that I found elucidating the point to be much more difficult than my original arrival at the conclusion. I can't particularly break the argument down into a syllogism, which might be why I was having so much difficulty writing the post. But what I was trying to prove was that Stern has decided that the only viable target for the NBA is Corporate America, and he has concluded that Corporate America and the inner city culture adhered to by most NBA players are not sympatico. Thusly, he has spent much of his legislative time the last handful of years trying to whitewash the players, and ultimately the league. The draft age minimum, the dress code, the lowered technical thresholds are the most recent (and most transparent) amendments that aim to make the league less threatening to the rich white dudes that buy luxury boxes. The severity of the leaving-the-bench rule is a historical antecedent for the current rules, and the situation in the Suns-Spurs series brought the problem with it — it's complete lack of regard for basic human instinct — into clearer relief. That such an indefensible policy (or, more precisely, that a rule with such indefensible rigidity in its application) still exists is more de facto proof of Stern's prejudice and willingness to be irrational in his pursuit of a non-threatening league. Furthermore, the paradox of how Jason Kidd and Allen Iverson are treated by the League's marketing department is further evidence that appearances are what's truly important to Stern; despite the fact that Jason Kidd is a confessed wife-beater, he shows up in more NBA montages than the fucking logo. Iverson, on the other hand, has a fairly tame rap sheet that dates back to high school and one insanely overblown fight with his wife in which he was not really convicted of doing anything except screaming out of his patio door. But because he has tattoos and 'rows and talks exactly as you'd expect someone from a poor area of Virginia to speak. But when was the last time the League really promoted Iverson, who actually exemplifies all the clichés — grit, hustle, talent maximization — that we supposedly revere? And I don't think its difficult to find plenty of paradoxes that are equally as angering or suggestive of deeper currents.

And the real problem, of course, is that Stern presides over the league that really owes its entire existence to black people, and to only a slightly lesser extent black culture. When people talk about the issue of black attrition in baseball, I think to myself that it's unfortunate but a product of the fact that other sports — basketball and football, namely — have captured the imagination of black american athletes much more effectively than baseball. And then you look at the NBA, and realize that if Stern had his way, I honestly believe he'd turn the sport into a modern minstrel show. Can I conclusively prove this? Of course not. But I also don't believe that my theory is outlandish.

2. MyfuckinggodIcan'tstandtheYankeestalkanymore

For some reason, I end up becoming a magnet for random conversations about sports at bars. This probably serves as a reasonable explanation as to why I so rarely actually meet girls at bars, since very few girls care about breaking down the draft or debating the relative merits of the stolen base. Anyway, no matter the point a sports conversation begins at these days, it appears all conversational roads lead to the Yankees; in so many ways, that franchise is the Rome of the MLB, if not sports in general. To extend the metaphor, while Rome is clearly burning right now, it's not really as compelling as a lot of people are making it out to be.

Of course the Yankees aren't this bad. This is a better collection of players than that assembled by Tampa, and yet those two franchises share a similarly unimpressive position in the AL East. But what does that mean? A lot of things. One, the team is old, and old teams are very often hard to predict, because an individual player's decline in baseball is often sudden and precipitous. Two, the bullpen is not very good, because Rivera hasn't been sharp and Torre's spent a lot of time the last three years beating the life out of any usable arm in the group. Three, the team has been unlucky in a variety of ways. Injuries have really hurt the starting rotation, things haven't been breaking their way, and the Red Sox are looking like a 110-win team.

And that's all. Is there really anything that interesting about anything I just said there? I don't think so. So why should anyone who is not a Yankee fan — someone who will likely be a part of a rapidly growing population this season — spend any amount of time talking about this? This team is no more interesting than the Indians, who similarly played so far beneath their Pythagorean record last season that it would be the first thing omitted from a regression analysis. There was no hand-wringing from the Baseball Tonight crew, no Eric Wedge death watch. And yes, I realize that they're THE YANKEES, and this means that they're supposedly important to everyone. But, c'mon ... we have no shortage of interesting things happening this year in baseball. Can we just agree to leave it alone until they hit a hot streak and force us to acknowledge them again?

3. (Long-standing beef edition) People really need to learn the meanings of the words they use.

Feel free to use the previous section of this post as a primer for anyone who abuses the word "irony." Is it that hard a concept to understand? Irony ≢ funny. I've had three people tell me something is ironic in the last four days, and not once were they even within skeeting distance of the correct meaning of the word. I also heard someone use the term "diorama" in the following context: "There's an entire diorama of ideas going through my head." The person then followed up with the phrase "The menagerie of my business ..." at which point I suffered from immediate, widespread organ failure, and would not have survived had someone not rushed one of Bill Safire's "On Language" columns to me immediately. Lucky me, I guess.

It should be explained that I spent a good portion of the weekend hanging out with people from Scottsdale, and almost every single person I spoke to was an aspiring "entrepreneur." One of those "entrepreneurs" explained to me that he owns a porn site that remains, at press time, bereft of actual pornography. His plan is to convert one of the rooms in his new house into a studio for the purpose of creating some pornography. "I could be in the movies themselves," he said to me, keg beer in one hand as he brushed back his overgrown, styled bangs out of his eyes with the other, "but I don't think I want to get involved in that side of the business, you know? It's better to keep that separation there." He also claimed to have a grandmother who is some big shot at Pepperdine's law school, and promised to "get me in, for sure."

That story was apropos of nothing; I just felt the need to share it.

4. It is possible that both Greg Oden and Kevin Durant will be outstanding basketball players, and that neither the Trail Blazers or the Sonics will look back on this draft with regret.

One of my ongoing complaints is how everyone seems to approach questions as if the decision were binary. I realize that I've been accused of harboring "black and white" views on many things, but that's reserved for cases in which I believe the potential exists that a right or wrong answer can actually be divined. But how can anyone tell me with a straight face that they know that only one of these two guys is going to turn out to be the better pick by a significant margin? I don't mind analysis, even if it's somewhat unhinged or really just conjecture, because I understand that 24-hour sports networks need to fill up the airtime with something besides poker re-runs. But how is it that I haven't heard one analyst say that it's possible that the Blazers simply can't go wrong with this pick? Does this bother anyone else?

5. At least Greg Dobbs doesn't bother lecturing me about the evils of outsourcing.

I decide not to post for a couple of weeks, and I come back to a blog that looks more like the 700 Level than it does an argument blog. And you know those painkillers they give out for appendectomies are good when Brett Myers' injury isn't enough to fade the high of a man who's been a veritible Monsieur Visage de la Tristesse the last year or so.

At least Justin brought up one interesting point in his last post, which is how the concept of clubhouse chemistry plays into winning and losing. I happen to think there's something to be said about good chemistry; at the least, it certainly can't hurt, and to whatever extent you're willing to accept basic business principles as being applicable to the management of a baseball team, an environment that fosters respect and co-operation is highly favorable. However, I don't believe that bad chemistry is all that horrible; as Justin stated, these guys are well-paid professionals and one should expect that they don't need to like each other to do the job. So, good is good, but bad probably isn't that bad at all.

I agree that this Phillies team is compelling for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that I get a lot of enjoyment watching good things happen to teams that are hamstrung by the efforts of complete idiots. I actually called Justin the other day just because I had to remark on the beauty of Charlie Manuel "shaking things up" by benching Pat Burrell for Jason Werth against soft-tosser Doug Davis a couple of nights ago. For the 400,oooth time, Burrell absolutely annihilates lefties, and even better he draws walks, which Davis is ultra-proficient at giving out. Chucky Autism cited Burrell's 1-for-10 career mark against Davis, which is more proof that the man is completed retarded. 10 at bats?!? Even an evangelical wouldn't be willing to draw any kind of inference from such scant data.

Now, the Phillies will provide me the opportunity to witness the exploits of The Sextapus — a gloss that was borne of an otherwise uneventful TGWNA field trip to Chase Airplane HangarField a couple of weeks back — on a nightly basis, since SportsCenter loves showing blown saves by frightening, misshapen, obese pitchers almost as much as it likes cross-promotion. Did we mention that Ole' Six-Fingers will be on Mike & Mike tomorrow, who will be calling the Scripps Spelling Bee, which is brought to you by Tinactin? Here's Billy the Marlin, holding up a cue card! WE'RE TOPICAL AND EDGY!

(Curtain)

The Stupidest Thing I've Heard All Day, April 23

Guess what: It's from another Steve Phillips chat.

Dan (Philadelphia): Steve, is Brett Meyers ultimately going to be the closer for the Phillies? If so, what can they get for Tom Gordon?

Steve Phillips: The Brett Myers move is one of the most perplexing I've seen in the recent past. I understand Jonathan Papelbon moving to the closer's role this spring, because the Red Sox had three other potential aces. The Phillies aren't as lucky, and removing Myers from the number 1 spot in the rotation to pitch him in the eighth innning doesn't make sense to me. I know the Phillies have concerns about the physical well-being of Tom Gordon to handle the closer's role for an entire season. If Myers goes to the bullpen, he has to close. For instance, he came in and pitched the ninth inning in a 9-2 game. That's a complete waste of Brett Myers' ability. He needs to start if he's not pitching in critical situations. Gordon doesn't have much trade value right now because everybody interprets the Phillies' moves to be as much about the eighth inning today as the ninth tomorow. If the Phillies could trade Gordon for a proven, consistent, top-flight eighth inning pitcher, they should jump at it now. they could move Myers to the closer's role and have more predictability out of the bullpen. I just don't think that deal is out there.

First of all, while I may not agree with some very smart people (and dumb people) who believe the Myers' move was the right one to make, using the term "perplexing" usually indicates that there's really no viable explanation. There are arguments to be made (even some good ones) that moving Myers to the 'pen is actually a masterstroke. It depends; I'm thinking about writing a post about how it could be a great move, but likely will be mismanaged. But that's neither here nor there; what's important is that "perplexing" is overstatement.

Further, holding up an example of how the Phillies have already starting mismanaging Brett Myers out of the 'pen doesn't illustrate your point, asshole. Of course Myers shouldn't be out there in a 9-2 game, but he should have been out there sometime in the first two weeks of the season when the Phillies were choking away leads in the late innings.

Finally, there is a truly "perplexing" argument made by Phillips, here, that made me laugh out loud. Here is the argument, presented in order of chronological premises and ultimate conclusion:

1) Brett Myers is the ace of the staff: .47 VORP (Veracity Over Replacement Premise, with 1.00 representing a completely and verifiably true statement)

2) (Implied) Brett Myers, as the "ace" of the starting staff, is immediately also the team's best pitcher in the bullpen: .13 VORP

3) Brett Myers would only have value to the Phillies bullpen if he were the closer, because only closers come up in "critical" situations: -.99 VORP (a negative VORP like this one indicates that it's actually the complete opposite of the truth)

4) Tom Gordon does not have trade value: -.41 VORP

Those are the four main premises to the following argument, which have a combined VORP of -.80, which means that there is no possible way that Phillips could possibly reach a viable conclusion. Yet he soldiers on with this gem:

Conclusion: The Phillies should consider trading Tom Gordon for an eighth-inning pitcher, despite the fact that Steve just said that eighth-inning pitchers aren't all that important because they don't pitch in "critical" situations. Furthermore, Brett Myers, upon receiving the magical "C" tattoo on his left ass cheek, will immediately become a great closer because there's no possible way a talented guy could possibly not be suited to short relief roles after spending his entire career starting and he's put up numbers this season that make Russ Ortiz look like Walter Fucking Johnson but who cares about that shit because Myers has the "look" of a great closer, unlike Tom Gordon who I hate because he looks like a nice dude that wouldn't hit his wife on a crowded, public street.

Yes, Steve, it all makes sense to me now. Thank ye.

The Stupidest Thing I've Heard All Day, April 11

Two things, actually. I promise, I'm going to stop pretending that Joe Morgan is a legitimate topic, but there are two of the single funniest, most obtuse things I've ever seen in my life. I am now convinced that Joe Morgan is functionally illiterate, and has his 7-year-old godson answer all the questions "because he knows about those newfangled eletrical keyboards."

Mike (St. Louis): Joe, can you share your favorite Jackie Robinson encounter with us?

Joe Morgan: I guess the one time I met him and had a chance to talk to him. I told him thank you and he smiled and said you're welcome. That's probably my favorite when we had a chance to converse.

I don't know why, but I can't get the image of Joe Morgan being soothed by his wife out of my head. It is a disturbing image.

And then, the most awesome chat response of all time:

Rick H. (Selah, Wa.): Do you think King Felix has a shot at the AL Cy Young this season? Or, will it be another year or two?

Joe Morgan: Dwight Gooden is the best young pitcher I've ever seen. He was better than all of them at a young age.

In the words of Alex Trebeck, "Simply stunning."