Same Old Same Old

Wow, it's been over a year.  Who has time for this sort of thing anymore?

Anyway, this is just a quickie regarding some things about which I've been thinking recently.  Item numbo one is back to the driving thing.  It just comes down to a few simple items; my four rules of driving:

1. Just drive

Don't rubberneck, don't slow down to switch lanes, and don't be in an exit only lane when you don't want to exit and then hold everybody up trying to switch.  It's so simple.  Unless you're going to hit the car in front of you, keep moving.

2. Signal

If you're turning or switching lanes, you need to use your signal.  Period.

3. Be safe

If you think something might be dangerous, it probably is.  Don't do it.

4. Don't be an @$$hole

If what you're doing will cause me to hit the brakes you're being one.  Stop it!

In conclusion, if you're a taxi-driver driving in the left lane, and you want to pick up a customer on the right side of a busy 2nd Avenue, just don't do it, because you'll probably be breaking all four rules.

Item numbo two has to do with not wasting people's time.  If you're like me, with a full time job and a full time family, you don't exactly have much time to suffer other people wasting it.  I'll give two examples:

1. I'm dealing with my wireless service provider, and they have continued to screw up my order for almost two weeks.  Each person I speak to apologizes for the inconvenience, thanks me for being a customer, and compliments me on my fine phone selection skills.  "Which phone did you want, sir, the Galaxy S5?  Wow, that's a really nice phone!"  "I know it's a really nice phone; I was the one who picked it."  Look, you guys continue to screw up my order; don't apologize or give me other pleasantries.  Just fix it!

2. I'm walking on the street today running an errand, obviously in a hurry to get back to work, and someone stops me on the street (Greenpeace?):

Her: "Sir, would you mind taking a quick survey?"
Me: "No, sorry."
Her: "Just two seconds, sir."
Me: "Fine, go ahead."
Her: "How are you today, sir?"

And I'm gone.  You've just told me the survey will take two seconds, and yet you spent a second and a half asking me how I am.  Unless that's the only question in the survey it appears that you're gonna run out of time.

Everyone get the gist here?

They Never Learn

It really was a terrific game, which I guess is all one can really ask, assuming one is not a fan of either team.  I mean I certainly have a strong connection to Baltimore, but I certainly didn't have anything riding on the game.  Anyway, despite the fact that, again, it really was a terrific game, I found certain decisions by both teams to be absolutely maddening.  I'm gonna look through the play-by-play to jog my memory:

1. 15 minutes left in the 1st quarter (yes, the first play of the game), SF 1st and 10 at their own 20, score tied 0 - 0: How the heck to do you get flagged for an illegal formation penalty on the first play of the game?  Don't teams usually script the first 10-20 plays of the game?  Didn't they practice those plays for the last two weeks?  Yikes.  Talk about a drive killer.

2. 15 minutes left in the 2nd quarter (yes, the first play of the 2nd quarter), BAL 4th and 18 at the SF 42, BAL leads 7 - 3: Umm, do anything except for punt it?  Sure, converting on 4th and 18 is unlikely, but odds are the punt will go into the endzone (which it did, netting a 22 yard punt), and SF will get past the spot of the punt within a play or two (which they did on the first play).  I mean the way the SF secondary was playing to that point, converting might not be so unlikely.

3. 3:12 left in the 2nd quarter, BAL 4th and 9 at the SF 14, BAL leads 14 - 3: Love the idea of faking a FG.  You're up by 2 scores regardless of how the play works out, right?  Make the FG, it's 17-3.  The fake fails and it's still 14-3.  My only issue is the playcall itself.  At least give the indication of some kind of trickery.  Dude is a rookie kicker, there are no blockers in front of him, and he receives the ball at least 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.  So you're asking a rookie kicker to gain 19 yards without any blockers?

4. 12:17 left in the 3rd quarter, SF 4th and 7 at their own 46, BAL leads 28 - 6:  At this point you need points and you need stops.  Go. For. It.  If you succeed then you have great field position.  If you fail, then BAL gets the ball back in plus territory.  But you need to stop them from scoring anyway, so in the grand scheme of things, your odds of winning only decrease slightly by giving them the ball back at your 46 rather than at their 20.

5. 10:35 left in the 3rd quarter, BAL 4th and 1 at their own 44, BAL leads 28 - 6:  On the ensuing (love that word) drive, the Ravens decide that they don't want to win the game, so they punt the ball right back.  Seriously?  You're near midfield, you're averaging about six yards per play, and you have a chance to put the game out of reach.  And, oh yeah, it's the Super Bowl.  Go win the game; don't just try to not lose (and they very nearly did).  And just for good measure, the ball goes into the endzone for a touchback and a 36 yard net punt, and SF scores their first touchdown seven snaps later.

6. 7:53 left in the 3rd quarter, SF 1st and 10 at the BAL 49, BAL leads 28 - 6:  SF calls timeout as the play clock winds down.  Double yikes.  You think you won't need that timeout later?  (Spoiler alert: they really really really really did).  And it's not like it was 3rd and 2.  It was 1st and bloody 10!

Before we move on, let's acknowledge the KILLER block by Delanie Walker on Ed Reed on Gore's TD run.

7. 13:05 left in the 4th quarter, BAL 3rd and 1 at the SF 1, BAL leads 28 - 23.  Snap to Flacco, and Joe sprints backwards 10 yards before throwing the ball to no one.  You're one yard away from a two score lead, why sprint backwards?

8. 12:57 left in the 4th quarter, BAL 4th and 1 at the SF 1, BAL leads 28 - 23:  After the madness of the last play, THIS is where you run the fake FG.  Or just plain go for it!  If you fail, SF has the ball on their own goal line.  If you get in then it's back to a two score game.  This might have been the most egregious instance of misjudgment of the whole game.  Go win the freaking Super Bowl.

9. 10:04 left in the 4th quarter, SF 2-pt conversion try, BAL leads 31 - 29:  And Kaepernick lines up in shotgun formation.  Is that a joke?  You're 2 yards away from tying the game, so lets have your uber-athletic quarterback line up in the one formation least suited to his skill set.  Seriously, line up in any way other than shotgun and conversion is likely.

10: 1:50 left in the 4th quarter, SF 4th and goal at the BAL 5, BAL leads 34 - 29:  And Kaepernick lines up in shotgun formation.  Again?  It's the biggest play in the lives of every single member of the 49ers organization, and remember, the coach replaced his traditional pocket passer with, again, the uber-athletic Kaepernick, and you have him line up in the one formation least suited to his skill set.  That was bad enough. But then you choose to run a play - and I've been saying it for years, and I'm positive this is true although I don't know how to find the actual stats - that has the smallest odds of success of any pass play.  Maybe you try the fade pattern on first down.  Maybe you try the fade pattern when you have a pinpoint-accurate quarterback like Tom Brady throwing to a big target like a Calvin Johnson.  You DO NOT try this play on the last play of the Super Bowl with your quarterback with a 9-game resume.  Octuple yikes!  And now Baltimore takes over with 1:46 left.

I bet Jim Harbaugh wishes he had that one timeout back.

Back (temporarily)

Hi All.  It's been quite a while, over a year, in fact; a year of many milestones, including, but not limited to: completing my MBA, losing my job, temporarily working at a new job, and welcoming a baby daughter into the world.  And after all that, my first sentence contained seven commas, a colon, and a semi-colon; it looks like I haven't lost a step, despite going through the blogular equivalent of Tommy John surgery.

Anyway, on to buisness.  There are two things I wanted to discuss today, the first being football.  Last Sunday was a great day; any day the Patriots lose is a great day, and anything that happens during the game that leads to their demise is a great thing.  My issue is that the Ravens are doing it wrong; in fact, most teams do it wrong.  Mr. Easterbrook mentioned it broadly in this past week's column: "The small number of deuce tries that happen in the NFL are almost exclusively when a team is trailing.  Adding a deuce conversion when ahead can have a psychological impact as well as adding a point; and football, after all, is about scoring points."  That was a very general statement, whereas I'm going to make a very specific one.

Here is the setup: First play of the 4th quarter, Baltimore leading 14-13 in possession of the ball, 1st and goal at the New England 3-yard line.  Anquan Boldin makes a leaping catch of a Joe Flacco laser, and now it's 20-13.  Now in my head, this is where you absolutely, positively go for two.  You're in New England, you're driving into the wind for the remainder of the game, the crowd is hostile; who knows if this is the last time you're going to score today?  New England has a prolific offense; put yourself up two scores!  Here are the scenarios:

1. Two-point conversion succeeds, and Baltimore leads by 9.  At this point you're sitting pretty because New England needs a TD and at least a FG to take back the lead.

2. Two-point conversion fails, and Baltimore leads by 7.  Not a terrible alternative, because New England still needs a TD to tie, and they're unlikely to go for 2 to take the lead in a playoff game when a miss could result in a loss.

3. Kick a PAT, and Baltimore leads by 8.  This is really almost equivalent to #2, because New England needs a TD and a very make-able two-point conversion.

Does nobody in the NFL think about these things?  Am I missing something?

Here's the other thing I wanted to talk about today; and this is something that's been stewing for a while upstairs.  I'm a righty (no, this is not about politics), but there are some things that I have always done the way a lefty would:

1. Dealing cards:  I hold the deck in my right hand and deliver the cards with my left.  For me it's much easier to do that than the reverse because I find manipulating the deck and pushing one card with my thumb to be a much more complicated maneuver than tossing the cards to the other players.  I'll leave the complicated maneuver for my dominant hand.

2. Putting on a belt: If my waist were a clock-face, I would loop my belt clockwise.  If I did it the reverse way, then I'd be holding the end of the belt with my right hand and manipulating the buckle with my left.  Again, manipulating the buckle is the more complicated procedure, so I'll leave that to my dominant hand.

Does anyone else do these things or have other examples?  I'd be interested to hear them.

Welcome back, me.

Smith! Blocked! Smith! Smith! Blocked! Smith! Blocked Again!

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Charles Smith getting blocked four times in 13 seconds in the playoffs against the Bulls. It has everything to do with Mike Smith and his decision to go for it on 4th down and 1 in the Falcons' own territory in overtime against New Orleans. It's all over TV and radio today. Don't want to get into it too much, but the point is Mike Smith made absolutely the right decision. He thought that the Falcons would lose if they gave the ball back to Drew Brees, so he went for it. I agree completely. If you think punting the ball back to New Orleans and giving it to them at their 25 yard line would result in a loss, then what's the difference if you miss on 4th down?

That does not exonerate Smith in the least, however. The stupidity of the decision was completely in the play call itself. I mean they basically broadcasted the play over the internet for billions of people to see. Everyone and their mothers all knew what Atlanta would do, and yet they did it anyway. They should have run any single play in the history of play-calling other than the one they ran. For that, and for that alone, Smith should be blamed for the loss. Let's see what TMQ has to say about it tomorrow.

Meanwhile, at the dog pound, "Wanted" signs are being posted to find anybody, ANYBODY, who can jam a 6'6" tight end at the line to bust up the play, and maybe throw off Tom Brady's timing for half a second. Any takers?

Follow up from TMQ:

" In overtime, Atlanta faced fourth-and-inches on its 29, and went for it. This absolutely was the right decision, as Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats shows in detail. If you can't gain a few inches you are not likely to win, while punting to the Saints would have given Drew Brees good field position to seek a field goal and victory. TMQ contends that NFL coaches do not go for it enough on fourth down because if they kick and lose, the players are blamed; if they go for it and lose, the coach is blamed. Sure enough, that's what happened to Mike Smith.

Stuffing the Falcons' run was sweet for New Orleans -- the sour part was a good decision but a bad play call by Atlanta. TMQ's lead last week was that bland straight-ahead rushes don't work on short-yardage downs. Atlanta's call was a bland straight-ahead rush to the power side of the formation, exactly what New Orleans expected. There was no misdirection -- and misdirection is essential on short-yardage downs, when the defense is cranked to charge straight ahead.

To top it off, the extra blocker at the point of attack was skinny wide receiver Roddy White, while running back Michael Turner took the handoff four yards deep in the backfield, meaning he would have to fight just to reach the line of scrimmage. Atlanta might have employed some misdirection; or simply had Matt Ryan sneak, starting the play much closer to the line of scrimmage; or play-faked and gone deep for the win. Instead a bland straight-ahead call, and seemingly no audible available to Ryan if the defense was overstacked. TMQ's law holds: Do a Little Dance If You Want to Gain That Yard."

And about the aforementioned "Wanted" signs:

"Now it's Flying Elvii leading 16-9, facing third-and-3 on the Jets' 5. Tall tight end Rob Gronkowski lined up wide as a wide receiver. To that point, Gronkowski already had seven touchdown catches. Across from Gronkowski in single man coverage was 5-foot-10, third-string corner Donald Strickland, no safety in sight. Seeing Gronkowski in man coverage wide, who might Tom Brady look for? If you'd been at the game, you would have pointed at Gronkowski presnap. Strickland didn't jam Gronkowski as he ran a simple slant for the score, and no safety came over to help. Ye gods."

Football Thoughts

Az I went to the Jets game last Monday night against Miami, and thanks to some extended family we had incredible seats - 8th row on the 25 yard line by the Jets sideline. Now I don't go to too many football games, and I never sat anywhere but nosebleed, which is not dissimilar to watching on TV in re: the birds-eye view. Sitting that close gave me a new perspective, which I thought I'd share.

Football is chaos. On TV it looks like the quarterback can see everything we see, but there are 22 people running around a relatively small field, everyone is 6'7", and everyone can run a 4.4 40. I have no idea how anything gets done out there. I'm not sure how there aren't 20 injuries every down. I'm not sure how there aren't 20 turnovers a game. As I said. Chaos.

Announcers really help. With all that chaos going on, the players and coaches still need to keep track of what down it is, where the first down marker is, how much time is left on the play clock, how much time is left on the game clock, which personnel needs to be on the field, etc. Those of us watching on TV have the luxury of getting every bit of information from the announcers and what's shown on the screen. I never realized how easy it is to lose track of all those important pieces of information.

Stadium was stunning, by the way.

Here's one that has nothing to do with football. I only started noticing this recently, but it is becoming increasingly annoying, and I might yell at someone pretty soon. Let's say you're behind me on a crowded elevator or subway and the doors are getting ready to open and I'm in front. I don't care how much of a hurry you're in, before you say "excuse me," please wait until you see that I'm actually in your way. Hey, has it ever occurred to you that I might be getting off also? Your life would be much happier if you stopped assuming that everyone else is a jerk.

Phew! That's finally off my chest.

Go for 2?

Anyone watching the game today? Jets are down 27-14 to New England and score a touchdown with about 8 minutes left. 27-20 Patriots. Jets kick the PAT, so now it's 27-21.

I disagree.

Go for 2.

If you miss, it's still 27-20, and if you stop them on defense you can still tie it up with a TD. If you get it then it's 27-22. Then there are 2 scenarios:

Stop the Patriots and you still need a TD to take the lead.

Give up a field goal, and you're still just one score behind.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Van Lingle Mungo

No, this post is not actually about the former Browns and Giants pitcher from the 1930s. But he does have a fantastic name. As you know by now, my mind tends to drift, word-association style, from one thing to another (see here: http://schmuttblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/stupid-gifts-and-how-my-mind-works.html). This post is really about Nick Mangold. I have a #74 replica jersey at home and my wife thinks his name is "Mango," which is how I thought of Van Lingle Mungo in the first place.

Anyway, as I said, this post is about Nick Mangold. What with (what with? Great words to appear in succession) the injury to Peyton Manning, the Colts are 0-4 for the first time since Manning's rookie year. Lots of sports pundits are (somewhat tongue-in-cheek-ingly) clamoring for Manning to get some MVP support. Look how bad Indy is without him! When Brady went down, the Pats still went 11-5 with Matt Cassel, but Indy is completely lost! Phooey! Yes, I said phooey!

Has anyone's absence been felt more than Nick Mangold's? The Jets gave up 267 total yards of offense on Sunday yet still gave up 34 points. 267 yards is better than the average of the top defense so far in 2011, and 207 yards better than the New England Patriots! Yet they still gave up 34 points. Mark Sanchez was battered and walloped (and dolloped!) all night long, to the tune of two sacks, four forced fumbles, nine pressures, and ten hits on non-sacks. Want some more? Last year, the Jets averaged 4.4 yards per carry, good enough for 8th in the league. 2.0 of those yards on average came before first contact, while the other 2.4 came after contact. This year, the Jets still average 2.3 yards after contact, but only average 0.8 yards before first contact. An extra 1.2 yards before first contact would raise the Jets average yards per carry to a respectable 4.3 instead of a 30th ranked 3.1.

And the reason for all of this? Van Lingle Mungo. I mean Nick Mangold. Nicholas J. Mangold. Nicholas Jeremiah Mangold III, Esq. He just makes everyone better. He makes Matt Slauson and Brandon Moore better. If Slauson and Moore can block their men more successfully, that enables Brick and Hunter to more easily block their men. It's a whole domino effect that ripples outwards through the offensive line from the center. Mangold is simply the best center on the planet right now; he's the best pull blocker on the run in all of football, and he's never given up more than one sack in a season.

Sports writers and announcers love to talk about how some players, in some undefined, nebulous way, will their teammates to play better. Mangold actually, physically, quantifiably makes his teammates better.

F the H?

Hameivin Yavin.

Let's get all FJM-y for a minute. Here is an actual exchange on BBTN regarding the Carlos Beltran trade:

Karl Ravech: You like it? You love it? Or you hate it?

Mark Mulder: I think I like it. I mean it's... it's r-... it's really good; don't get me wrong, but I like it only because of how many outfielders they have, and now that they'll be rotating guys in and out, how does that change those other guys' roles?

Karl Ravech (awesomely, stupefied): Who cares?

Mark Mulder (caught completely off-guard): ... I'm... just sayin'.

John Kruk (also caught off guard): ...wow...

Karl Ravech (more awesomely): I mean... really? So you're gonna... Beltran vs. Nate Schierholz or Cody Ross or Aaron Rowand? Do you worry about the... the relationship that you have with the other players? The clubhouse?

John Kruk (coming to the defense of Mark): That could happen -

Karl Ravech (interrupting, absolutely dumbfounded): Really?

John Kruk: That could really happen...

And then Kruk gives some bizarre commentary on the clubhouse and team chemistry.

The highest of high comedy. Great stuff.

Big Week

Yes, we won, and we're all thrilled, but there's no time to relax; we have to work on fixing our mistakes before heading into Pittsburgh, where the Steelers will be looking for payback after a 22-17 loss to the Jets in week 15. There was a lot of stuff I liked about the Jets' effort today; the secondary had its best game of the season. The receivers made some tremendous catches. And the running game did just enough to put the game away.

But, to be honest, there were a lot more things I did not like about the way the Jets played. The secondary truly bailed out the Jets coaching staff and some folks on special teams. Here is my list of concerns:

Forcing those two fumbles on Brady and Woodcock was terrific, but you HAVE to fall on the ball. We had first crack at recovering both of those fumbles.

And speaking of falling on the ball, I cannot believe Cromartie had the chutzpah to pick up the onside kick and run it back. If he fails to pick up the ball and the Patriots recover, that becomes the stupidest play of the year. Yes, even stupider than Santonio Holmes's antics on the first punt last week. Mike Westhoff is gonna be pulling some ears this week.

I liked that we followed the same blueprint as last week, but if the cornerbacks, safeties, and linebackers are all dropping back into coverage, who's gonna stop the running backs from getting to the second level? The tackling on the Law Firm and Danny Woodcock was horrific. Rashard Mendenhall burned us for 100 yards last time. If he does it again, I don't like our chances. The tackling all around was terrible today. If you get your hand on a man in front of the first-down marker or behind the line of scrimage, you better wrap him up. No excuses.

I think the fade pattern into the end zone is the lowest percentage play call of all time. I might understand if you want to call it on 1st down, but on 3rd and 4 in the red zone? Horrible. It took a legendary catch to make it work. The slants were working all day, and that's a MUCH easier throw for an inaccurate quarterback to make.

With the Jets up 14 with 1:30 to go, the last think you want to do is let Brady drive down the field in under a minute to score a touchdown and give them the opportunity to try another onside kick. You played outstanding defense all day; why switch it up now? The only one who played defense on that drive was Antonio Cromartie, when he broke up the throw to Deion Branch at the goal-line. It's well established that the only thing the infamous "prevent defense" prevents is punts (hat tip Gregg Easterbrook).

One thing I learned today that I did not know before: David Harris is very very slow. Aside from the interception, which was an outstanding read, he did not have a very good game. He missed two tackles for losses that turned into first downs, and I've never seen anybody run back an interception so slowly. He only weighs 25 pounds more than I do, and 50 pounds LESS than Alge Crumpler, who caught him from behind so easily it was laughable. I love you, but that was poorly done, Mr. Harris.

The Jets had a tough time running up the middle all day. And yet, when the time came to burn the clock, they ran the ball up the middle three times in a row for two yards. At least try some kind of misdirection to try to get a first down. The object is to keep the ball out of Tom Brady's hands, not be satisfied with taking two minutes off the clock and handing it back to him.

Let's take a look at these bonehead plays:

Jets first possession, 4th and 5 from the NEW ENGLAND 43 yard line. Yep, out trots the punting unit. You are in the Patriots' house. You lost to them by 42 points six weeks ago, and you're in opponent territory! Why are you punting! Sure enough, Weatherford, who had an awful game in Indianapolis "booms" a 27 yard punt that's fair-caught at the 16 yard line. Well done.

Jets first drive of the second quarter, 4th and 6 from the NEW ENGLAND 45 yard line. Yep, out trots the punting unit. You can't win a game like this by playing 'fraidy-cat football. You need to take it right at the Patriots. Show them you're not scared! Weatherford "booms" his longest gross yardage punt of the day, right into the endzone. Net punt of 25 yards.

Jets ball, 4:05 left in the first half. Jets have 4th and 1 from the NEW ENGLAND 41 yard line. Yep, out trots the punting unit. You don't trust your guys to get you one single, solitary yard? The Jets are the best power-rushing team in the NFL, and you don't have any faith whatsoever in your offensive line and your two tailbacks? Weatherford "booms" a 41 yard punt into the endzone for a touchback. Net punt of 21 yards.

Jets second drive of the second half, 4th and 6 from the NEW ENGLAND 38 yard line. The 38 yard line! Yep, out trots the punting unit. What do you think is going to happen? Steve Weatherford hasn't kicked a decent punt in a month, and you want him to pin the Patriots. GO FOR IT, YOU FREAKIN' MORONS! Weatherford "booms" an 18 yard punt that goes out of bounds. Might as well kick it into the endzone.

That's four punts from New England Territory, none of which gave the Patriots worse field position than their own 16 yard line. That's inexcusable play-calling and unforgivable punting. Rex and Mike Westoff need to seriously reconsider how they want to deal with 4th downs next week.

That's enough for now, back to watching hours of highlights before the baby comes. What a terrific week it should be!

Officials

Anyone who has watched a Jets game with me over the past month will hear me say several things every game. These include: "How does Sanchez have no one to pass to?!" and "Wow... the officials... again..." I mean, I assume the first one will work itself out. Our receivers are way too talented to stay covered all the time, and Sanchez's completion percentage has been on the rise, az that's not really a huge concern of mine. But the second one... I know these things are supposed to even out over the course of the season, but some of these aren't even-out-able, if you catch my meaning. I'll give you a couple of examples.

Week 6 against Denver, Jim Leonhard was called for an unnecessary roughness penalty for a helmet-to-helmet tackle of Brandon Lloyd, who had just caught a 29 yard pass on the sidelines. Then, the Jets challenged the play, claiming that Lloyd did not have full control of the ball until he was out of bounds. The call was upheld following review. There were so many things the officials had wrong on that play that it was laughable:

a. Video cameras from every angle show the exact same thing: Leonhard's helmet did not touch Lloyd's helmet. The hit was 100% clean.

b. Even before the replay, it looked as though Lloyd did not maintain control of the ball in bounds.

c. Following the challenge and replay, not only did the officials fail to overturn the call (thereby acknowledging their mistake), but they also failed to mention anything about Leonhard's hit.

You know, just once I'd like to hear the referee say that the officiating team screwed up. But wait, there's more. As you know, each team gets two challenges per game, unless a team successfully challenges those two, in which case the team is awarded a third challenge. Well, losing that first challenge left Rex Ryan with only one more challenge, and that very drive by the Broncos merited the use of the remaining challenge. But you can't count on the incompetent referees to make a decent call these days, so when Demaryius Thomas caught a 17 yard touchdown by the sidelines, Ryan felt that he needed to save his challenge for later. If you were watching, the Thomas touchdown looked precisely like the Lloyd catch; it was clear that he did not control the ball until he was out of bounds.

So let's follow the sequence of events: Botched call on the penalty, botched call on the sideline catch by Lloyd, the Jets lose the challenge, botched call on the Thomas touchdown, and because of the lost challenge, the Jets couldn't challenge the touchdown. Basically, that entire drive and touchdown was engineered by the incompetence of the referees.

Fast-forward to this past Sunday. Now, it's no secret that Browns fans hate Braylon Edwards, but that does not give the officials the right to let Edwards get pummeled. On his first catch of the game, a 6-yard slant, and you'll forgive me if I can't identify both Browns players, Edwards was wrapped up by the cornerback Sheldon Brown. On the tackle, Brown went after Edwards with his helmet, resulting in an injury to Brown. That play in and of itself should have been flagged for a penalty for an illegal hit. But wait, after Brown wrapped him up, another player went to assist Brown with the tackle, and if anyone was watching, it almost looked like slow motion. The player slowed down a couple of yards away from Edwards, lowered his helmet, zeroed in on his target, blew some smoke from his nostrils, shifted into 3rd gear, girded his loins, and launched himself at Edwards helmet-first. Now, some of that is conjecture, and I wish I could find a video of the play, but you could clearly see the gentleman lower his helmet and launch himself at Edwards. Just a few weeks ago, the NFL relayed to the officials that helmet-to-helmet hits against defenseless receivers should be flagged for a personal foul, and the offending player should be ejected, suspended, and fined. Now, here we are, a few weeks later, and two players make the same illegal hit on the same receiver ON THE SAME PLAY! And not one flag. No one even said anything about it.

And finally, 1:56 left in overtime, 2nd down and 4 yards to go at the 44-yard line, Jets driving for the potential winning score, and LaDainian Tomlinson springs through the right side for a critical 8-yard gain, making it 1st and 10 at the Cleveland 36-yard line. And then... holding on Brandon Moore, 10-yard penalty, repeat 2nd down. And now it's 2nd and 14 from the Jets 46-yard line. Two plays later, on 3rd and 14, Sanchez heaves a hail-mary interception around the goal-line. CBS looked at the replay several times. Jim Nantz and Phil Simms seem puzzled. "Did you see anything?" asks Simms? No response from Nantz. Az Simms says the PC thing, "but I guess we're not down there on the field."

These are game-changing plays we are seeing. The officials are doing the exact opposite of their jobs; they are taking the results of games out of the hands of the players and into their own; they are abusing their power and shirking their responsibilities. And the calls are not evening out. The Jets are winning games IN SPITE of the horrific officiating these past four weeks. I hate to over-dramatize this, but that's the way it seems to this frustrated Jets fan.

Thursday Thoughts

I just can't help getting swept up in the whole LeBron tidal wave. I haven't really cared about basketball for over 10 years, but still. If you ask me, he has known the entire time where he will play; the rest is all marketing and publicity instigated by his agent and publicist. Personally, and I might be biased, I believe he wants to be The Man, az he should come to New York where, if he wins, he would become a god. That's really all I have to say. I'll be there watching at 9 tonight just like all the other mindless basketball fans.

Also, in case anyone was curious about my gchat status...

Boss: Why don't your spreadsheets all start with the footers already there?! When I start a new document, I just use the one I have open and just delete everything, so I don't even have to worry about putting footers.

Me: But that's so annoying.

Boss: You probably just start up a new Excel.

Me: I do not! You think I go to the start menu? I just click the "new" button on the top when I already have Excel open.

Boss: It's the same thing!

Me: No it's not! The start menu opens up a new Excel universe!

Boss: ::flips me the bird::

Ha-yoooj nerd. This guy.

Trust

Az one thing I really wanted to mention when it happened a few weeks ago is a story of how nice New Yorkers can be. One Wednesday afternoon, I left work and walked over to Books and Bagels Cafe on 19th Street. It's sorta on my way from work to school, and I needed a "bed" on which my peanut butter could lay (see Hedberg, Mitchell). Anyway, I attempted to pay with a credit card, but the gentleman behind the counter told me there's a $10 minimum, az I began to walk out. He stopped me and said "you know what? Just take one. They're gonna go in the garbage anyway." Sweet! Free bagel! And just as an aside, I don't care if you're not in college anymore; free food is still free food.

I continued on my merry way towards class, and since I had some time to kill I popped into Peculier Pub on Bleecker for a beer. Now, as is my custom, I perused the menu for not a short amount of time to find a beer I'd never had before. One would think this would be easy, considering that they have around 300 beers on the menu, but not for this guy! As I'm cruising and perusing, a handful of rowdy, yet friendly gentlemen are going on and on about Beer Lao (an appropriate name for a beer from Laos, don't you think?). I finally make my decision and order a beer from the bartender, and she shyly informs me that they are out of the one I selected. The rowdy, yet friendly gentlemen took pity on me, and one of them said "after all that, you don't even have it? Get this man a Beer Lao, on me!" I repeatedly attempted to pay for my own beer, but the gentleman would have none of it. And then we got to talking, and apparently he had gone to Laos on a trip some years earlier and really enjoyed Beer Lao, and Peculier Pub is the only place he's seen it outside of Southeast Asia. Sweet! Free beer!

Az now I have free food and free beer. I almost scored the trifecta, but nobody offered to pay for my transportation.

Speaking of transportation and the trifecta, I would be remiss if I didn't mention this golden nugget. I was driving back to my apartment one evening, and I was listening to the traffic report on the radio to see if there was anything doing on the Henry Hudson Parkway. I can't remember anything about that, since the report was dominated by the broadcaster describing the traffic on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg Bridges as a "trifecta of trouble." It was absolutely priceless. Words I need to use more: Trifecta. Also "trousers." I need to use "trousers" a lot more often. But that's another story.

Anyway, onto the issue of trust. In order to function, we need to have a certain amount of trust in everything and everyone with whom we interact. We have certain ideas in our head about how things are supposed to work. My close friend, Trusty McLoyalman would never do or say anything to hurt me deliberately. Speedy Airbaggington is a decent driver and will signal and look at his blind spot when switching lanes. Cloudy Stormerstein will do her best to give an accurate weather report on the news. And Yorkman O'Times will expertly give us stock tips based on his insider information. Another words, there sure are a lot of folks we trust, whether we want to or not.

But you want to hear an interesting one? What about authors? Some of us read a lot of books, and when we open a book for the first time, we are placing our trust in the author's hands. We trust that he or she has a plan, and the author will execute his or her plan regardless of the circuitous route we need to follow in order to get there. The difference with authors though, is that we are entirely at his or her mercy. The author has created an entirely new world with new creatures, new landscapes, and new rules. The further into the story we get, the more we come to rely on our conceptions of these rules. But what's to stop the author from throwing us a total curveball and screwing with our preconceived notions of those rules? Or worse, what's to stop the author from thowing us a total screwball and curving with our preconceived notions of those rules? The answer, of course, is nothing. With every page we turn we make a choice. Do I continue to trust this author? Is the next page going to reveal something so distasteful that I will choose to put the book down and pick up another?

I thought of these questions will I was reading on the subway this morning. I have no idea why the author forced our protagonist to do the dastardly deed, especially after spending the first 90 pages reeling me in. I have chosen to trust the author and press onward. We'll see if my trust is rewarded.

Kiddush Hashem

Let's try for two!

I'm listening to the Michael Kay show, and over the past week or two, I've heard a couple of promotional radio commercials for the Kay show during some of the earlier programs (Mike and Mike, Brandon Tierney, Colin Cowherd, etc.). These commercials usually have one or another of the hosts (Michael, Don La Greca, Bonnie Bernstein, etc.) and occasionally a caller saying something interesting, as if to say "our show has intelligent people saying compelling things! Listen to us!" One of the commercials featured a caller named David from Jerusalem. I can't remember what he said that they put on the commercial, but I believe the purpose of using that call in the promo was to demonstrate that their show is so popular that they even have people calling from Israel. Cool.

Anyway, sure enough, David from Jerusalem just called in again today to talk about football and the frustration of cheering for losing teams, and after the sports talk, Michael and Don were chatting with David and asking him about Israel. They asked him what time it was, and David said "it's about 20 minutes to 11 here. We're seven hours ahead." Then they asked him if he ever lived in the states, and David responded "yeah, I lived there for 35 years; I moved here a year and a half ago." They then asked him how it is over there and why he moved, and David said "I moved mostly for religious reasons. It was difficult because I moved without a job and actually spent my first year here unemployed. But I've started working, and every day here is truly a blessing. I think it was the right thing to do for me, my family, and hopefully, ultimately, my people."

I really think it was a huge kiddush Hashem that David spoke so intelligently and eloquently on the radio. There are so many callers who can't speak properly and don't use correct grammar, az for David to represent Israel and Jews the way he did was truly fantastic and inspirational.

Shkoyach.

Some Thoughts for a Busy Sports Week

There are few times when the Jets and Mets dominate the back pages of the papers in New York, az I couldn't let such an opportunity pass me by. Well, I'm not actually gonna talk about the Mets much; there's just not enough about which I can get excited yet. I do like the Jason Bay signing even though it's a bit expensive. In a vacuum, I think it's an excellent move, but not in the sense that you might think. A lot of people in the news and on the radio are saying that it's a waste of money unless the Mets improve in other areas, e.g. pitching. I don't really buy into that; I prefer to suggest that it's an excellent move as long as it portends the future signings of similar-type players. If Omar Minaya is thinking "well, we've got to do SOMETHING, and Jason is either the best or second best hitter on the market, so let's see if we can get him," then it will truly be a waste of money. I hope and pray that Omar is actually thinking "hey, Jason Bay has tons of plate discipline and gets on base all the time, so if I can get him to drive Carlos in and get on base in front of David, then he's a perfect fit. Maybe in the next couple of years I can get a couple more guys who get on base." I'll drink to that.

I'll get to the Jets in a minute (again, I'm not really gonna talk too much about them, except to say something probably ridiculously inappropriate. Stay tuned.), but first I want to take a jab at everybody's favorite ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd. Now, I do listen to him every day from 12-2, az I submit that his show can be entertaining at times; in fact, I will agree that when it comes to the business of sports he has a lot of intelligent things to say. But when it comes to stats, it's best just to turn him off. Unless you get a gem like this! I forget exactly how it went down, but during the course of an interview, Colin said something like "...but Mike Cameron isn't as good as, say, Torii Hunter. I mean everyone knows that, right? Right??" And as I was just obliquely paying attention to the radio, I found myself nodding my head. But then I thought, wait, Hunter's career OBP can't be much higher than .340, and I know he's over-rated as a defender. Meanwhile, Cameron walks a lot and I know he plays good defense. Let me check this out.

I'm actually going to check baseballprospectus.com and baseball-reference.com this instant to see how they both fare WARP-wise:

Hunter (6,008): OPS: .802, OPS+: 107, EqA: .268, WARP3: 24.9

Cameron (7,435 PA): OPS: .788, OPS+: 107, EqA: .277, WARP3: 50.7

Hmmmmmmm. I win. Colin loses. I am awesome. And oh, by the way, Hunter's career OBP is .330.

And now onto the Jets. I hope they win. Stick to the plan: show different defensive fronts, blitz various defenders on different plays, run the ball hard, don't turn it over, show some tiger-cat, etc.

Anyway, the inappropriate thing I wanted to mention came about as follows. I was on the subway this morning, and someone was reading the Post. I saw on the front page something about the Jets, az I looked closer and saw that the daughter of Jets owner Woody Johnson died. It's really a tragedy for the family, but I could do without the "let's win one for the gipper" nonsense that hopefully won't come. Anyway, az I was walking into the office and suddenly it occurred to me "OhMyGod, Woody Johnson has the worst name of all time!" I'll leave you for today with a quote (thanks imdb.com):

[Noticing Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar]
Radar Operator: Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Radar Operator: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant...
Jet Pilot: Dick. Dick, take a look out of starboard.
Co-Pilot: Oh my God, it looks like a huge...
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker.
Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Ooh, Where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Over there. What sort of bird is that? Wait, it's not a woodpecker, it looks like someone's...
Army Sergeant: Privates. We have reports of an unidentified flying object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with...
Baseball Umpire: Two balls.
[looking up from game]
Baseball Umpire: What is that. It looks just like an enormous...
Chinese Teacher: Wang. pay attention.
Wang: I was distracted by that giant flying...
Musician: Willie.
Willie: Yeah?
Musician: What's that?
Willie: [squints] Well, that looks like a huge...
Colonel: Johnson.
Radar Operator: Yes, sir?
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.

Basil: Did we get Dr. Evil?
Radar Operator: No, sir, he got away in that big spaceship that looks like a huge...
Teacher: Penis. The male reproductive organ. Also known as tallywhacker, schlong, or...
Friendly Dad: Wiener? Any of your kids want another wiener?
Friendly Son: Dad, what's that?
Friendly Dad: I don't know, son, but it has great big...
Peanut Vendor: Nuts. Hot, salty nuts. Who wants some?...
Peanut Vendor: Lord Almighty!
Woman: That looks just like my husband's...
Circus Barker: ONE-EYED MONSTER. Step right up and see the One-eyed Monster!
Cyclops: RARRR.
Cyclops: Hey, what's that? It looks like a...
Fan: Woody. Woody Harrelson. Could I have your autograph?
Woody: Sure. Oh, my Lord! Look at that thing!
Fan: It's so huge.
Woody: No, I've seen bigger. That's...
Dr. Evil: Just a little prick.

Megalophobia

Want to hear something weird? I have it. Megalophobia. Fear of large things. Isn't that bizarre? Now there's not a whole lot of info online, but the few people who suffer from it are affected in different ways. Some are afraid of things that can move, such as airplanes and ships and Godzilla. But I think I'm scared of some stationary things. I probably won't be able to explain it very well, but I'll give it a try. I think the best way for me to go about this is to provide examples.

Anybody every been to the Hayden Planetarium (Rose Center)? You know when they show the moon and then they zoom in so you can see the terrain detail, etc.? Well that enormous, monstrous, terrifying circle on the ceiling of the planetarium scares the bejeezus out of me. Isn't that strange? The moon itself is not scary (although I used to be scared of it; I think I mentioned that elsewhere once), but if the moon was all of a sudden a few times larger in the sky, I would be horrified.

I was on Google Maps earlier today, and I was zooming out from some place in Japan. And when I zoomed out far enough that it became apparent that it was the islands of Japan, I got this nervous butterflies feeling in my stomach and chest.

Buildings. Buildings are scary. But not when I'm at the bottom looking up at a really tall one; I mean when there's just one big one towering over a bunch of smaller ones. And only certain views of such buildings; views where it's clear that this monster just dwarfs everything around. Like a picture of the skyline of Manhattan isn't the least bit scary, but an angled view of the Empire State building from above, like from a helicopter, would be terrifying.

Now this phobia doesn't affect my life in any meaningful way. At all. In fact, I think it makes me interesting, and maybe even sorta cute in a nerdy, me-like way. Maybe I should include some pictures. I'll give it a try.

Time to Chime In

Az we finally know who will be playing in the 2009 World Series. Phillies and Yankees, blah blah blah, sucks for Mets fans, who cares? I'm over it. It's not a big deal. Really, it's not. And anyone who says it is, is a bitter human being who hates baseball. I'm NOT here to talk about that; this is not some kind of shockumentary about a Phillies/Yankees World Series from the eyes of a melancholy metropolitan fan. Again, who cares?

Really, the point of this post, as you might have guessed, is that I hate Derek Jeter. And I think I might have pinpointed the reason. I mean I sorta knew subconsciously, but I never actually articulated it as I will right now. I've tried to explain this to a few people over the last week or two, but I don't think it went over very well, az I'm gonna give it another try here.

Before I begin, I just want to say that I still think that Derek Jeter is an outstanding baseball player, and will most likely be a first-ballot hall of famer. That being said, Derek Jeter is NOT an Olympian god. He is a man, a man who is excellent at playing baseball. He is NOT the greatest, clutch-iest, defense-iest player in the history of greatness or clutch-iness or defense-yness. The only thing he is the greatest ever at is Jeterianism.

According to urbandictionary.com:

jeterian
	1. making a play like derek jeter 2. a way of playing baseball; with class and determination and unbelievable plays and swings

He is definitely classy. He definitely plays with determination. And he has definitely been involved in some unbelievable plays and has had some unbelievable swings of the bat.

He is also way worse at baseball than Alex Rodriguez. I don't want to go through their career stats; that would be misleading and unfair, because they are different types of hitters. They basically have the same batting average and basically walk the same amount, but suffice it to say that A-Rod hits with a lot more power. But here's the thing. Everybody knows this; everyone will agree that Alex Rodriguez is a better player than Derek Jeter. And, almost to a man, everyone would rather have Derek Jeter up in a big spot than A-Rod. If you had to choose between Jeter and A-Rod for your post-season roster, 99.9% of human beings would choose Derek Jeter (I'm probably not too far off with that estimate. Maybe closer to 90%, but either way, it's up there).

The main reason for this is that people want to believe in supernatural powers. The average fan wants to believe that some professional athletes who make millions of dollars have some innate ability to perform better in big spots. This ability is what separates the stars from the bums, the Jeters from the A-Rods. In short, this ability turns normal human beings into heroes. And that's what the average fan wants to believe: that their favorite players are heroes.

The ugly little secret that most analysts don't want the average fan to know is that there's no such thing as "clutch-iness." I'm sorry to be the one to spill the beans, but there is no Santa Claus, and there are no clutch players. "But wait, Professor Schmutter! What about that home run in the world series against Kim in 2001?" Umm, Derek Jeter has 224 career home runs, not a negligible amount. He just happened to hit that one in a big spot. "But Professor, what about diving into the stands for that foul pop against the Red Sox and that play at the plate on Jeremy Giambi?" Not clutch. Good baseball instincts. Everyone will agree with that. "But all those Gold Gloves!" Undeserving. Go read some stuff on teh interweb and prepare to be pwned! Test next week.

"Ok, Professor, there's no way you have an answer for this one: what about how well Jeter has performed in the playoffs as compared to the regular season? And what about how poorly A-Rod has performed in the playoffs?" said little Mikey in the 4th row, a smug, buck-toothed grin on his pimply face. His fellow 4th row-ers sniggered and pointed at me, likely making fun of my newly purchased pocket protector protector. Little do they know that I only use mechanical pencils and the protector protector is just a fashion statement.

Well, let's just take a little look-see at some stats:

Jeter: Regular Season: .317 Batting Average, .388 On-Base Percentage, .459 Slugging Percentage

Post-Season: .308 Batting Average, .381 On-Base Percentage, .477 Slugging Percentage.

Hey, how about that! Those numbers are basically exactly the same! Nothing particularly clutch-y about that.

A-Rod: Regular Season: .305 Batting Average, .390 On-Base Percentage, .576 Slugging Percentage

Post-Season: .307 Batting Average, .408 On-Base Percentage, .570 Slugging Percentage

Well fancy that! Those numbers are basically exactly the same, dadgummit!

Sure, any idiot can have a good game or a good series, or even a good entire post-season. But eventually, when you play enough games, your post-season numbers will look exactly like your regular season numbers. Why? Because there's no such thing as clutch.

"Hold on Professor. Most of your students still look at RBI and stuff, but I'm too smart for that. Go check out fangraphs.com and check their Win Probability Added. That should show you how much more valuable Jeter is than A-Rod. He's so f-ing clutch!" Ah, Curtis in the front row. Such a cool customer. He's on the right track. Kissing up and crew-cuts are such babe-magnets.

Jeter's Post-Season WPA from 2002-2009 (sorry, no data before 2002): 0.16, 0.08, -0.25, 0.06, 0.01, -0.41, 0.00. Total = -0.35.

A-Rod's Post-Season WPA since 2004 (never made the playoffs before then): 1.27, -0.12, -0.28, -0.19, 1.34. Total = 2.02. those numbers basically mean that in 2004 and 2009 A-Rod won the equivalent of one game all by his lonesome.

You see? This is my problem. There is no disputing that Jeter is a fantastic player. I just can't stand that most fans think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I really really hope that A-Rod continues to clobber the ball in the World Series and Jeter does his usual thing. I want everyone to realize that A-Rod is an all-time great. I guess I kinda, sorta hope the Yankees win the series; I don't see what makes the Phillies so good, and Jayson Werth is really starting to bother me. But more importantly, I want the fans to discover A-Rod as a legendary player. I think he deserves some love.

Justified!

Yes, Joe Posnanski, my hero, has given one of my old arguments justification. Remember my Derek Jeter post from like three years ago? Here's what I said:

"The Yankees won last night largely because of Jeter's play. Not, I repeat, NOT because he's Captain Intangibles. Joe Morgan, Tim McCarver, Michael Kay, and all their smelly brethren do nothing but insult their hero Jeter when they refer to him as such. As a math guy, the only thing I look for to determine a player's value is his play on the field. Jeter's numbers speak for themselves. For him to be called Captain Intangibles means that there is something lacking in his baseball skills. I want to call your attention to two plays, which fans/commentators always enjoy mentioning; the flip to Posada that Jeter made on Jeremy Giambi against the Oakland A's in the playoffs, and the play last year against the Red Sox when he fell into the stands. These were terrific plays, plain and simple. But to say that the reason the Yankees win is because Derek Jeter does things like that is just silly talk. I'm not saying that every player would be able to make those plays; I just think that he was in the right place at the right time. You cheer him because his face came away bloody. That doesn't make the play any greater than it would have been if he had come away unscathed. My point is that the Yankees win because Derek Jeter is a very good baseball player."

And today, Joe wrote in his blog:

"To me, Derek Jeter isn’t a great player because he can rise to the occasion, because he has this sixth sense out there, and because he plays brilliant defense that is so subtle it does not show up in the statistics. No, he’s a great player because he gets on base, and he hits for some power, and he steals bases at a high percentage of success, and because he is extremely durable at a tough defensive position, and, if you want to get away from stats, because his teammates seem to like and admire him enough that they credit him for much of their own success. The power of the best baseball bloggers is that they try to pierce through vagueness and wave away myth and get at the heart of things. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don’t. But, to a new generation of sports fans, it makes a lot more sense than saying: “This guy’s just a winner.”"

So, I'm right. I win. Good for me.

Anyway, my real purpose in writing today is to discuss Citi Field. I finally went for the first time last night, and I am literally in awe. I couldn't be happier with the way the new ballpark looks. It's like a cross between Citizens Bank Park and Camden Yards. Wow, there are just so many things I like about it. Pictures just don't do it justice; you have to see it for yourself. I'll go through a couple of highlights:

1. Clean bathrooms. This might be the best improvement of all of them. I mean it's like going to the bathroom at an airport instead of a public park.

2. Wide hallways. It was unbelievable. I literally walked from my seat to the garbage can and bathrooms without having to navigate through a thousand people (think Camden Yards).

3. Bars. Our seats were on the Excelsior Club level, which is pretty cool. Thanks BB. And there were actually nice bars with nice stools, and well-dressed bartenders, and a decent selection of drinks.

4. Modern appearance. I love the exposed scaffolding, piping, and rafters. Reminds me of my current office. And the bridge near center field is just outstanding.

5. HD TVs in the stands. I guess the biggest drawback to seeing a game in person has always been the lack of instant replays. Now they have TVs near the seats so you get to see replays of every play! Fantastic!

6. Outdoor activities. There's this whole area in center field that has carnival type booths, and fun things to do for fans (think Citizens Bank Park or a larger scale minor league park).

7. Fancy! We popped into the Caesar's Club just to check it out. Honestly, I couldn't even tell we were at a ballpark. We watched a couple of batters on an HDTV in the club while sitting on some couches. It really felt like we were at an airport or a casino. Amazing!

I'm so thrilled that I get to go watch Mets games at this stunning new park for the next 50 years. If only I were so thrilled about the actual team... Oh well; can't have everything all the time.

A Coupla New Ones

No need for any bells and/or whistles, az I'll just jump right into it.

My wife and I were driving back from Baltimore last night, and, as is usually the case, I went to the local lanes on the Jersey Turnpike when they split up. I go to the local lanes because all the moronic drivers out there (you know who you are) go to the express lanes, which leaves the local lanes nearly empty. The only drawbacks are the trucks, of which there are very few at certain hours, and the few miles of two-line driving. Az what happened during said miles of two-lane driving? Well, there was one car in each lane in front of me, each cruising at around 66 mph (speed limit is 65). And that was it; the car in the left lane was about six feet ahead of the car in the right lane, az there was no room to split the uprights. I must have followed them for about 5 miles getting more and more worked up. They both completely ignored my flashing lights and my horn; they probably had a good laugh over a few PBRs when they got back to their trailor homes and their trashy lumberjacking husbands. Now, I wasn't complaining terribly much, considering that I had set the over/under on our arrival at the GWB tolls at 11:07, and my wife, foolishly trusting in my driving skills, took the under, but it was the principal of the issue (we arrived at 11:13 in case you're keeping score)! It's just not cool to drive the speed limit in the left lane and then completely ignore the other drivers.

Now this one was just a funny thing I saw when I was getting a drink today. I noticed a new water product in the fridge at Duane Reade; it was called Water Street, and it had subway-line circles with the letters VH2O below the name. It's Vapor-distilled water, hence the "V." Okay, that's a pretty cool idea. It's New York, the subways, I get it. But there were SO many problems with the VH2O, that it was almost laughable. In fact, it WAS laughable. Here were the issues:

1. There are no H and O lines in the New York City subway system (in fact, only H, I, K, O, P, U, X, and Y are not in use (or in the works, like T)).

2. The 2 was correctly red, and the H and O were green and yellow, respectively, which is fine because they don't exist. But the V was blue! The V train exists! Why not make it orange like the actual V train?!

3. There IS no Water Street stop on any of the New York City subways.

The point is that it's a cute idea, but it was put into effect so poorly that I wouldn't be surprised if only tourists bought it. Hey, you never know; tourists might be their target market. No self-respecting New Yorker should ever be caught dead drinking one of those.

OMG No!

Before I forget this absolute insanity, it needs to be written down. I'm listening to Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio. Why? Because of stuff like this. He's talking about Derek Jeter getting caught stealing 3rd base last night with nobody out, and he says something like "Derek Jeter is the ____-iest player of the last 20 years, and nobody says that it's so bad to make the first out of the inning at 3rd base; only the last out."

Firstly, no, everyone says that making the first or last out of an inning at 3rd base is a cardinal sin of baseball. Anyway, then he gets corrected, that it is indeed conventional wisdom that you shouldn't make the first out at 3rd base, to which Cowherd responds "Oh, come on. Who says you shouldn't make the first out at 3rd base? There was nothing wrong with what Derek Jeter did last night. Who cares what anyone says? You're Derek Jeter; you do whatever you want." And furthermore, he continues to dig himself into a deeper hole, "...not only is it okay to steal 3rd with no outs, it's the BEST time to steal! Because nobody expects it!"

Fine. I guess it's human nature to not want to admit one's mistakes, especially in front of an audience of potentially hundreds of thousands. But the fact that he's saying it's okay because it was Derek Jeter just blows my mind. And then he continues to make even more ridiculous assertions! It's just insanity. Chaos even!

Colin, you are a pillar, nay, a bastion of wrongness. Derek Jeter, you are a fine baseball player. I don't care if you were tagged out or not. If you want to steal 3rd base with nobody out, you better be safe.

Just Throw Strikes

Okay, here's the situation. Mets are down to the Yankees 3-2 in the top of the 9th inning. The Yankees have the bases loaded thanks in part to another dropped pop-up, and there are two outs. The Yankees brought in Mariano Rivera with two outs in the 8th inning with two men on, and after fouling off several tough pitches in a row, Omir Santos watched a ball go right down the middle. Obviously. Anyway, because the Yankees want Rivera to pitch the 9th inning, they allow him to bat. Again, to recap, bases are loaded, Mets are down by one run, two outs in the top of the 9th inning. The Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez is facing Mariano Rivera, a man who has appeared in a batters box six times in his entire career. Now the obvious play is to throw three straight fastballs right down the middle. Odds are that Rivera, with all of his batting experience, will strike out or hit the ball weakly somewhere. But no, Frankie decides he's going to be cute and starts off throwing two balls. Now Rivera's not swinging because he's probably afraid he's going to hurt himself. I'm sure the Yankees would have been content to just have him watch three strikes go by and then go pitch. Then Frankie "fights" his way back to 2-2 and then throws two more balls. He walked the opposing pitcher with the bases loaded. He forced a run in. He actually allowed a pitcher with six career plate appearances to walk. Why on earth would you ever throw any balls to a relief pitcher in the American League? It's actually unconscionable. It's the most absurdly horrible thing I've ever seen a pitcher do. Now it probably won't matter in the least because Rivera will probably shut the Mets down in the 9th inning anyway, but that's not the point! Just threw three straight strikes down the middle and have done! That's it. I'm done. Enough. I'm disgusted.

Oh, and thanks for a correction in one of the comments. Rivera actually had just two plate appearances before today.