STILL STANDING

If you like morning talk shows - and let's face it, who doesn't - you might have caught a quick glimpse of Carrie Prejean. The embattled Beauty-Queen/Model/Conservative Women's Advocate/Sex-tape Entrepreneur took to the circuit to promote her newly released sex-tape, I mean book, "Still Standing" (the title works appropriately for either).

Ms. Prejean entertained (to a point) the circumstances surrounding the no-sex sex tape, explaining the tape was a one time mistake she had made during a committed relationship at age 17. Upon further investigation, however, it seems Ms. Prejean may have underestimated both the number of tapes she made (now reported to be as many as seven) as well her age at the time she made them (20).

Questions regarding age, quantity, and competency aside, what seems a little more clear is where Ms. Prejean takes her vocabulary from when describing the contents of said tape(s). Take a look:

THE MORNINGS AFTER

This is what I imagine most closely resembles the scene in Boston over the last two days, that is if the portrayal by the national media, as well as the lingering discomfort in my gut, are correct (either that, or we’re all just eating too many beans).

In the years since moving to New York, I've been sadly removed from the daily ringer that is Boston sports. The best thing about living in Boston, aside from being able to get anywhere in 15 minutes (unless you take a wrong turn. Then you're looking at a half hour at least), is taking a step outside in the morning and immediately knowing if the team(s) won or lost the previous night. It's plastered over everyone's faces. You can see it in body language. It's affecting traffic flow. It’s tangible. You can feel it. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you could smell it. Boston has no cologne for athletics. Yesterday and today, the scent was so pungent I could smell it from here. Apparently, so could everyone else.

The media blitz following the Colts 35-34 last-minute victory over the Patriots Sunday night is nothing short of Michael Jackson-esque. Rumor has it Lou Dobbs is returning to faux-journalism just to faux-cover it (more than likely, Dobbs will theorize an unlikely hidden culprit: illegal immigrant workers who did a shoddy job assembling Bill Belichick's headset, causing it to malfunction and lead to confusion on the play call). Even those unaccustomed to second-guessing got in on the act. Wolf Blitzer was so caught up, he actually asked a follow up question today.

Despite so many people choosing to weigh in on what will go down as Bill Belichick's infamous decision to go for it on 4th and 2 from his own 28, their seems to be fairly limited disagreement on what the correct call should have been, and even less analysis as to why.

The majority of pundits, analysts, and commentators seem to be in unanimous agreement that Belichick made the wrong call on Sunday Night Football (or as NBC has ill-advisedly chosen to abbreviate it, “SNF”, most likely in an attempt to link their product to the more widely-known American staples associated with that acronym: chewing tobacco and hard-core pornography).

It stands to figure the reason everyone is so unusually aligned in a collective mindset is that there really is no other option to consider. Belichick made a decision that yielded unsuccessful results. The Patriots were winning. Belichick chose to go for it. They didn't get it. Subsequently, the Colts scored and won the game. Since we know the outcome is negative, the decision that lead to it must therefore be at fault.

I was perfectly happy (if you can call watching your team suffer a crushing defeat after being up by as many as 17 points not once but twice "happy") to let it end at that and not think about it anymore, until I started listening to the echo-chamber of the second-guessers. And a strange thing happened: the more I listen, the less convinced I become. The tipping point was hearing Trent Dilfer rant on how there is no excuse for Belichick's decision. I have few rules in life, but one is "if you find yourself in agreement with Trent Dilfer, it’s time to reassess."

In the litany of angry rages and hate posts I've trudged through, I've yet to hear once convincing argument as to why the Patriots should have punted - and I already thought they should have!

Using the fact that they lost as a rationale for punting does not suit me as a valid argument, because you weren't privy to that information beforehand. Acceptable arguments would include: "The Patriots picked Peyton twice already", "The Colts only had 1 timeout remaining", "I'm tired and I want to go to bed". Though not necessarily good arguments, they are arguments nonetheless. "Because they lost" isn't. That's a result, not a reason. You can’t use a word to define itself.

You’d think that with the overwhelming support for punting the football, we would be subject to more than our fair share people praising the Patriots defense. Yet I’ve yet to hear one person express even the slightest bit of confidence in the New England D. All that’s being said is “you can’t stop Peyton Manning from the 28”. That’s true, and I don’t think the Patriots are foolish enough to think they could. But that’s not the argument for punting. That argument is “could the Patriots stop Manning at all?” And so far, no one seems to be saying they could have.

Which made me wonder, why is everyone so resoundingly upset? Even people who aren't Patriots fans seem to be angered by Belichick's decision. And so far all I can come up with is because it was unconventional.

As sports fans, we have a general desire to see teams tested. We want to see the game go long, to see the competitors pushed to their limits. Belichick's choice was one that robbed us of some of that. We expected the Pats to punt, and for the Colts to (presumably) have to go 65-70 yards for a touchdown. This was the narrative we were anticipating, it's the one we’re comfortable with, and it's one we know how to get excited for. We know when the highs are lows are going to hit, like the build up in a horror movie, or the punchline to a joke. And while we were preparing ourselves for this final clash, the game was decided before we could fully process what was happening. No one was ready for this, and as a result, people couldn't get excited for it and process it accordingly, and that left them feeling a little jilted.

Most of us fashion ourselves armchair quarterbacks. Backseat drivers. We all have opinions, theories, ideas, but few of us are generally in the position to be able to put them to the test. Thus, we rely on others to test our theories. Popular theory seemed to be that the Patriots should have punted. Because they didn't, that theory wasn't tested, and we never got to see the result. So people aren't as mad at the decision that was made as they are that their decision wasn't made.

More basically: we are upset because we didn't get to see what would have happened if the Patriots punted. No one thought the Patriots could stop the colts from their own 28. But from the Colts 30ish (presumably)? That's something we’re left wondering.

We know Belichick made the wrong decision. But what we don't know is if there was a right decision. Maybe the Pats punt and the Colts score and win anyway. On two of their three previous drives, the Colts scored touchdowns in UNDER 2 minutes and 5 seconds, without the aid of multiple timeouts. Maybe that happens again. So either way, the Patriots lose. If the Pats had gotten the first down, the game would have been over, and NO ONE would have second-guessed it.

So we end up in this land of sports purgatory, bickering about what should have happened, wondering what could have been. There’s little we can look to for support and guidance, except maybe this

While searching through less-than-controversial commentary and mindless soundbites, I mistakenly came across this article that was somewhat interesting. And while these are only projections based on broad statistics, it at least gives us something to consider while we can’t help but think, “what if…"

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Words cannot express how thrilled I was to receive this:

Jaimie: i thought you should know - in an attempt to procrastinate i decided to read your blog - at which point i was informed that that site is being blocked by viacom's "malicious website filter" - who knew you were so dangerous!

We did it!

And thanks to Jaimie for bringing this to my attention. This is the best acknowledgment this blog has ever received. Maybe next, if I'm lucky, I can reach the ranks of a "do not fly" list.

LOOKING FOR FREEDOM (IN STYLE)

As you’re probably already aware, today marks an important day in world history. It is a day that signifies the end of an endless struggle for peace and unity among an embattled institution. Yes, on this day, the Chiefs have finally released Larry Johnson.

On a lighter note, today also mark's the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall!

A landmark achievement in architecture that stood as in inspiration to fence-builders, contractors, and Lou Dobbs, The Wall enjoyed an impressive 28 year career, unmatched by many a challenger, though Brett Favre continues to try.

As the dividing strip played a divisive role in history, perhaps it’s no surprise that its most indelible cultural contribution is that of its demise in late 1989. And while many historical figures have become forever linked with that event - including Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev - perhaps none is more tied to this touchstone moment of freedom than american-turned-european-pop-sensation, David Hasselhoff.

Yes it was Hasselhoff – armed with little more than a microphone, Christmas-light bedazzled leather jacket, and a piano key scarf - who discovered that under the weight of his powerful voice and gyrating hips, all borders eventually crumble. As the now signature scarf - a rebellion to both fashion and facism - flowed through the winter air, so too flowed an exciting new era in German politics, as well as German-American relations (though it would not be fully realized until German import Rammstein finally achieved commercial success in the US in the late 90s).

Though Hasselhoff himself seems fully aware of his place in history and his unprecedented contributions to a united Germany, he notes that he has never properly been given the credit he feels he deserves. Said Hasselhoff:

"I find it a bit sad that there is no photo of me hanging on the walls in the Berlin Museum at Check-Point Charlie… After my appearance, I hacked away at pieces of the wall that had the black, red and yellow colors of the German flag on it. I kept the big piece for myself and gave the smaller pieces to colleagues at Baywatch." http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_860540.html

Though this blog is certainly no substitute for the Berlin Museum, it seems only right that today we pay tribute to David Hasselhoff, and whichever former cast members of Baywatch he chose as stewards of freedom (I’m assuming Nicole Eggert). For were it not for his unconquerable spirit, unparalleled pipes, and lack of fear of moderate heights, who knows where disenfranchised German youth would be today…

THERE'S NO "I" IN "TEAM" (THERE'S NO TEAM IN KANSAS CITY)

This poster now resides somewhere in the Kansas City Chiefs' facilities, presumably in one of the team's high-traffic areas, like the bathroom, or by the craft-services table.

Three quick thoughts on this:

1. Doesn't this understanding on what losers do strike you as a little narrow? It almost makes you think they had someone specific in mind when they printed this. While I enjoy passive-aggressiveness as much as the next person, perhaps a better option would have been: "LOSERS GO TO THEIR TWITTER ACCOUNTS AND POST EMBARRASSING AND DAMAGING MATERIAL ABOUT THEIR TEAM AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS AND ARE OFTEN NAMED LARRY JOHNSON."

2. It seems a little excessive to assume this Chiefs team is familiar with the concept of winning.

3. I applaud the decision to place the word TEAM in quotation marks. I'm glad to see the organization make such a strong effort to define themselves, while at the same time, allow for some wiggle room. Let it be known that the 2009 Kansas City Chiefs are a "team". This should finally put an end to the rumors they are a "mess".


*Thanks to Dan for sending me this poster.

WORLD SERIES (IN-SERIES) PREVIEW (CONTINUED!)

When last we left this World Series Preview, I had predicted the Yankees to win in seven games. Truth be told, I was a little surprised to see Cliff Lee nonchalantly out-duel CC Sabathia, but probably not as surprised as everyone who picked New York to win in six games. That being said, I believe this makes my prediction look that much stronger now. And with that stunning segue, let me explain why, in the continuation of

THE

2009




WORLD




SERIES




(IN-SERIES)




PREVIEW



Part 1: Recent History

Did you know the Yankees and the Phillies have already met three times this season? Of course you did, because the only things more advertised than Inter-league Play are Cash-4-Gold and syndicated re-runs of The Office (neither of which are complaints, mind you).

In any event, what I had failed to realize was the Phillies took the season series, 2-1, in New York no less. Backed by four homers - two of which I'm assuming would have been fly balls in any other stadium - Philly took game 1 by a score of 7-3. Brett Myers got the win, which does little help now as he won't be making a World Series start, and AJ Burnett took the loss, giving up five runs over six innings. The Phillies pounded out 14 hits, at least one by every member of the lineup except Ryan Howard.

The Yankees tied it up at a game a piece by pounding then-beleaguered closer, Brad Lidge. J.A. Happ actually out-pitched Andy Pettitte in this one, giving up two runs over six innings compared to Pettitte's four over seven. But it wasn't enough, as the Yanks got three off of Lidge in the ninth, utilizing a National League-style attack by pinch hitting not once but twice in the either inning (the actual National League team? No pinch hitters. We'll come back to this later).

Lidge didn't fair much better in the rubber game, blowing a 3-2 lead in the 9th before his teammates bailed him out in the 11th, winning 4-3. Neither starting pitcher figured figured into the decision. Hamels went a respectable six innings, allowing two runs, while Sabathia pitched a strong eight and allowed three to score. Brett Tomko took the loss for the Yanks, which again does little to help us as he is not featured on the World Series Roster.

So what can we take from these three match-ups?

1. The Phillies have no problem hitting in Yankee Stadium
2. No one has any problem hitting in Yankee Stadium
3. Brad Lidge was a liability
4. Philly can win without Ryan Howard getting a hit
5. Things change greatly in the course of a few months

Part 2: Hitting

The Phillies were 21st in MLB in batting average for the regular season. In the playoffs, they're tied for first. They're also first in Times-Being-Referred-To-As-An-American-League-Style-Lineup. What does that mean? Basically it means they can hit, while inferring that most, if not all, other National League teams can't.

The Yankees also feature an American-League-Style-Lineup. Not only that, they feature the best American-League-Style-Lineup, in that they have the best lineup in the American League. They were first - not just in the AL, but in all of MLB - in runs, hits, home-runs, RBIs, BBs, OBP, SLP, OPS, as well as HKL, WJAW, and HwTq9T. The last three are categories that had to be created because the Yankees lineup is so good it could not be sufficiently quantified by conventional baseball statistics.

1-6, these teams actually have fairly comparable lineups. Take a look:

PHILLIES YANKEES

1.	J. Rollins, SS	D. Jeter, SS
2.	S. Victorino, CF	J. Damon, LF
3.	C. Utley, 2B	M. Teixeira, 1B
4.	R. Howard, 1B	A. Rodriguez, 3B
5.	J. Werth, RF	H. Matsui, DH
6.	R. Ibanez, LF	R. Cano, 2B

Which means the World Series will undoubtedly be decided by the bottom three of each lineup. Get ready for this marketable match-up:

7.	M. Stairs, DH	J. Hairston Jr., RF
8.	P. Feliz, 3B	M. Cabrera, CF
9.	C. Ruiz, C	J. Molina, C

I can't wait to hear "World Series MVP, Jerry Hairston, Jr."

The real problem the Phillies face is the same problem every National League team faces in the World Series: Joe Buck's announcing... I mean the DH. Yankee DH Hideki Matsui offers the following contribution:

2009 STATS
BA	HR	RBI	OBP	SLG
.274	28	90	.367	.509

Pit that against make-shift Philadelphia DH, Matt Stairs:

Matt Stairs #12 RF

2009 STATS
BA	HR	RBI	OBP	SLG
.194	5	17	.357	.379

I'm not sure what's more terrifying, his batting average or his profile photo.

The counter argument to this is that the Yankees will be without the use of a DH when they travel to Philadelphia. However, it seems far more likely that Matsui moves to the outfield and prospective-series-MVP Hairston Jr. will move to the bench. In this scenario, the Yankees lineup actually improves, while giving them another pinch-hitting option off the bench - something Joe Girardi seems to have grown quite fond of in this postseason.

Slight advantage: YANKEES


Part 3: Pitching

Let's start with, what else, the starters.

PHILADELPHIA / NEW YORK

Cliff Lee	CC Sabathia
Pedro Martinez	AJ Burnett
Cole Hamels	Andy Pettitte

Let's pretend it's late March, early April. You're sitting on your couch, watching Baseball Tonight while practicing your crocheting and giving your feet a nice soak. Out of nowhere, you're accosted by the spirit of Steve Phillips. He's come from the future, and he's momentarily stopped having affairs with young production assistants long enough to tell you that Pedro Martinez is going to start Game 2 of the World Series this October. The jolt of the shock - not of seeing Phillips be able to pull himself away from his poor decisions, but rather the notion that Pedro Martinez would be pitching for a playoff team in a meaningful situation - propels you into an epileptic seizure, wherein you spin around, knock your TV set into your foot bath and end up electrocuting yourself, while simultaneously falling on your crocheting needle, which impales you through the heart. At least in this situation, you are not making a conscious decision to have Pedro Martinez kill you. In Charlie Manuel's case, he is.

I get that this man likes to play hunches. More so, I agree with the decision to separate Hamels from Lee, who have similar pitching styles and are more effective against lineups when not faced on consecutive days. But starting Pedro Martinez in Game 2? This is Philadelphia's best option? What about Joe Blanton? What about J.A. Happ? Even Brett Myers. I love the idea of seeing Pedro pitch again in Yankee Stadium. Who wouldn't be excited by that? Well, probably Philly fans.

This is where that AL/NL thing comes back into play. Sure, Pedro had a good September, but it was against NL lineups. TRUE NL lineups (not the Phillies). Like it or not, getting one batter off every 9 makes a difference for a starting pitcher, and changes the dynamic of a lineup. I just can't see Pedro continuing that sort of success against the Yankees. Even if the Phillies offense manages to bail him out, that's an uneasy place to be starting from.

Advantage: Yankees


Part 3.5: Bullpen

For the Yankees, it's Project: Get To Mo. If Joba Chamberlain, Phil Coke, and Phil Hughes can hold leads and bridge the gap to the 9th (or 8th, as it's looking like more often), the Yankees look pretty strong. If they can't, who knows.

For the Phillies, it's Project: Who? Madson? Lidge? It's hard to say who's going to be there at the end. It's even harder to say how either will produce in the role.

This part is boring me, so let's skip to the end.


INTANGIBLES

Advantage: Phillies. And here's why:

I like Joe Girardi, and I like the way he's been managing this postseason, but that's also partly because I don't like the Yankees and want them to lose. Girardi's late-inning decision making, which borders on knit-picking, seems questionable at best. It hasn't cost the Yankees to this point, but what happens if and when he pulls his 5 hitter in the 8th, the Phillies force extra innings, and then you're left with Brett Gardner batting in extra innings? Answer: Brett Gardner probably does something amazing and the Yankees win. But theoretically, this is a bad move. Also, Girardi has never one a world series as a manager. Manuel has. That means nothing, which is why I put it in the intangibles section.

I picked the Phillies to lose in the Division Series, then again in NLCS. I picked the Yankees to win every round. I see no point in changing my tendencies now.

This concludes the 2009 WORLD SERIES (IN-SERIES) PREVIEW. To recap, it's Yankees in 7. Why, well, maybe Steve Phillips knows...

WORLD SERIES PREVIEW!

We're preparing for a first in the 2009 edition of the MLB Playoffs. No, I'm not talking about Jay-Z and Alicia Keys upcoming duet (side note: the performance, originally scheduled for game 1, was moved to game 2, purportedly due to inclement weather conditions. Now rumors are circulating that the move could in fact be due to a possible appearance by Michelle Obama. I'm trying to conceive of a comparable situation that could have happened last year, in which Nickelback would have been bumped for Lynne Cheney. We've come a long way in a year, America. Yes, this was also a subtle slight at the Devil Rays). I'm talking about me!

For the first time this postseason, I have a chance to post this BEFORE the first pitch of the round I'm prognosticating. However, if I keep getting sidetracked and writing four-sentence parenthetical digressions, a champion could be crowned by the time this gets up. So lets buckle down and get to it.

THAT'S NOT MY SOCK . COM PRESENTS:

THE 2009



MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL








WORLD SERIES














PREVIEW






The New York Yankees are the winning-est team in baseball history. They have 26 World Series Titles, 40 American League Pennants, and 25 players who together make more money than the Gross National Product of Guam.

The Philadelphia Phillies are the losing-est team in baseball. Somewhat of an unfair title, as they have been in existence longer than the vast majority of teams in Major League Baseball, but nonetheless, they have lost more games than any other team in baseball history.

On the flip side, the Phillies, not the Yankees, are the current defending Champions, while the Yankees have yet to win a World Series since 2000 (another side note, which will probably cost me the opportunity to get this up before game time: you hear a lot of "the Yankees haven't won this decade" and "it's been nine years since the Yankees have won the World Series." Do you think this annoys people in places like Kansas City, Oakland, San Francisco, Houston, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh? If the Yankees are in a World Series slump, what are those teams in? Purgatory?)

There's a lot of talk about these, and other differences between the two clubs. But I'm a little more interested in what they share: Number 1 Starters From The Cleveland Indians.

Much discussion has been raised about Sabathia vs. Lee in game 1. Who will win is uncertain, but the loser beyond doubt. It's Cleveland. I can't imagine how it must feel for Indians fans to have to watch not one but TWO of their starters from LAST YEAR as number one starters for each of the World Series participants. Has that ever happened before? I can't imagine it has. In fact, I'm going to definitively say that it hasn't, and wait for someone to prove me wrong.

Watching Clemens pitch in the Series for the Yankees, as a Sox fan, was hard enough. But there were years between him pitching in Boston and New York and when he did pitch there he was far from dominant. This seems more like the equivalent of Clemens leaving Boston in his prime to sign with the Yankees, dominating, followed by the Sox trading Pedro Martinez mid-season and him starting game 1 of the World Series for, let's say, The New York Mets (ha!).

I'm sorry Cleveland. Two years removed from the ALCS, and this is your team? Not fair.

Anyway, now I've completely run out of time for tonight, so I'll have to finish this tomorrow. I'll have FULL breakdowns - lineups, starting pitching, bullpen - but for now, I'll leave you with just my pick: Yankees in 7.

Full defense and explanation tomorrow. In the meantime, enjoy a soggy game 1!

MORE BASELESS PREDICTIONS!

If you ventured to this blog last week, thanks! Also, you know that I posted my annual MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL (LDS) PLAYOFF PREVIEW. If you didn't happen to stop by last week, I invite you to scroll down and take a look. Go on. I'll give you some time. Really! Go ahead! Look, I'll even provide everyone else with some entertainment while we wait for you to return...



...Welcome back. Since I'd already had the pleasure of enjoying "Bacon is good for me" Child, I too took this opportunity to review my first round predictions. Not unlike the Twins, I also set some inglorious history by posting my worst-ever League Division Series Prediction Record ever, an embarrassing 1-3. Or at least it would be, if I was embarrassed by such things.

What I enjoyed most in reviewing these predictions was the inconsistencies between my analysis and bottom-line outcomes. For instance

On paper, this series shouldn't be close. Here is a partial list of recognizable Dodgers hitters:

Andre Eithier
Matt Kemp
James Loney
Rafael Furcal
Orlando Hudson
Juan Pierre
Russel Martin
Manny Ramirez
Jim Thome
Casey Blake

Now here is the respective list for the Cardinals:

Albert Pujols.

You'd think after writing something like that, I would have predicted something like Dodgers in 3 or 4. Yet my actual prediction?

CARDS IN 4

It went a similar way in my Red Sox / Angels preview:

Sox pitching has looked iffy at times, and their line-up is not nearly what it used to be. Maybe the Angels improve this time around, but not enough to take the series.

My prediction?

SOX IN 4

Nice.

And let's not forget this gem from the Phillies / Rockies match-up:

I'm not going to bullshit you and pretend I know something about either of these teams

At least that was honest. Unfortunately, it didn't help my series prediction:

ROCKIES IN 4

The one bright spot was my Yankees / Twins prediction. I boldly and correctly predicted the Yankees would win in a sweep. Who could have seen that coming? Oh right, everybody.

Nevertheless, I think that's as good a place as any to segue in to my 2009 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL (LCS) PLAYOFF PREVIEW.


YANKEES VS. ANGELS


Here's what I said about the Yankees coming into their first round match-up with the Twins:

This Yankees team will not be beat. Not by the Twins, and probably not by anyone. I'm generally hesitant to make such bold predictions, but I do it here for two reasons: 1) They really are that good, and 2) It will be even more rewarding for me if they lose.

I'll continue to stand by this remark, or the very least, sit back and nod as I copy and paste it above. Their lineup is tops in the game - .362 team OBP, #1 in all of baseball - and in a short series, their pitching is hard to match up against, with Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte leading the way.

The Angels don't exactly seem to be embracing themselves as a "team of destiny" (following the death of rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart this past spring) but that's the moniker many have put upon them. It's fun to come up with meaningless phrases to describe things. It saves a lot of time from actually looking at something analytically and figuring out why it works (and believe me, if anyone is a proponent of that, it's me). But maybe the Angels are less a team of destiny and more of just a really good baseball club. They play great fundamental baseball, go first-to-third better than anyone in the league, and have a lineup that can produce 1-9. They certainly showed that against Boston, who looked over-matched and generally lethargic throughout. It won't be that easy against New York.

I think LAofA could make this competitive, but I can't see them taking the series. The Yankees would have to have a collapse of epic proportions to drop 4.

YANKEES IN 5.


DODGERS VS. PHILLIES

Once again, a predictions post will go up after the series has started. That didn't stop me in the first round, so there's no reason it should now. Except that I have mild interest in watching this, so I'm going to make this short and (semi) sweet. LA will win this series. Here's why:

Yes, the Phillies 1-2 of Hamels and Lee is better than that of the Dodgers (Clayton Kershaw and whoever they decide to start in game 2 ). But if the Dodgers were going to lose to teams who had better 1-2 combos, they would have dropped to the Cards duo of Wainwright and Carpenter.

Dodgers have a lineup that inspires more confidence as a whole, and a bullpen that should out-duel the competition. The sudden resurgence of Brad Lidge makes the Phillies pen slightly more intriguing than it was a week ago, but the question of how long he can keep it up remains.

Phillies took this series last year. I think that's all the motivation the Dodgers need.

DODGERS IN 7.

IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO MAKE PREDICTIONS

It's been a long-overextended hiatus from this blog. But nothing will stop me from posting my annual Major League Baseball Playoff Preview, not even the fact that the playoffs have already started. If anything, that's going to make these predictions even more interesting.

Let me preface by stating that as of right now, 7:58pm on Thursday, I am unaware of any of the outcomes of ANY of the games played to this point. I do, however, know the outcomes of all future games to be played, but I digress.

While I type this, the only things I know for certain are that the Yankees were leading 7-2 sometime between the 6th and 8th inning last night, and that the Dodgers/Cardinals game was 2-1 in the third, but I don't actually recall who was leading. If the Dodgers are anything like their fanbase, I'm guessing they trailed because they don't tend to show up until the 4th inning.

To try and maintain some semblance of ignorance of the outcomes of any of these series, I've curtailed the majority of my usual research. So if you're looking for rational, well-studied, informed analysis, you're going to be disappointed. However, if you're looking for gut-instinct, baseless predictions, you've come to the right place!

With all that in mind, I present to you THE 2009 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL DIVISION SERIES PLAYOFF PREVIEW.

DODGERS VS. CARDINALS


The Dodgers jumped out of the gate on fire, and never looked back. Maybe that's why they almost lost the division title to the Rockies in the final weekend. As for their counterpart, the Cardinals did what they usually do: play steady ball all year and wait for the rest of their division to collapse.

On paper, this series shouldn't be close. Here is a partial list of recognizable Dodgers hitters:

Andre Eithier
Matt Kemp
James Loney
Rafael Furcal
Orlando Hudson
Juan Pierre
Russel Martin
Manny Ramirez
Jim Thome
Casey Blake

Now here is the respective list for the Cardinals:

Albert Pujols.

This seems like it would be a significant advantage for the Dodgers. Unfortunately for them, none of the names on their list is Albert Pujols.

The pitching is more or less an wash in this series. Wolf/Kershaw/Padilla, Carpenter/Wainright/Piniero could go either way. Neither of these teams played particularly well to end the season. Both teams have similar classic-style, old-school managers.

In an toss up, I take the Cardinals, thanks to the overwhelming fans in St. Louis and the probability that Joe Torre wore out the only two relief pitchers he'll allow himself to use over the course of the season.

CARDS IN 4.


ROCKIES VS. PHILLIES


A rematch of their 2007 playoff match up, and we all know what happened then!

(long pause)

(longer pause)

Not much happened, but the Rockies won.

The Phillies made up for the faults of '07 by bringing home a title last year that no one saw because of rain and terribly scheduled start times.

I'm not going to bullshit you and pretend I know something about either of these teams, because you're too smart for that, and I don't have enough time to look up interesting statistics right now, nor do I want to risk jeopardizing my self-imposed regulations of discovering final scores (a convenient excuse).

So between you, me, and the rest of the internet, let's say...

ROCKIES IN 4.


YANKEES VS. TWINS


Here's a fun fact (this is a REAL fact. I know. Catch your breath): Four teams in baseball history have won play-in games to get into the postseason in walk-off fashion: the '51 (New York) Giants, the '59 (LA) Dodgers, the '07 Rockies, and now the '09 Twins. The previous three all made it to the World Series. So early congratulations to the Twins for what will be a first!

This Yankees team will not be beat. Not by the Twins, and probably not by anyone. I'm generally hesitant to make such bold predictions, but I do it here for two reasons: 1) They really are that good, and 2) It will be even more rewarding for me if they lose.

The Twins had a fantastic run to end the season, but they weren't exactly taking on the best-of-the-best to do it. Much like the Yankees non-existence right field, Minnesota pitching will not be able to contain the Yankees offensive power.

YANKEES IN 3.


RED SOX VS. ANGELS


One. That's the number of wins the Angels have managed against the Red Sox in their last three playoff match ups ('04, '07, '08). This series is quickly becoming an October ritual, and I would love to see the ritual of the Sox taking it in convincing fashion continue. I believe my wish will come true.

John Lackey will again be the ace for the Angels. Until he figures out how to beat the Red Sox once (let alone twice) in the post-season, I don't see the outcome of this series changing.

Sox pitching has looked iffy at times, and their line-up is not nearly what it used to be. Maybe the Angels improve this time around, but not enough to take the series.

SOX IN 4.



Now, let's watch some baseball! I hope I didn't miss it all...

FAIR TRADE

Joe The Plumber: No "queers" near my kids.















Queers: Deal.

SELF CONTROL

Man vs. Cheez-It


...
.....
..........




Cheez-It wins.

DEEP CUTS - N*E*R*D: YOU KNOW WHAT

In an attempt to inject some consistency into this blog (in posting frequency, not content. Topics broached here will continue to be the assorted grab-bag of items that lack focus and thesis), I'm trying to develop some recurring themes. If history tells us anything about this blog, most if not all of these will fall by the wayside, with a quick abandonment of the concept altogether. But for now, let's be optimistic!

Today, the Sock unveils the first new segment: Deep Cuts.

In case you're unfamiliar with the terminology, here is how Wikipedia defines a deep cut:

In radio programming, a deep cut or deep track is a song which commercial radio stations rarely broadcast. It is taken from the fact that on vinyl albums, the hit singles promoted by record companies are usually found early on in the record, with the other, less known songs buried "deep" into the record.

I'm not a radio programmer, and I don't have vinyl albums (save for The Beastie Boys Root Down EP and Ratatat's LP3), so for the purpose of this blog, let's just say a deep cut is a late-in-the-album song that I enjoy.

Today's Deep Cut: N*E*R*D's "You Know What"



I'm not going to get up on my soapbox and start preaching the efforts of N*E*R*D, mainly because I have terrible balance and am afraid of heights. But I do like this band, for better or worse. Many would define everything following 2002's In Search Of... as the latter.

I'm also not going to deny that In Search Of... is most certainly their best album, nor that I listened to it incessantly and might have spontaneously began singing it at my 21st birthday party. I can't say I had the same experience with either Fly Or Die or Seeing Sounds, but it's hard to turn 21 more than once, or any age for that matter. But I digress...

In any event, I had my mp3 player (which will go as unbranded until a certain fruit-named company wants to start paying me for advertising) on shuffle this morning - as I'm loathe to engage in any sort of decision making process that early - and as luck would have it, just as I was climbing the 53rd street subway steps into Manhattan, "You Know What" came on. On my first trip through this album, I somehow missed this track. I have a feeling I never made it past "Love Bomb." But you know what? "You Know What" might be one of the best tracks on this album. Take from that what you will. Just don't ask me to sing it.

AND THE WINNER IS...

Please allow me to humor myself for the extent of this post. Then I promise, back to the usual high-standard of journalistic excellence!

I'm in a race against time. I am desperately trying to complete this post prior to tonight's Academy Awards telecast, which means I have... 29 minutes and counting, current time. And just why am I trying so furiously to get a this post up by a certain time when I've seemed so exceedingly negligent in the past of putting up any post in any sort of timely fashion? What a great question, I'm so glad I asked it (and chose to phrase it in the form of a run-on sentence). To answer the question, for the FIRST time in my life, I have seen EVERY movie nominated for Best Picture. That's right, all five! I know that's a seemingly trivial and insignificant feat, especially considering that best picture nominees should, by all accounts, be great endeavors in cinema and therefore hardly be a chore to watch, let me remind you, The Thin Red Line was, in its time, nominated for this award.

I endured Benjamin Button. The case may have been more curious had it not taken approximately 17 hours (that's a rough estimate) to tell the story. It doesn't exactly leave much to the imagination, or left to question. What I found most curious is how they turned a 15 page short story into an interminable epic. Jokes aside, it's beautiful to watch - really gorgeously shot. But it just didn't captivate me, exemplified when I fell asleep during the ship scene (which, from conversations with others, seems to be a common occurrence). Gimme Pulp Fiction, Se7en, Zodiac (which was FANTASTIC, everyone should see it). Most years I'd be first in line for a Fincher pic. But this once falls a little short...

I drank in Milk, but it didn't go down smooth. Biopics never do for me. Maybe they're prisoners of their genre. Trying to tell someone's story in such a constrictive amount of time is difficult. I always leave unsatisfied - even in Ali (which I think approached four hours. I would have stayed for at least 3 more). As interesting as Harvey Milk is, and as inspiring as Penn's performance is, I just didn't love it as a film. I learned a lot, but not everything I wanted to (why did he move to SF from NY in the first place? What drove him to that point?) And there just seemed to be a lot of blanks. And as much as I hate to say it, especially since I agree with most if not all of the messages presented, it felt a little forced, and just a tad agenda-pushing (not unlike this blog post!)...

I attended Frost/Nixon less than 24 hours ago - the final piece in my Best Pic puzzle. I was initially pumped for this, then became discouraged from negative reviews. If anything I learned to pay less attention to reviews. I loved this film. I don't care if Frank Langella doesn't look like Nixon. I don't even care if this is based in reality or not. This film stands completely on its own, driven by superb dialogue and incredibly well crafted dramatic tension between the two main characters. Furthermore, it does what Milk fails to do. For all of Milk's successes, I think its biggest failure is that it seemed to concerned with its place in reality. Had I no interest in learning about Harvey Milk, I would have no interest, nor would I have enjoyed, that film. On the other hand, I firmly believe I could have gone into Frost/Nixon knowing nothing about the characters, nothing about the historical relevance, and still would have been riveted. That, in my opinion, is great film making (and let me remind you, I have a film certificate from a make-shift film sub-department at a public university)...

Slumdog Millionaire hardly felt like slumming. In fact, it's probably my favorite movie of the year. Danny Boyle cements himself as one of my favorite directors, making bold choices despite urging to the contrary (e.g. - extensive use of subtitles, which is not only not in the least bit distracting but significantly enhances the feeling of authenticity the film possesses), and the performances from the relatively unknown cast are all dynamite. Also, I walked out smiling. There's something to be said for that...

This might be the closest all five candidates have been in years. All of these films have a strong case for best picture. But the one that will win it, in my opinion, is The Reader. I saw this film accidentally - I was actually intending to see Slumdog. Had it not been sold out, I'm not sure I would have. Thank you to New York City and its eight million residents for making everything worth doing difficult! Had it not been for you, I may have missed the best film of the year. Kate Winslet is remarkable. David Kross (no not that one, the other one) is outstanding. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as always. This film had me from start to finish. I think I left a firm outline of my ass and back in the seat when I left, because I don't think I shifted my weight, crossed my legs, or deviated in anyway from my initial position once. This movie is THAT good (and that's coming from someone with sciatica issues).

So there you have it. Now the two of you who read this blog who have already probably heard my neverending-rant triumphing The Reader can be reassured, it's not a put-on. I leave it here for public record, for ridicule if it loses, and modest pride if it wins.

And no matter what, we can be certain of one thing: This post is surely riddled with grammatical errors and sentence-structure problems. Hooray for being united on something.

DONE! And just in the nick of time.

Enjoy the show.

AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR...

Where is Kirsten Gillibrand Hiding Her Guns?!?






Nonelected-Senator Kirsten Gillibrand revealed this week that she keeps two unloaded rifles under her bed. When asked what she is using the guns to protect herself from, Gillibrand responded, "Higher office."

A spokesperson for the senator added that since revealing this information to the public, the guns "will be moved for security reasons."

No word yet on where the senator is considering storing her rifles now, but she was overheard to have said "you can bet it won't be under the bed again! Seriously, they won't be there, so you shouldn't even look there. Especially if you've broken into my home. Because they won't be there, I can tell you that much. And also I definitely don't keep a handgun in my pillow, or a deringer in my handbag."

In a related story, Plaxico Burress was found banging his head against a wall. When asked to comment, he stated he no longer plans to keep his guns on his dining room table and kitchen counter at home, adding "I didn't realize you could hide them."

Nonelected-Senator Gillibrand was appointed to fill former Senator Hillary Clinton's vacant senate seat by Nonelected-Governor David Paterson. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is said to be considering an attempt to make the appointments permanent. When told he doesn't have jurisdiction over that part of government, Bloomberg responded, "we'll see about that."