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."