8 For '08

You probably don't read Brooklyn Heights Blog. I don't usually, but because my good friend Daniel Squadron was running for State Senate, I set up a Google Alert for his name to see what was being written about him in the press/blogs. And because Brooklyn Heights Blog wrote about his election extensively, I've become quite familiar with it.

I got another Google Alert that linked me to BHB today because they released "The BHB Ten," which is supposed to be the most influential and important Brooklyn Heights' residents of the past year, and I got a kick out of seeing Daniel as No. 1. Not so much because that blog is super-relevant or anything, but because he ranked one spot ahead of Paul Giamatti, who earned the No. 2 spot based on his portrayal of John Adams the HBO mini-series about our second president.

Since I didn't have a great idea for an end-of-the-year post, I decided to steal BHB's idea and do my 8 for '08. Unlike BHB, I am not limiting my list to my neighborhood. If I did, it would definitely include (in no particular order), my roommates, my ping-pong table, Bergen Bagel, the free popcorn at Fourth Avenue Pub, the Prospect Park loop, my roof, and Los Pollitos' $3.95 half-chicken.

Without further adieu (you're getting bullet points again, deal with it) . . .

8. The Tampa Bay Rays: Yes, a small-market team can finish ahead of the Yankees. All they have to do is be terrible for 10 years and be relatively successful with their plethora top-five draft picks. Seriously though, I want to thank them for keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs for the first time since people were wearing Cross Colours.

7. Nate Silver: It's fitting he comes in right next to the Rays because his PECOTA projection system said they would win 89 games. People said he was crazy. As he proved with fivethirtyeight.com, he's just smarter than everyone else.

6. The New "90210": It's so bad it's good! Or at least that's what I keep telling myself. It's pretty amazing how much the "90210" branding affects me. If this show were called "Matter Of Chance," and was about a group of high school kids form Chance, Mich., I would never watch it (even if it had the greatest trailer ever). But because it's "90210" and it's had some appearances from original cast members, I'm hooked.

5. Heartless Bastards: There's nothing quite like the feeling of discovering a new band and finding out you like pretty much every one of their songs. And then you go see them in concert and they rock your proverbial balls off. Their third album is due out February 3, and as I'm sure you can tell, I'm excited.

4. Joe Posnanski's Blog: Even though he's a contributor to Sports Illustrated, my magazine's competitor, I will say that he is the best sportswriter out there. When I read his blog, I'm constantly thinking, "I wish I could write like that." In fact, if you like this blog a little, you'll probably love his blog and never come back here again. On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have told you about his blog.

3. Shea Stadium: It was a bittersweet farewell for the legendary ballfield as the Mets choked away a postseason opportunity for the second straight September. If you care, you can read about my final experience at Shea. At least I went out on a high note.

2. Bruce Springsteen Concerts: I saw him live for the fourth time this summer, and it never gets old. In fact, if you want a great take on a Springsteen concert, check out Joe Posnanski's. Oh crap, I did it again.

1. David Tyree: If you've been reading this blog, you know my feelings on him. If you haven't been reading this blog, I wrote my definitive David Tyree post here.

Yes, I realize that this was a lot of links, but they were quality links. Just enough to get you through to ABCQ in 2009. Happy new year.

At The Movies, With Bullets!

Normally, I don’t like writing in bullet-point format. However, I have some thoughts about the holiday movie season, and I don’t really feel like weaving them together to make some broader point while maintaining the beautiful prose you’ve become accustomed to on this blog. As a result, you’re getting bullet points.

1. Oscar Buzz Makes Me Nauseous: For whatever reason(s), producers with aspirations of their film winning awards all try to get them released around the holidays. I’ve never really understood why, but that’s just how it is, and I’d estimate that about 60 percent of Best Picture winners were released after Election Day. The silliest thing about this process is that films start getting talked about as Oscar contenders before anyone has even seen them. Seriously, I’ve been reading about “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” and its Academy Award potential for months. Now it might be the greatest movie ever (I haven’t seen it yet), but why don’t we wait until it comes out before we start giving it the “Citizen Kane” treatment? Incidentally, I saw one review refer to it as "original." I don't know everything, but I do know that movies adapted from 87-year-old short stories are not original. Also, how did a movie based on a short story turn out to be 160 minutes? If you make a movie that long, you better be damn sure it's good. I plan on seeing the film because my girlfriend loves the short story, but the kind of "buzz" the film has received reminds of why the Oscars so stupid. It’s completely about hype, and never about the best movies. A perfect example of this phenomenon is . . .

2. The Dark Knight. It Was Stupid: The story had huge holes in it. The metaphors were heavy-handed. It was needlessly violent. The dialogue was moronic. It was just a bad movie, and I don’t get why it is receiving so much hype. In fact, just writing about it is reminding how much I despised it. If Heath Ledger hadn’t died, it wouldn’t be getting talked about for Oscars.

3. Marisa Tomei Is the Benjamin Button Of Movie Stars: A friend of mine was telling me about "The Wrestler," and he commented about how good Marisa Tomei looked, even as an over-the-hill stripper. That's the thing about Tomei, as the years pass, she just looks better and better. When she first emerged as Denise Huxtable's roommate on "A Different World," she was cute in a spunky New Yorker sort of way. That spunky NYC vibe was played up much more effectively during her Oscar-winning performance in "My Cousin Vinnie," and I remember thinking, "I never noticed it during 'A Different World,' but Marisa Tomei is kind of hot." And the recently-turned 44-year-old(!) just seems to be getting hotter.

4. Sean Penn Can Act: Another aspect of the Oscars that I don't like is that it's clear the best actors are not chosen. It's basically a pool of really famous people who got a big break at some point who happen to be in the right Oscar-type movie in a given year. There are hundreds of actors out there who are as talented (or better) than movie stars, they just never got that break for one reason or another. As a result, I never feel like movie stars are actually the best at what they do in the world, so it seems silly to heap even more unnecessary praise on them by giving them awards. Sean Penn is an exception to this.

I saw "Milk" last week, and he is simply exceptional. Unlike pretty much every other movie star this side of Meryl Streep, when I watch Sean Penn I feel like I am watching someone in the 99th percentile of actors in the world. The one major criticism I will make of the film is that the Jack character (played by Diego Luna) makes nails on a blackboard seem pleasant. But then again, the character is based on a real person, so maybe that is how he is in realy life. If that's the case, I wonder what Jack's reaction was to the film was. It's pretty clear that when Milk's friends spoke to the screenwriter, they did not speak kindly of Jack. If it were a work of fiction, I would say the writer should have left him out, but I guess they can't pretend Harvey Milk's long-time boyfriend didn't exist in a biopic about Milk's life. It's really a shame, because he brought nothing to the table.

***After writing this, I was reminded that Jack killed himself in the movie, so there was no way for him to react to the way he was portrayed. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the fact that he was dead emboldened the other people in Milk's life to talk shit about him.

5. Tropic Thunder Was Disappointing: To channel "David Spade's Hollywood Minute," I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called "Zoolander." Both are co-written and directed by Ben Stiller. Both feature a self-involved celebrity played by Stiller who doesn't realize he is past his prime and whose nemesis is another high-profile person of the same profession. One tries to spoof modeling (Zoolander), the other spoofs the movie business (Tropic Thunder), so a lot of the celebrity jokes are the same. Both feature a number of celebrities. Both have appearances by Christine Taylor, Stiller's wife. As an aside, besides playing Marcia Brady, has she ever been in anything when Stiller wasn't involved? She was once on Seinfeld, but Jerry Stiller was on that, so it doesn't count.

Unfortunately, "Tropic Thunder" is not nearly as successful of a parody as "Zoolander." For the most part, it was basically just a pointless action movie that wasn't even a parody of anything. There was great word-of-mouth about this film, but it was a let down for me.

6. I Rarely Like A Movie: I say this with full recognition that it's extremely difficult to make a really good movie that is successful in what it is trying to accomplish. As a result, I find myself truly enjoying about 10% of movies I see. In case you care, the only films I enthusiastically endorse from the past year are "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." Slumdog was a well-paced romantic adventure on par with "The Princess Bride." FSM was smartly-executed comedy that was both clever and amusing. Take that, Gene Shalit.

Flag Day

After Sunday night’s epic Giants-Panthers game, I’ve seen a number of columnists and pundits giving a list of “what they learned” from what could be a preview of the NFC championship. I’m not here to pick apart the pundits. Instead, I’m here to tell you what I learned from the game, besides the fact that Derrick Ward is the best player ever to come out of Ottawa University in Kansas. What I learned is this—penalties are pointless.

OK, that might be a bit of an overstatement, but I’m going for shock value here, folks. Let me explain.

Not all penalties are pointless. For example, it’s necessary to call false starts and offsides because if not, a team could get an unfair advantage on any given play. Additionally, I think it’s necessary to call egregious infractions that are dangerous, such as helmet-to-helmet hits, as well as obvious holding and pass interference penalties that directly and severely affect the play. Other than that, let them beat the crap out of each other without official interruption.

There were four penalties in Sunday night’s game. Four! No one complained, and the game was smooth without annoying stoppages that suck the life out of the football-watching experience. Typically, when they show replays of your average holding call, it looks like it could go either way, so why bother calling it? I can’t imagine there was never a case in the Giants-Panthers game when the officials could not have called illegal contact, or illegal motion, or illegal something. But they didn’t, and it made for a far more enjoyable viewing experiencing.

Furthermore, there are also a good chunk of penalties that no fan gives a rat’s ass about anyway. Seriously, who would really care if the NFL stopped calling illegal man downfield, illegal touching (although that one makes me chuckle), or illegal formation? I’ve watched football my entire life, I consider myself a relatively savvy fan, and I am still not entirely sure what makes a formation illegal, and I am not even sure what calling it is supposed to protect. In fact, I’ve asked people in my office who cover the NFL, and they can’t answer the question. When David Letterman make his “Top Ten Signs You Know Your Rule Is Pointless,” I’m pretty sure, “journalists who cover the sport for a living can’t explain it” would be high up there. I guess that’s a long way of saying that particular infraction is a waste of time.

In all seriousness, I think an official’s job in both football and basketball should be to keep both teams honest, without inserting themselves into the game unnecessarily. To me, there is nothing more annoying than officials taking the game into their own hands with a ticky-tack call that has little bearing on the play, such as a holding call away from the play, or an illegal contact, which you could literally call on 90% of pass plays if you wanted to. I remember watching the Giants-Eagles game two weeks ago, and there were fifteen penalties called, about half of which were accompanied by some sort of conference by the officials that made the already boring game drag on even longer. My plea to NFL officials is to get out of your own way, and don't bother calling about half the penalties you usually call. Everyone will be happier. Trust me.

To be fair, I’ll recognize that the Giants (my team) benefited from the two biggest penalties called last night. One was a pass interference in the end zone in the fourth quarter that put the Giants at the Panthers’ one-yard line, and another was a holding call on the Panthers’ Steve Smith that put Carolina back on the outer limits of Jon Kasay’s field goal range just a couple of plays before he missed a field goal that would have won the game. However, those were both pretty severe penalties, with the holding being particularly criminal. That being said, I might not be writing this had those two calls not gone in the Giants’ favor. But if you’ve watched football with me before, you’ve probably heard me rant about how too many stupid penalties are called. Last night was a good example of the type of officiating the NFL should strive for.

During the broadcast, John Madden kept saying that the crew on the field (I think it was Walt Coleman’s crew) had called the fewest penalties in the league. Keep it up guys, you’re doing a heckuva job.

***After writing this post, I looked up Walt Coleman and discovered he was the referee for the legendary “Tuck Rule” game, as well as last week’s controversial Ravens-Steelers tilt that ended on a controversial replay overrule. As it turns out, many people (or at the very least Raiders and Ravens fans) think he is Satan in Zebra stripes, and possibly the worst ref in the league. So maybe he isn’t adept when it comes to interpreting instant replay, but I’m a fan of the way his crew makes, or should I say doesn’t make, calls on the field.

Snow Blows

I don't mean to generalize, but all women (including my lovely girlfriend Margaret!) love snow. How do I know this? I just do. This was made particularly clear when it snowed for the first time about two weeks ago, and at least three women I am friends with on Facebook changed their status to some variation of, "Yay, it's snowing!!!!!"

Now before you go calling me some sort of grinch, please let it be known that I like snow in certain situations. When I'm skiing, when I was a kid, when he's singing "Informer," and also any time I don't need to do anything practical. However, as I was reminded again today as I was trying to run errands during lunch, snow is typically a giant pain in the ass.

I was trying to get to the toy store because I am going to a party in which the hosts asked all guests to bring something for the "Toys For Tots" program. Being the benevolent fellow that I am, I was happy to oblige, even though it meant braving the insanity of Kay-Bee Toys a week before Christmas. Unfortunately, the snow made this errand take almost twice as long as it should have. You see, I like to do things quickly and efficiently, and snow just slows everything down.

On a side note, I am going to make a terrible holiday-shopping parent. I was in Kay-Bee for 15 minutes, and I wanted to strangle at least 10 people in what can best be described as a low-level riot. Either I'm doing my shopping in July, or my kids aren't getting anything. Sorry in advance, kiddies! When I finally got the front of the line, some guy walked up to me and said, "hey, I don't have time to wait on this line. If I give you $20, will you pay for this $13 toy when you're checking out your items?" It was quite a dilemma, but I decided to decline the $7 profit (probably $5.50 after tax) out of fear of incurring the wrath of the scores of parents waiting not so patiently behind me.

But the Kay-Bee melee wasn't even the worst part, it was the snow. Everyone was walking slower than normal (don't get me started on the pussies who carry umbrellas during snow), there were slushy puddles wherever I stepped, and traffic slowed to a halt. It's the traffic that actually makes it hard for me to understand how anyone can like snow in an urban area. Not only does it slow down traffic, but it also causes accidents! If you say you love snow in New York City, you're essentially saying you are unaffected by car crashes.

If I have time tomorrow, I might take a stroll up to Prospect Park. I'm sure it will be lovely because not every inch of snow will be trampled on, and I won't have to worry about traffic deaths while I'm there.

So, to sum up.

Times snow is good: Skiing, when you're a kid, Informer, rural areas.

Times snow is bad: All other times.

Is Strong Island For Real? Not So Much.

I have been to a lot of New York sporting events in my life. As a rough estimate, I’d say probably 116 Mets games, 34 Knicks games, 15 Yankees games, eight Rangers games, six Jets games, three Cyclones game, two Giants games, the ECAC Holiday festival, the Jimmy V Classic, the Preseason NIT, Coaches V. Cancer Classic, and a Staten Island Yankees game. I may be missing a few here or there, but I think that pretty much covers it.

Anyone, one thing I had never done . . . oh wait, I went to the Army-Navy game at the Meadowlands once, and I used to go to a lot of Columbia football games when I was about nine years old because I was oddly obsessed with their record losing streak.

Anyway, despite all of these New York sporting events I’ve been to, I’d never been to a New York Islanders game until last night. For reasons I probably shouldn’t divulge because of my job (don’t worry, it’s not that exciting), I had the opportunity to attend the Islanders-Capitals game on Tuesday. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t make the trek out to what the legendary Steve Somers of WFAN refers to as the Mausoleum, but the tickets were free, and they were amazing seats. So hey, why not?

I’d actually been to the Nassau Coliseum once before for Hot 97 Summer Jam 2000, but I had no real recollection of the venue. For rap aficionados, Summer Jam 2000 was when the whole Nas-Jay-Z beef started. Jay-Z performed “The Takeover” for the first time, and put photos of Mobb Deep’s Prodigy in ballet clothes up on the JumboTron. Rap history, and I was there. Yeah, that’s right.

What I had forgotten about the Nassau Coliseum is that it’s a complete dump, and it’s hard to understate that. You walk in, and it’s kind of hard to believe that a pro team from a “major” sport plays there. It looks worn down from the outside, and the inside is just as dingy. The fabric on the seats looks like it might split any minute, and everywhere you look the paint is either cracked or peeling. I relayed my feeling about the venue to a colleague of mine who used to cover the NHL for Sports Illustrated. He said, “What’s funny is that I once referred to the Coliseum as ‘grimey’ in SI about 15 years ago, and I thought the Islanders PR people would be mad, but in fact they took it as a compliment. It was a point of pride for them.” After hearing that, the whole place made a lot more sense.

During the height of my sports fanaticism (circa 1991-1997), I used to be a die-hard Rangers fan. Part of that had to do with the fact that they were really good during that era, and part of it was because I was even more obsessed with sports than I am now. Seriously. At that point in my life, I hated the Islanders as much as any team in professional sports. No team of mine had a rival as intense as the Islanders, and I couldn’t stand the sight of them or the fans. As I realized last night, I no longer give crap about the Islanders. I still hate them more than a team like the Minnesota Vikings, but probably not as much as the Florida Marlins. I’m still a Rangers fan, but I certainly follow them a lot less closely than I used to, and since the Islanders have been irrelevant for at least a decade, I just can’t muster any hatred for them. In fact, when they fell behind 4-2 against the Caps, I actually found myself rooting for them to tie up the game. And even though it was mostly because I just wanted to see shootout, I’m pretty sure my 14-year-old self would never forgive me.

It ended up being a pretty exciting game as the Isles tied it up at four with a couple of minutes left. I was feeling pretty good about seeing a shootout until Alex Ovechkin scored with 10 seconds left to give the Caps a 5-4 victory. Even though I was disappointed about not getting to see a shootout, at least I can I tell my grandkids I saw Ovechkin score two goals in a game. OK, maybe that won’t happen, but he is really impressive. I’m no hockey expert, but what I find so amazing about Ovechkin is that he is clearly the best player whenever he is on the ice. It’s kind of like watching a youth soccer game, and there is always that one kid who is visibly better than anyone else. It’s rare to see someone that stands out that much in pro sports. College, yes, but not pros.

My Jerry Springer final thought on the experience is that there is always a time-warp element to any hockey game, particularly on Long Island. You rarely see dudes with mullets and moustaches on the street, but you go to a hockey game and they're everywhere. I felt like I was an extra in Clerks. Snoochie boochies.

I Got The Hook-Up

While I probably don't read The New York Times in as much detail as I should, I do make a point to look at nytimes.com at least once a day. If nothing else, I glance at the headlines to make sure I'm at the very least aware of the latest financial crisis or genocide. Also, if I have an extra second I like to look at the list of the ten most e-mailed stories. These are rarely the most important things in the paper, but I like to get a sense of what people think are the stories worth sending to their friends and then mentally mock those people.

As an aside, who actually sends stories via the website? I simply just copy and paste a URL if I want to pass it along. It seems a lot easier. Is it possible I'm just smarter than everyone else? Discuss.

Usually the most sent stories include a number of frivolous features that Times' readers find cute. The one about the 12-year-old food critic comes to mind. In addition to the fluff, there are typically a number of Op-Eds listed among the most e-mailed stories. Say what you want about the Times' op-ed page—it's too liberal, Maureen Dowd is annoying, etc—but it's got clout. And even if you're an arch-conservative, you probably read the page and your opinions are formed, or at least informed, by what you see there. And because of the page's prestige, I can safely assume that there are hundreds of writers who would love to get a crack writing along side Krugman, Kristof and Kristol. (Hmm, maybe KKK isn't the best alliteration.) Because of this prestige, I have to say I was appalled by Sunday's third most e-mailed story, which I came across while casually surfing the web during the Giants' second consecutive whupping at the hands of an NFC East foe.

The column (which moved up to No. 2 on the most e-mailed list as of Monday afternoon) was called "The Demise Of Dating" and it was written by some guy named Charles M. Blow. And yes, I will resist the urge to make an obvious joke that equates the quality of the column with the writer's last name.

Blow begins his piece by writing: "The paradigm has shifted. Dating is dated. Hooking up is here to stay. (For those over 30 years old: hooking up is a casual sexual encounter with no expectation of future emotional commitment. Think of it as a one-night stand with someone you know.)"

Maybe I'm just sensitive because I'm getting close to the age of 30, but who under the age of 60 doesn't know (or can't figure out) what "hooking up" means? Also, you can hook up with someone you don't really know, so he even got the definition wrong. This was an awful attempt to be funny, but I would have forgiven it had the rest of the piece been interesting or informative. It wasn't.

Blow goes on to cite one study that says sex is down, and then another that says sex with strangers is down, but sex with friends is up. The rest of his research relies on calling up some psychologist from from La Salle University who wrote a book about hooking up on college campuses. Apparently dating has changed since Blow was a lad, and while people once dated a while before having sex, they now "hook up" for a while before deciding if they want to date.

Even if there is truth to this trend, isn't this something we've seen before? I'm not old enough to remember, but my understanding was that during the 1960s and 1970s, when people weren't having orgies, they were taking on a new partner every other night and experimenting with various sexual techniques and positions while high on a variety of mind-expanding drugs. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but casual sex before dating is not a new phenomenon. Anyone my age knows this, and people old enough to remember the 60s and 70s know this, so I can't figure out who the hell were the people who found this story so compelling that they said to themselves, "Wow, my friend [insert name] would really find this enlightening!"

Considering the column's popularity, I guess it's hard to quibble with the Times decision to run it. But on an elite op-ed page, this seemed like a poor use of space. It was basically some guy bemoaning the fact that dating isn't the same as when he was young. Next up: His column about when pitchers used to throw complete games.

I had never seen Blow's byline before, so I decided to check out his bio. Turns out he is the "visual Op-Ed columnist." I have no idea what that means, and there was certainly nothing visual about this column. On the plus side, if this is what the Times deems worthy of its Op-Ed page, that should give hope to the hundreds of writers trying to get a piece in there.

Putzing Around

I'm not sure I have another detailed breakdown of the Mets' bullpen in me right now (I will at some point, just not now), but after hearing about the their acquisition of J.J. Putz, I have a few thoughts.

1) Based on my post from this morning, I get the sense Omar Minaya is reading my blog. Because that incredibly convoluted trade is the type of creativity I was talking about.

2) I'm certain that the people who write headlines for the The Daily News and New York Post are extremely excited about the impending J.J. Putz era. What's going to be the headline the first time he blows a game? My roommate and I are pretty certain "What A Putz" is the odds-on favorite.

3) Endy, Godspeed. Even though I missed your legendary catch because I was trying to beat the Shea Stadium bathroom line by taking a mid-inning bathroom break (true story), you will be forever be a part of Mets lore. And to clarify, I wasn't actually in the bathroom, I was buying beers on my way back from the bathroom when Endy threw his glove over the now-demolished left-field wall to rob Scott Rolen of a home run. Too bad you weren't tall enough to take one away from Yadier Molina as well. Sigh.

4) The Mets bullpen will be better this year, and they didn't have to give up any integral parts to make that happen. However, I'm pretty sure Aaron Heilman will be a decent starting pitcher in Seattle and will be mentally giving the city of New York a giant "fuck you" the entire time. I won't blame him.

Sweet, Another Closer I Can Yell At!

As you can imagine, the e-mails have been pouring in from readers anxious to hear my take on the Mets signing of closer Francisco Rodriguez. I didn't want to type up my thoughts while it was still unconfirmed because I knew it was going to be a rant, and it would be a shame if a 1,000-word opus went to waste. But now that the deal is official, I can chime in. Buckle up.

Anyone who has ever had a discussion with me about closers knows how overrated I think they are. Even before I was devouring Bill James and Baseball Prospectus, I sensed that these guys were frauds. I've never been able to grasp why people seemed to think closers possessed some sort of special ability to get the final three outs, when every year we watched a new batch of retreads and failed starters rack up 30 saves. Closers are made, not born, and you can't convince me otherwise. I'd rather have my best reliever used in a variety of high-leverage than wasting them on protecting two and three-run leads in the ninth. You don't need to pay someone $10 mill to protect a two-run lead, any stiff can do that.

That being said, I recognize that there is something reassuring about having a reliable guy in the ninth inning. The later the game goes, the more emotionally invested you become, and blowing a lead in the sixth inning is not nearly as heart-wrenching as doing it in the ninth. Fortunately, the Mets are in a position in which they have the luxury of spending lots of money on a "proven closer" without it preventing it from making other moves. And when it comes down to it, that is really what defines a bad move—it handcuffs you.

And as much as I despise the thought of spending big bucks on a closer and have hated Billy Wagner from day one as a result of it, I don't think the Mets deal for K-Rod is terrible. Even though I don't believe closing games involves some sort of special intangible ability, a lot of front office folks do. And if you buy into that voodoo BS, K-Rod is good choice.

Not only is he young (27), but among full-time closers, only Mariano Rivera and Joe Nathan have a higher save percentage over the past three seasons than Rodriguez' 89.8% conversion rate. I've come around to the belief that since pretty much all closers are asked to do is protect leads, save percentage is not a bad way to evaluate them. While it might give me an ulcer, I ultimately don't care if my closer allows two runs every time he is given a three-run lead as long we end up winning. And even though Billy Wagner has shinier peripherals, K-Rod has done a better job of protecting leads. That said, save percentage is not a good predictor of performance, and K-Rod's declining K-rate the last couple of seasons gives me pause. But here's the thing: In this market, $37 million over three seasons isn't that much for a closer with K-Rod's resume. And as much as it pains me to admit this, it's actually a bargain. Last season, Francisco Cordero got $46 million from Cincinnati for four years, and they have a limited payroll. So yeah, I think the Mets did OK here, and we can all thank the recession. See, it's not all bad.

The one thing that bothers me about this deal is how predictable it was. When Wagner was ruled out for 2009, I remember saying to my roommate, "Alright, K-Rod's coming here." And I know I wasn't alone. Every Mets fan with half a brain could see this coming from a mile away because the front office seems completely unwilling to think outside of the box in any way, shape or form. Unlike other free agent relievers (Wood and Hoffman, for example), K-Rod was offered arbitration by the Angels. That means the Mets will forfeit a draft pick, in this case a first-round pick, to bring in Rodriguez. For $37 million, roughly $12.3 mill per year, I'm pretty sure the Mets could have brought in at least two good relievers who would not have cost them a draft pick while still having enough money left over to spend some extra dough on the draft, something they've been unwilling to do in the past. By doing that, they not only would have saved themselves a draft pick, but they also would have shored up their bullpen and farm system depth, which are the organization's two biggest weaknesses. But no, creative thinking like that doesn't put you on the fucking back page, so instead the Mets just throw major bucks at big-name free agents and hope that the Mike Lupicas of the world will bite and congratulate them for filling their holes and finding a "winning player," even though those same columnists will be yelling at them in July when Scott Schoenweis is forced to face Albert Pujols with the bases loaded and he gives up a Grand Slam that lands in a North Fork winery.

The not-so-little secret is that bullpen depth is still a huge problem. It was before Wagner went down, it was just exacerbated after his injury. And maybe Minaya et al. discussed some alternatives to signing K-Rod and decided that getting him was the best thing they could do. I just won't really believe it until the Mets show some creativity in building their roster, which is something they've lacked since God knows when.

But the Mets have an incredible four-man core in Reyes, Wright, Beltran and Santana. If there was ever a time for the Mets to spend insanely, it's now. So yeah, go for it. Spend big, and don't waste four superstars in their prime. Don't stop now, though. Go sign 20 more relievers and make sure we aren't left with a bunch of platoon specialists who can't pitch a scoreless inning. Relievers are unpredictable, so if you sign 20, five will pan out. And yes, that's scientific.

But please, for the love of all that is holy, don't sign Raul Ibanez.

Besos,
Matt

Bless This Mess

If you’re a college football fan, you’re probably sick of hearing everyone’s take on the BCS. Well, here’s one more!

Note: I actually kind of like the BCS because it creates debate. Spirited debate is the best part of being a sports fan, and it's not like other playoff systems give us the best team as champion every year—hello 2006 St. Louis Cardinals! Not that I'm bitter or anything. Moving on.

It’s somewhat moot now that they beat Alabama and are headed to the title game, but how the fuck did the AP voters have Florida over Oklahoma and Texas going into yesterday’s game? I’m not sure I would have even noticed this except for CBS trying to trick us into thinking the SEC title game was No. 1 against No. 2, because that is what they kept putting on the screen—No. 1 Alabama against No. 2 Florida. And it was only then that I realized Florida was No. 2 in the AP poll.

I’ll usually assume the SEC is the toughest conference, but it seemed like it was down this year, and Florida had by far the worst loss (Ole Miss at home) of all the one-loss teams. So how the hell did the voters have them ahead of Oklahoma, Texas, USC and Penn State. People always blame the faceless computers for the quirkiness of the BCS, but the voters are imbeciles.

Another example of this imbecility is how Texas’ loss to Texas Tech was treated. Going into that game, Texas was No. 1 in the AP Poll and Texas Tech was No. 6. After the game, Texas Tech was No. 2 and Texas was No. 5. Really, is that what we learned from that game?

Look at it this way. It was the biggest home game in the history of Texas Tech. They had an insane home-field advantage. They played as well as they could possibly play. Texas came out flat. And yet despite of all that, the Red Raiders needed a dropped interception by Blake Gideon (yes, I had to look him up) and an ridiculous pass into double coverage just to sneak past the Longhorns. And yet the Raiders vaulted past the Longhorns in the minds of the AP voters. But if Gideon catches the easiest INT of his life or if that desperation heave is batted away from Michael Crabtree, Texas stays at No.1 and Tech drops. Really? It just doesn’t make sense.

If those two teams played on a neutral field 10 times, I think it's pretty clear Texas would win at least seven times, and therefore, are the superior team. As far as I’m concerned, that game taught us that despite the narrow loss, Texas is better. Instead, voters take every result as an indication of distinct superiority by one team even though that isn't often the case. And what ends up happening is what happened with Texas, who never recovered from their loss to Texas Tech, even though they essentially won the game.

I can understand why votes dropped Texas below Texas Tech after that game, though I wouldn't have blamed anyone for keeping the Longhorns ahead. I certainly don't see how Texas should have fallen below any one-loss team, yet they fell one spot below a Florida team that had lost at home to Ole Miss. WTF?!?!?

Maybe it would not have mattered and Florida would have eventually overtaken Texas in the BCS, but I still think Texas got screwed even beyond Oklahoma somehow sneaking past them in the BCS rankings. The writers will write column after column blaming the computers for all the flaws of the BCS, and it’s simply a ploy to distract everyone else from their stupidity.

Vampire Weeknight: As If I Never Left

In the time since my last post, a woman could have conceived and given birth (albeit about four weeks early). But in the last few weeks I keep finding myself saying, “you know, that would be a fun blog topic.” As a result, I’ve decided to give this thing another go. Hopefully it will take this time.

As some of you might know, during my eight-plus month hiatus I turned 29 years old. So did Tracy McGrady. I bring this up because I remember when he was drafted in 1997, my thought at the time was, “holy shit, he’s my age.” Up until that moment, every athlete I had every watched was definitively older than me. And even though McGrady is technically a few months older than I am, he is, for all intents and purposes, my age.

It took a few years, but I finally got used to the fact that a lot of athletes were going to be younger than me, and I have know spent a good portion of my career interviewing and writing about such athletes. It’s no longer a big deal. When it comes to musicians, however, it’s a different story.

This hit me last night when I went with a few friends to go see Vampire Weekend. They are one of those bands that are really popular in certain circles, but totally anonymous in others. For example, among 20-year-old white preppy types in NYC, they’re huge. But I’m guessing no one in Omaha knows who the fuck they are. Incidentally, and this goes back to an earlier post, I just wrote that last sentence before I saw on their Wikipedia page that the founder of “Stuff White People Like” named Vampire Weekend the whitest band ever.

Anyway, as I watched them on stage, I simply could not get over the fact that they are only about 22 or 23 years old. Rock stars are supposed to be people you can kind of worship, and I can’t bring myself to get that worked up about a bunch of semi-hipster Columbia grads six years younger than me. I’ve always been into musicians that are older than me, so this was never really an issue before. Don’t get me wrong, they sounded really good and put on a solid show. But I can’t go nuts for them they way I would at a Springsteen show.

Vampire Weekend still only has one album, so they had 12 songs to play, and that is all they played (plus one cover, which I’ll get to in a minute). At one point the lead singer said, “yeah, we don’t really have any more songs to play. Hopefully the next time we come to New York we’ll have another album and we can give you a real show.” Real show? What the fuck did I just pay $35 for?

Another thing that struck me most about their performance is that they sounded almost exactly like they do on their record. In some ways this is good because I like the way they sound on their record. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have paid $35 to see them. On the flip side, it makes it seem almost pointless if they are just going to sound like the record. In many ways they reminded me of the early Beatles in that they have floppy haircuts, and they play really short pop-sounding guitar songs. It’s like that footage you see of The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show when they came out and rocked out “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” just like it sounded on 45. The biggest difference—other than The Beatles being legends—is that I’m pretty sure The Beatles didn’t have a string section. And if they did, I’m pretty sure one of them wouldn't have worn a Kevin Dyson Tennessee Titans jersey. That was weird.

The highlight of the show was the encore, when Vampire Weekend covered “Everywhere” by Fleetwood Mac. What was so great about it is that I have always loved that song, but never knew the freaking title until the lead singer, who sounded remarkably like Stevie Nicks, said it. Who needs Shazam?