Ooh, ooh, I know. It's Jeter.

ESPN SportsNation wants to know:

Jeter vs. Reyes: Who's more valuable?

I know. It's Jeter.

Jeter and Reyes, New York's two All-Star shortstops, have had stellar seasons, good enough to merit MVP consideration in their respective leagues.

The truth of this claim depends heavily on whether placing someone 18th or 19th on the ballot counts as "consideration." Reyes isn't even the most valuable player on his team. Beltran is way more valuable, and Delgado and Wright are quite valuable as well. But Jeter and Reyes do play the same position in the same city.

They've been catalysts in the lineup, on the field and on the base paths, leading the Yankees and the Mets respectively into the playoffs with the best records in their leagues.

Strictly speaking, the base paths are part of the field.

But which one is more valuable to his team?

Jeter.

Jayson Stark makes the case for Jeter:

The essence of Derek Jeter's greatness has never had anything to do with whether he has better "tools" than all those more "talented" players on those other 29 teams. And it has never had anything to do with almost all the stuff his critics bring up -- not his Zone Rating or his OPS or his VORP or anything else.

In particular, it has nothing to do with measurements which demonstrate that he is less valuable than Jayson Stark believes. By the way, Jayson, you should play a little hard to get. Also a little reasonable. DJ has been good at getting on base this year. Getting on base helps the Yankees score runs. Runs are valuable to the Yankees.
Also, I REALLY hate it when writers use nonsarcastic quotation marks where they should have made arguments.

Jeter is a great player because he's one of those rare people who understands everything there is to understand about The Big Moment, lives to rise to that moment and actually feeds off all the Yankee craziness that reduces other guys (not mentioning any particular third basemen here) to overcooked manicotti.

You could in principle support this statement with statistical evidence. But DJ-fellating and baseless Arod-bashing will also suffice.

So who cares if Jose Reyes is faster, or scores more runs, or inspires more pickoff throws?

I agree these are retarded ways of measuring a player's value.

If I'm trying to win the World Series, I'll take Jeter over any shortstop in baseball.

This sentence does not follow from the previous one. Like, at all. You were given the correct side of the argument and you showered Jeter with kisses. Fair enough.

Jerry Crasnick for Mr. Reyes:

Jose Reyes' impact on a game transcends conventional measures.

Did your bullshit detector go off? If not, you might want to change its batteries. By the way, what's the deal with smoke detectors? They're always so freaking sensitive.

It shows in the way opposing pitchers speed their deliveries, infielders rush their throws, and Paul Lo Duca -- the Mets' No. 2 hitter -- sees lots and lots of fastballs.

These impacts are not so much "unconventional" as they are "insignificant."

It's manifested in his 63 stolen bases.

This is a manifestly conventional measure. It also happens to be manifestly stupid. Homeboy is 63 for 80 in SB attempts.

But Joey Gathright can fly, too, and nobody fears him. Reyes has 66 extra-base hits, he's batting .406 with runners in scoring position and two outs, and he's a monster leadoff presence with his rare blend of speed and power.

.406 is impressive, but it's in 69 at-bats. That is not very many at-bats. Also, his .353 OBP is less monstrous than it is 46th in the National League. Jeter's .414 mark is good for 5th in the AL.

Of course, Derek Jeter is terrific, but if he goes down, the Yankees can always plug in Alex Rodriguez at shortstop and go out and trade for Aramis Ramirez.

Aside from the Aramis Ramirez non sequitur, I agree with this point: it's bizarre to compute Jeter's VORP as a shortshop and Arod's as a third baseman. Arod plays better shortstop than does Jeter, and if the Yankees are better overall with DJ at SS and Arod at the hot corner, Arod's value shouldn't suffer because he's more versatile.

Reyes is the Mets' resident irreplaceable part. And just think how good he'll be when he turns 24.

You are free to predict that Reyes will someday be a very valuable player. Some nameless kid from the D.R. will also eventually be very good at baseball. For the foreseeable future Albert Pujols will be more valuable than Jose Reyes.

I think he's better and I'm not even sexually attracted to him.

Dance Dance Revolution

School's back in season, so principals will demonstrate yet again they are much older than their students.

High school's dances grind to a halt

Teeheehee.

A furor over what Concord High School administrators call an "overtly sexual" style of dancing at school dances has split the school community: There are those who defend the students' right to dance however they want and those who believe the moves are just plain inappropriate.

Principal Gene Connolly is with the latter group. He said the school will cancel all remaining dances, including the upcoming homecoming dance, unless students step forward to help halt the "grinding."

Coming out against grinding sounds like a great way to get a date ... watching TV with your mom on the couch! Oh, snap.

"This style of dancing is wrong," Connolly told parents at a Parent-Teacher-Student Organization meeting Tuesday night. "If you were to see it, you would be equally offended."

Asked by parents to describe the dance, Connolly offered this: The girl leans forward and the boy puts his pelvis against her backside. Then, he thrusts.

Wait, Connolly thrusts?! NO, asshole, the verbs attached to the subject Connolly are in past tense.

"It's feigning a sex act," Connolly said.

According to Connolly, students began grinding at Concord High dances about three years ago. Administrators tried to intervene, pointing out that the school handbook says all dance styles "must comply with standards of modesty and safety" and mandates that dance partners face each other.

I'd like to enforce the rule that partners must face each other. "No twirling her, son." "Pause! I need to get out my protractor to see if you two are technically facing each other!" "I am a huge fascist tool."

When that didn't work, administrators met with the student senate last year and drafted a "dance memo of understanding."In the memo, the students acknowledged that current dance trends "can appear sexual." They also said the administration "has made it clear that they do not want to police our dancing styles."

Damn! Sounds like no such enforcement position exists.

"We all know where the line is and when we are crossing it," the memo says. "There will be no specific 'rules' to follow regarding how we dance. However, should someone's dancing make others feel uncomfortable, they will be kindly asked to stop. . . . Should they refuse to do so, they will be asked to leave."

FUN FACT #1: we do not all have the same line and we do not all know where others' lines are.
FUN FACT #2: I like to dance with a severed head of Muhammad; is that alright?

The situation came to a head Saturday at the first dance of the year, which was attended by 350 students. By the time the first slow song was played, a half-dozen boys had been warned repeatedly to quit grinding, staff and students said. When they persisted, the boys were asked to leave. About 150 students followed.

Do the girls get to stay?
Also, I am nearly positive the students who left went home and caught up on reading. Definitely none of them had actual sex.
Wait a minute...they do want to police student dancing.

The students headed to the parking lot, Nicholson said, but changed their minds after being told they couldn't congregate on school grounds. Someone suggested they go to White Park instead, but the police were already there. So the students proceeded to Rollins Park, where Nicholson said they played music and danced.

At Rollins Park, it is much harder to sneak in a brown bag.

Senior Caitlind Cooper was one of the students who gathered at the park. Addressing the PTSO and Connolly on Tuesday night, she objected to the way the situation was handled.

"We go to a dance to have fun, and you telling us how to dance is not fun," Cooper said.

Heehee.

Some parents agreed. Tom and Cathy Cooper said they feel teenagers today are acting no different than they themselves did decades ago. Tom Cooper said he feels an obligation to remember what his parents said about the way he danced in high school.

"If you remember Elvis Presley - there's a grinder," Cooper said.

True or false: Tom Cooper is old.

"Eventually, things may change and this may be considered mild," said parent Cheryl Hunter. "But right now, it's inappropriate."

In other words, eventually you and people like you will be dead, and some of today's grinders will have fresh beef with their children.


Related news:

Although a recent National Center for Health Statistics survey found that more than half of all teenagers engage in oral sex, teen pregnancy rates have plummeted since the early 1990s. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high school students who reported having sexual intercourse dropped from 54 percent in 1991 to 47 percent in 2005.

What about the National Center for Feigned Health Statistics? I think they found that feigned sexual intercourse is up.

Miths V: Topologists

As Grisha made news for solving the famous conjecture and subsequently refusing the Fields Medal, various media had opportunities to characterize topology among the branches of mathematics. Here's the NYT snapshot:

The conjecture is fundamental to topology, the branch of math that deals with shapes, sometimes described as geometry without the details. To a topologist, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same because they can be deformed into one another. Likewise, a coffee mug and a doughnut are also the same because each has one hole, but they are not equivalent to a sphere.

You might recall the article had two images: one of Grisha's face morphing into a sphere, and another of a rabbit decorated with latitudinal and longitudinal lines indicating how it might be deformed into a sphere. Topology is often called “rubber geometry” because two objects are topologically indistinguishable if (roughly) a rubber version of one could be transformed without tearing into the other. So in particular, spheres of different radii are the same topologically. They are different geometrically since the sphere of larger radius is “flatter,” in a sense that can be made precise.

Okay, great. Let's be a little bit pedantic.

To a topologist, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same.

Properly, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same as topological spaces. Who knows about the mental states of those who study topology, and anyway why would those mental states carry over to the daytime topologist's night- or family-life?

The World According to a Topologist, According to an AS reader of the above Times article

Topologist at the day care center
Topologist: I'm here to pick up my child.
Supervisor: Okay, she's napping now. I'll go wake her up.
Top: No, let her sleep. I'll take another child.
Sup: Excuse me?
Top: They're topologically indistinguishable!!

Topologist at the bike shop
Top: Do you have any deals on used bikes?
Hippie Bike Shop Dude: Well, we have a great Schwinn, but one of the wheels was bent out of shape when the last owner ran over the bike with his car.
Top: Did the wheel break into two pieces?
HBSD: No.
Top: Hm, okay. Did the rim snap at any point?
HBSD: Nope, it's just bent, man. P.S. I am high.
Top: Okay, I'll take it.
HBSD: Do you want us to fix it, or do you have some expertise yourself?
Top: I'm no mechanic, but it's fine. The accident did not affect the bike topologically.

Topologist on trial
DA: So you admit to stabbing the victim four times in the chest?
Top: Yes.
DA: Ummm, okay.
Top: I never stabbed all the way through, so I didn't change the victim's homeomorphism type!! Not guilty, y'all's got to feel me.

Topologist after receiving the first transplant of its kind
Doctor: Okay, you're all set.
Top: Take it off.
Doc: I'm sorry, why?
Top: You topologically altered the braindead guy to obtain this organ.
Doc: Really, that's it? You understand you're quite lucky to've received this transplant. Your reason is a little bizarre.
Top: Also it is freaking me out that I have to touch this thing every time I pee.

The voters had pizza last week.

Is, ought, whatever. The article is called “Why Santana isn't the AL MVP,” but Jayson Stark means “Santana will not win the AL MVP.”

Our buddy, Buster Olney, has presented an eloquent MVP case for Santana over the last couple of weeks.

I'm no Buster-lover, but at least he had the courtesy to argue that Santana has been, during the 2006 baseball season, the player of most value to his team. It's a quick trip from there to the conclusion that he should win the MVP.

Now it's time for The Other Side of that Case:

Clever. Did you notice the capitalization? That's clever. Jayson Stark is clever. Let's look at the first set of arguments Mr. Stark marshals:

Starting pitchers won three of the first eight MVP awards handed out by the Baseball Writers Association. But in the last 60 years, things have changed just a mite.
We're now up to 121 MVP trophies handed out in that time. Starting pitchers have won seven of them.

Interesting. Still I am wondering: has Johan Santana been the player most valuable to his team, the Minnesota Twins, in the 2006 baseball season? I began to read your article under the assumption you would answer this question.

But in the division-play era -- which has lasted 38 seasons -- the trend is so obvious, even your great-grandma could see the writing on this wall and not even need her reading glasses.

Funny. Jayson Stark is funny. Clever and funny. Also he has an excellent sense of when an argument is relevant to a conclusion.

Of the 75 MVP awards in this era, starting pitchers have won exactly two more than beer vendors, mascots and even resin bags. Vida Blue (1971) and Roger Clemens (1986) are the only starters since 1969 to win an MVP. And since Clemens won, his fellow starters are 0 for two decades.

Also he does not smell bad.

But it says, right there on the instructions to voters, that "all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters." So because we take that into consideration, we wouldn't say we would never favor a starting pitcher for this award.

It would just take an extraordinary season and an extraordinary set of circumstances.

Okay, so...

The pivotal question, then, is as basic as a 3-and-0 fastball: Is Santana's year extraordinary enough to convince voters to rank it above all the compelling position-player seasons on the table, from a field that includes Derek Jeter, Jermaine Dye, David Ortiz and even Santana's own teammate, Justin Morneau? Now let's look at that topic.

So you're admitting that everything you've written so far has nothing to do with the conclusion you'd like to draw. This is awesome.

2. "TRIPLE CROWN" IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR "MVP"
One big item on Santana's MVP qualification list is the surest sign that he has clearly been the very best starting pitcher in his league:

If the season ended in the next 30 seconds, he would win the prestigious "Pitcher's Triple Crown" -- by leading the league in wins, strikeouts and ERA.

Also WHIP. Also Times He Had Sex with Your Wife. Did I mention that since his first few mediocre starts Johan Santana has been OFF THE FREAKING HEEZY?

In the division-play era, six pitchers have won the Triple Crown. None of them won the MVP award. Their average finish in the MVP voting: sixth. Only Pedro Martinez (23-4 for the 1999 wild-card Red Sox) made the top three.

I THOUGHT WE AGREED WE WERE SUPPOSED TO COMPARE (WITH RESPECT TO VALUE PROVIDED TO TEAM) THE POSITION PLAYERS YOU LISTED TO SANTANA. I'll take this opportunity to point out that none of the position players are that compelling, another fact that should be part of your comparison.

But if the season ended today, Santana also would win the Quadruple Crown, since he leads the league in the fourth major category -- innings pitched. No AL pitcher has won The Quad since Hal Newhouser in 1945. And -- whaddaya know -- Newhouser did win the MVP.

What we have to remember, though, is that there weren't as many hitting megastars to compete with back then, since Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams and so many of their fellow patriots were off to war, trying to win something slightly more significant than trophies.

BOY does the end of this sentence make me hate you. Like, a lot.

So it was a really, really different era in all kinds of ways.

You're using a WWII reference to hide a bad argument. Not cool. Didn't some pitchers go to war too? Are you saying that because the overall quality of baseball dropped as players went overseas to win something more important than trophies, it was easier for pitchers to be of value to their teams? 'cause if so, U R wrong.

But we're willing to consider that parallel. Except if we do, we also have to consider the fate of the three NL quadruple-crown winners in the division-play era: Steve Carlton in 1972, Dwight Gooden in 1985 and Randy Johnson in 2002. And those three finished fifth, fourth and seventh in the MVP voting, respectively.

More irrelevant history -- great.

Bob Brenly, who managed Johnson in 2002, told us he doesn't remember any talk of the Unit as MVP back then -- even in a monstrous year (24-5, with 334 strikeouts) for a team that finished first. Of course, Curt Schilling also pitched for that club. And Brenly admits that "when I was sitting in that dugout, I didn't concern myself much with those individual awards."

What's more, a manager who doesn't give a shit about the MVP doesn't remember talk of the Unit receiving the award. You should've asked Grisha Perelman what he thinks about Johan Santana.

But maybe something like an argument is coming.

Nevertheless, Brenly says that with all due respect to Santana, "to me, an MVP is a guy who is out there doing something every day to help his team win." And we agree with every word of that quote.

Great as Santana is, he has had an impact on 32 games this year. Jeter, Dye and Morneau are going to have an impact on 150 games, give or take a few. And while that's not Santana's fault, it's also tough to compete with.

This is not quite true -- Johan often throws 7-8 innings and allows the bullpen to rest. Also, your criterion transparently makes it impossible for a pitcher to win the award.
Shouldn't you take into account the degree to which the players influenced the games? (Yes.) Did you? (No.)

3. WINNING PERCENTAGE DOESN'T EQUAL MVP
Santana's No. 1 selling point as an MVP candidate is a stat that homes right in on the heart of his "value" to his team:

When he pitches, the Twins always win.

This is a direct result of his being awesome at baseball.

Heading into his start Thursday in Boston, his team is 26-6 (.813 winning percentage) when he pitched -- and 64-55 (.538) when anyone else pitched.

Damn, that's good.

Since April 27, when Santana righted himself after an 0-3 start, those numbers get even more insane. The Twins are an off-the-charts 25-3 (.893 winning pct.) in his 28 starts since then. But we should note that their record with anyone else out there (58-46, .558) is also better than it was early on.

Like, really fucking good.

Santana is, beyond question, a huge difference maker.

You're stealing from Colbert! This is bullshit!

That's an argument any rational human should feel obliged to agree with, at least on some level

Content-free verbal masturbation, yours courtesy of Jayson Stark.

Which is why Santana at least deserves a place on every voter's ballot.

The only real issue is which place.

YES, in fact this is the very same issue which your title suggests you would have addressed by now.

But this is also an argument you can play some fun tricks with. The Tigers are playing .741 baseball (23-8) when Kenny Rogers pitches. The Cardinals are playing .667 baseball (20-10) when Chris Carpenter pitches. The Padres are playing .667 ball (14-7) when Woody Williams starts. The Phillies are an .800 team (8-2) when Randy Wolf pitches. There's also a big drop-off for all those teams when other pitchers pitch. That alone doesn't make them plausible MVP candidates.

In these cases the winning percentage is tied up with things other than the pitchers being awesome at baseball, no offense to Chris Carpenter.

Or say Santana had gotten hurt in July, but Francisco Liriano had stayed healthy all year. Until Liriano's last two starts of the year, when he wasn't himself, the Twins won nearly 80 percent of Liriano's starts, too (11-3).

If he'd kept that up the rest of the year, but Santana had gone down, would Liriano be the leading MVP candidate? And if the answer is yes, doesn't that indicate that, for at least half the season, Santana had a fellow pitcher in his rotation who was nearly as good -- and valuable -- as he was?

I find this hilarious. If someone with a different name had effectively switched roles with Santana, would he have been MVP? Isn't this the same question as whether Santana should be MVP?
It's both weird and unfair that your argument involves imagining Santana was injured. I would like to imagine that David Ortiz and Travis Hafner are OPSing .950 for the purposes of my argument that Johan Santana should be MVP.

We had the Elias Sports Bureau research two questions for us: (1) Over the last 20 years, which 10 pitchers' teams had the best record on days they pitched? And (2) over that same period, which 10 pitchers' teams had the biggest disparity in record when other pitchers pitched?

You can see those charts for yourself. But here's what we learned:

Best team record with an individual starter (1987-06, min. 25 starts)
Record Pitcher Year Team MVP finish
27-3, .900 Randy Johnson 1995 Mariners 6th*
29-5, .853 Mike Hampton 1999 Astros 21st*
22-4, .846 John Smoltz 1998 Braves No votes*
27-5, .844 Roger Clemens 2001 Yankees 8th*
25-5, .833 David Wells 1998 Yankees 16th*
29-6, .829 Bret Saberhagen 1989 Royals 8th
29-6, .829 Bob Welch 1990 A's 9th*
24-5, .828 Pedro Martinez 1999 Red Sox 2nd*
24-5, .828 Jason Schmidt 2003 Giants 22nd*
*team made playoffs | Source: Elias Sports Bureau

• Santana's 2006 season didn't even make the top 10 in the "best record" study. Which means there were at least 10 pitchers in that time whose teams had even better records when they started than Santana's team does this year. So that makes it tougher to consider his season "extraordinary." And of those other 10, only one (Pedro in '99) was even a factor in the MVP discussion.

• All 10 of those pitchers on the "best record" list pitched for teams that either made the playoffs or were alive until the last week of the season. Outside of Pedro, though, none of the other nine wound up higher than sixth in the MVP election (Randy Johnson's finish, for the '95 Mariners). And from there, they dropped off all the way to Not Receiving One Stinking Vote status (John Smoltz's fate, for the '98 Braves).

• We can work Santana into the top 10 by using that "Compared With Other Pitchers" list. But even using that criterion, his 2006 season still ranks only 10th. So again, we ask: Was this a season so above and beyond other great pitchers' seasons that it merits an MVP award? It's tough to conclude it was. And again, even with this slightly different list, only Pedro was a blip on the MVP screen.

Did Elias know what you were up to? Did you mention you were going to make bizarre inferences from their statistics?

Looking back through those theoretically parallel seasons, we remember the arguments for Martinez in '99 being similar to the case for Santana this year. But in reality, the pitcher whose season was closest to Santana's this year was Johnson in '95.
...

So the Unit was a man who had an even bigger impact than Santana. And he did it in a season when Ken Griffey Jr. got hurt, removing the most logical Mariners MVP candidate from the entire discussion. Yet Johnson still finished behind five players in the MVP vote -- including two (Edgar Martinez and Jay Buhner) on his own team.

Okay.

It was Johnson -- whose team went 15-1 in his last 16 starts -- who pitched them back. But when the MVP debate began, "I never heard his name, to be honest with you," McLaren said.

You never heard it because Martinez hit .356 that year and Buhner mashed 40 homers. And above all, you never heard it because it sold the position players on that team short to suggest it was a pitcher who made those Mariners what they were.

So spin that scenario forward to the 2006 Twins and answer us this: Why isn't Joe Mauer this team's Edgar Martinez? Why isn't Morneau their Jay Buhner?

Pressing rewind on an argument is not the same as winning it.

And why haven't more people noticed that Morneau has driven in more runs (125) than any Twin in history whose name wasn't Killebrew? Why haven't more people noticed that, since June 8, Morneau has hit .374, and knocked in as many runs as Ryan Howard (87 -- tied for the most in baseball)?

I think people have noticed, but RsBI is a pretty stupid statistic. I AM NOT SURPRISED IT IS THE ONE TIME YOU MENTION THE POSITION PLAYERS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND.

That, to us, is what an MVP front-runner looks like. And there isn't an ounce of disrespect to the always-spectacular, always-mesmerizing Johan Santana when we tell you what he looks like:

The Cy Young shoo-in that he is. Period.

Nor an ounce of logic. Snap!

Too soon?

On Hand #1, this is awful.


On Hand #2, the coach's name is in fact Downs.

What's the deal with: course titles in the Women's and Gender Studies Department

Take a look at the titles of the courses offered by the Women's and Gender Studies Department at Columbia University. Now guess which one is most hilarious. (Yes, there is a correct answer.)





Have an answer?






If you guessed G6001, then holy shit are you correct. The embedded colon is a little awkward, and Object should be Objects, so let's be fair and parse the official title (click W, then Fall2006), Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship: Bodies, Objects, Sex.

Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship

Now. I have never enrolled in a course offered by any WGS department at any university, but my understanding is that, being offered at universities, WGS courses tend to focus on Scholarship. So why waste a title word on it?

Now. I have never held a serious job with a serious company, but my understanding is that, being largely full of shit, some businesspeople like to throw around words like “paradigm” as though the words carried content. So why throw it around in a course title?

Even if we are generous and do not vomit upon reading Paradigm, we are not obligated to accept unconditionally the presence of the word Theoretical. I'm no Paradigm expert, but it seems Theoretical is already built into the definition, at least connotatively -- serving as pattern or model.

IN CONCLUSION, a more concise way of saying “Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship” is:

Feminism

Bodies, Objects, Sex

I have no complaints about any of the three items here listed.

Jacob Luft is paid to write about baseball and yet he is not good at writing about baseball.

See for yourself.

Talk baseball all season long with SI.com's Jacob Luft in Baseball Chatter, a journal for hot topic debates, Sabermetric ramblings and reader-driven discussions. (emphasis mine)

The R in SABR stands for Research. So this oughtta be great.

With the MVP races in both leagues going down the wire, you are going to hear and read a lot about "big hits" and "clutchness" in the next few weeks.

Come on dude, get with it! Clutchiness!

Those moments are fun and I enjoy them as much as the next baseball fan, but they help to obscure an important point about baseball that seems to have been lost amid all the talk of "clutchness" lately: early runs are more important.

(1) The next baseball fan thinks big hits win games, so you probably enjoy those moments less.
(2) The “important point” is not so much “lost” as it is “wrong.”

Riddle me this: Given the choice, would you rather have your team score first in a game or last? I asked a Yankees fan and rabid Alex Rodriguez-hater in the office this question the other day: Without knowing anything else that happens in a particular game, would you rather have A-Rod hit a three-run home run in the first inning of a game or the ninth inning? In other words, would you rather be guaranteed a three-run first inning and most likely a 3-0 lead to start the game or take your chances and hope that a three-run home run in the ninth will win or tie the game?

(1) The last sentence could just as well read:
In other words, would you rather take your chances that a three-run first inning lead will hold up for the rest of the game, or be guaranteed three runs late in the game?
(2) WHAT KIND OF INANE QUESTION IS THIS? Man reaches first base to lead off an inning. It is useful to ask: how much better is Man on Second, 0 Out versus Man on First, 0 Out? If you could press a button which would leave Man on Second, 0 Out 70% of the time and None On, 1 Out the other 30%, would you press the button? This is a question about base stealing and an answer recommends a strategy.
But a definitive answer to Luft's question matters not at all. Whenever teams are at bat, they try to score. As much as possible. Like, always. Like, Arod doesn't decide to open the game with a 3-run HR and think about bitches the rest of the game.
(3) Would you rather look like Jacob Luft or think like him?

If you answered ninth inning instead of first, then you have been drinking way too much of the clutchness Kool-Aid. Baseball is a lot like hockey and soccer in this respect: scoring first is huge.

Yes, so tell your favorite team: when it's up at the plate, try to score.
I'm surprised he mentioned soccer because that example makes more transparent two ways in which this argument is retarded. First, the better team will tend to score first more often. More importantly, as reader Eddie so eloquently puts it, these are all sports where NOT MANY POINTS ARE SCORED AT ALL AND THEREFORE OF COURSE THE PERSON WHO SCORES FIRST USUALLY WINS. Mr. Luft, your SABR membership card, please?

I looked up every team's record in 2006 when it scores first in a game compared to when its opponent scored first.

This probably took a few minutes. Some better things you could've done with that time:

• taken a stroll
• listened to a song
• practiced writing your name in cursive
• thrown some darts
• held down your Backspace key until what you'd written until now was gone

But we'll look at the fruits of your labor.

Here's what I found (through Monday's games; teams are in order of current standings):

American League
Team, Record when scoring first (Record when opponent scores first)
East
New York: 55-22 (31-34)
Boston: 50-25 (26-42)
Toronto: 51-22 (24-47)
Baltimore: 43-28 (17-53)
Tampa Bay: 32-44 (25-42)

Central
Detroit: 59-25 (27-33)
Minnesota: 53-17 (31-42)
Chicago: 48-30 (35-31)
Cleveland: 52-25 (16-49)
Kansas City: 31-29 (23-61)

West

Oakland: 50-21 (32-40)
Los Angeles: 56-25 (21-42)
Texas: 41-24 (32-47)
Seattle: 41-24 (27-50)

The aggregate winning percentage of AL teams when they score first is .647. The aggregate winning percentage of AL teams when they don't score first is .375. Compare those figures to the AL's aggregate winning percentage in all games: .513. (It's not .500 because of interleague play.) You end up with a deviation of plus-133 when scoring first and minus-139 when not scoring first. (Again, interleague play ruins the symmetry of this.) This is all assuming my arithmetic is correct, and I'm about as good as math as you would expect for a history major.

Majoring in history is no excuse for poor arithmetic. Plus it's not your arithmetic that's bothersome, it's your tragically poor grasp of statistics. Also, you meant “at math,” but I'm as good at proofreading my work published in nationally distributed magazines as you would expect for a math major.
By the way, Jacob Luft, I think you are a bad writer -- just wanted to make that clear.

National League
Team, Record when scoring first (Record when opponent scores first)
East
New York: 64-18 (24-36)
Florida: 51-26 (22-45)
Philadelphia: 47-26 (25-45)
Atlanta: 47-28 (22-46)
Washington: 45-25 (16-58)

Central
St. Louis: 53-21 (23-46)
Cincinnati: 45-17 (26-55)
Houston: 53-25 (17-47)
Milwaukee: 37-21 (28-58)
Pittsburgh: 33-25 (26-61)
Chicago: 43-22 (14-65)

West
Los Angeles: 47-22 (25-44)
San Diego: 45-25 (29-43)
San Francisco: 53-30 (19-41)
Arizona: 48-18 (20-57)
Colorado: 46-21 (21-55)

Let's do the same drill here. The NL's aggregate winning percentage when scoring first: .671. When not scoring first: .308. Overall, the NL's winning percentage is about .487. So the deviation is plus-184 for scoring first and minus-179 for not scoring first.

OK. The analysis:

You can see the value in this statistic when you look at the bad teams. The Nationals' overall winning percentage is .431. But when they score first, they are a .642 ballclub. Even the Pirates and Royals are winning teams when they score first. In fact, there is only one team in the majors with a losing record when it scores first: Tampa Bay (.421). Nobody else is close to that bad. (I'm not really sure how this happened. The Devil Rays have allowed a ton of runs, but not the most in the league, and certainly not by as wide a margin as you would expect for them to be this bad when scoring first.)

HEY DIPSHIT, did you notice that bad teams tend to have fewer games played in which they score first? You even ordered the teams by record! It is so painfully obvious only a braindead history major wouldn't ... nevermind.
Also, the Rays' pen is bad, but two AL teams have worse bullpen ERA. TB's higher BAA means they've probably allowed more inherited runners to score. Isn't doing this sort of research part of your job? U R like sucky.

But to expect any of this empirical evidence to have any sway in the MVP voting would be unrealistic.

Unrealistic, yes. To desire this, moronic.

After all, this is an era of small-sample size theater, when we focus on ridiculous statistics like "batting average in close-and-late situations." Do you know who the current leader is in that silly statistic? Florida's Wes Helms, who has 19 hits in 45 at-bats (.422). Ladies and gentlemen, your King of Clutch for 2006 is a bench player on a team stocked primarily with rookies.

I know you write to feed the kids, but I hope your (conjecturally tiny) brain appreciates that Wes Helms has nothing to do with whether BA in close/late is a ridiculous statistic. (Were it a useful statistic, it would just mean he's undervalued; the shit about rookies is obviously irrelevant.) The small sample size point, I agree with.

I'm not saying clutch hitting doesn't exist at all. For the most part, I do believe clutchness exists, but only to the extent that most good hitters are still good in critical situations, just as they are during other points of a game.

But this is no extent at all! Also, your article is called “The myth of clutch” and this is your evidence? HIRE THIS MAN. Treated with maximum generosity, the list of records you previously assembled should be interpreted to mean clutch hitting doesn't matter. Now you're acting like you presented evidence to say clutch hitting doesn't exist! WTF?!

David Ortiz is clutch. George Brett was clutch.

So clutch hitting is not a myth. I'm very confused.

I'll take my chances with either of those two guys in a close-and-late situation, but I wouldn't mind having any other great hitter up either: Willie Mays, Tony Gwynn, Mike Schmidt, etc.

You're hurting for words, a? A (seemingly arbitrary) list of three great (but not especially clutch) players, first and last names? Three more: Bonds, Ruth, Clemente. Three more: Mantle, Pujols, Brett. FUCK! Already mentioned Brett, sorry.

And don't be so quick to discount the value of add-on runs in the middle innings.

I know: runs are runs, no matter when they're scored...

Breaking a game open early with a home run is more valuable than a late, "clutch" home run.

...and you lost me. Also, it's bullshit that you put quotation marks around clutch. Punctuation is a poor substitute for argument.
I guess the problem with sportswriting is that you cannot express the (correct) opinion that early and late runs are equally good (or that offense and defense are equally important); for some reason you have to pick something.
This practice is bad for sportswriting. You know what's good for sportswriting (but bad for punters)? Shit like this. (Thanks to reader Donovan for the tip. See, if you show me something, maybe I will write about it, unless you are Boris.)
Let's finish up here.

It means the other team is going to use mop-up pitchers the rest of the game and allow your hitters to feast even more. It puts the game away early so you don't have to worry about winning it later and it means less stress for your starting pitcher and your bullpen.

I chose the clutch/late home run, but I told my bullpen and starting pitcher, so they're not feeling any stress.

I'm so hungry I could eat a ...

Stock up on horse meat!

Riding a broad wave of bipartisan support, the House on Thursday approved a bill to ban the slaughter of horses in the U.S. for human consumption.

NOW, I don't want to get off track, but when the House rides a wave of bipartisan support, does that mean the House rides itself? A President, for example, being aligned with a particular party, might properly be said to ride a wave of bipartisan support. Or maybe the bill rode the wave of support. But the House? That's not on.

"This whole slaughtering process is an illicit, concealed, inhumane process as it relates to horses," said [Rep. Ed] Whitfield [R-KY], one of the bill's co-sponsors and its most vocal champion on the House floor.

“Illicit” is a funny word choice. Is it really concealed? Really?! I gather the process is inhumane as it relates to horses -- but is it also concealed as it relates to horses?

About 90,000 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. last year.

Let's record this for later: ninety thousand.


The opponents of the bill:

"What are you going to do with 90,000 unwanted horses? Who's going to provide for their care?" asked [former Texas Rep. Charles] Stenholm, who was the top-ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee until 2004. "It's not in the best interest of the horses. There is nothing in the bill that provides for the humane treatments of horses."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns echoed those concerns Wednesday in a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Johanns wrote that passage would likely lead to "a reduction in the humane treatment of horses."

Johanns should know, if only because (wow, this is awkward) he'll be responsible for unwanted horses!

`The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine that is unwanted by an owner.'.

Onto the bill's supporters:

"We're looking at an industry that, beginning to end, is extremely cruel," [deputy legislative director and a lobbyist for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation Chris] Heyde said.

“Beginning to end” means something when the industry includes raising the animals, but it's a bit empty to point out the slaughter industry is cruel.

In the U.S., horse meat is sometimes used as feed for zoo animals.

Just recording for later.

More coverage of the support squad:

"It is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on in the U.S. today," said Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the ban.

You know you don't have rights when: your slaughter is described as “shady.” But Sweeney scores points with the kids for speaking their language.

Sweeney argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens, because horses are American icons.

I have always supported legislation banning the slaughter of baseball players and jazz musicians for this very reason. They are fucking icons. Sing it, Rep.

Another way in which the slaughtering practices differ: 90,000 kinda sorta doesn't matter.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.

The interviewer caught Spratt administering a true/false exam. This one's false.

I make: wise campaign contributions horseshit

A quick look at the revised text:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING, DELIVERING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, PURCHASING, SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
`(1) The term `human consumption' means ingestion by people as a source of food.'
`(4) The term `slaughter' means the killing of one or more horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the flesh for human consumption.'.

So our icons may be consumed at the zoo? Lawmakers are, like, so weird.


If you'd like nightmares, learn what justifies laws to the lawdrafters themselves:

`(1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion;

This overstates the distinction between horses and livestock.

`(2) horses and other equines are domestic animals that are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport;

Ummmm, okay.

`(3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption;

Not only is this basically the same as `(2), it's a laughable example of the naturalistic fallacy.

`(4) individuals selling horses or other equines at auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption; and

I don't believe this. Anyway THEN FUCKING TELL THEM.

`(5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture has found that horses and other equines cannot be safely and humanely transported in double deck trailers;'; and

Can I bring Secretariat to the slaughterhouse in my Radio Flyer then?

`(8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, adversely affect and burden interstate and foreign commerce;'.

HUH? Seems the author requires a prosthetic Wernicke's area.

The "Seriously, September Eleventh" Awards

Courtesy of reader Lauren, an awards show devoted to Bush's I-Swear-The-Proximity-of-the-Midterm-Elections-is-Just-a-Coincidence
speech.

We'll start the evening with every liberal's favorite, the This is Why
They Hate Us Award:
"Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly
American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding
with extraordinary acts of courage."

The Royal We Award goes to:
"On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense
against our enemies - and we would not distinguish between the
terrorists and those who harbor or support them."

The Get Those Soldiers Some Levers Award goes to:
"They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the
election lever ... girls enrolling in school ... or families
worshiping God in their own traditions."

The Glass Houses Award goes to:
"They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their
extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by
raging against the forces of freedom and moderation."

The There's Only One Beirut, Right? Award goes to:
"From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut, there are brave men and women
risking their lives each day for the same freedoms that we enjoy. And
they have one question of us: Do we have the confidence to do in the
Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe
and Asia?"

The Tell it To Darfur Award goes to:
"Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it -
sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle."

And last but not least, the I Guess It's Not Too Soon for 9/11 Porn
Award goes to:
"The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did - but
not in the way the terrorists intended."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let's face it: they were the Twin Towers. (Eh? Eh?)

A good way to tell how conservative someone really is: Jimmy is on his knees. What is he doing?

Keepin' it real. For example.

Nothing against the French, but the jokes would almost make themselves.

Sometimes mere words produce a visceral reaction.

Last week you might have seen this sign on the Columbia campus.

• then I stole it


• then I took a picture of it


• it's also a funny way to communicate that I do not own a scanner


• apparently it is also time for awful puns


• sometimes the reaction is cringe

Sorry, Lalekhet. How do Ya Lekhet now?

Maybe she is not the perfect woman after all.

Want to learn about women and math?

Want to learn about Maria Sharapova and math?

Sharapova last night hung in there on long points, even attacked the net when necessary. She went for it, struck 20 winners and willingly paid the price with 24 errors. If she is not a master of pace or angles quite yet, she is only 19. She surely owns the energy and discipline to capture several more majors on a tour currently devoid of genius.

(emphasis mine) And if she is a master? Fuck, she's 28. ANYWAY, brace yourself for a classic:

"I lost the last four times I played with Justine, so I figured I had to flip it 360, do just the opposite," Sharapova said. She is not a geometry major.

LOL. Also, you mean “rotate.” OR (principle of charity) you mean, “I had to flip it 360, THEN do just the opposite,” which is redundant but technically correct. OR (principle of I'm an asshole) you mean 360 radians (roughly 20626.5 degrees = 106.5 degrees + you are dizzy), or yet another unit of measure.

I'm going to flip it 360, then have a ham sandwich.

More Maria news: during the men's final Sunday, Dick Enberg remarked that Sharapova was “so photogenic,” which is like saying someone is intelligent by noting they perform well on standardized tests.

U + Me = Us

P.S. Please don't buy for me NASCAR For Dummies, in other words, NASCAR. While you're at it, don't buy for me this here book either.

Rolling Back Artistic Expression and Political Speech; Women

Tonight's Featured Matchup

Two-time Best Pot Song winner Sean Paul
versus
Big Box Behemoth Walmart


First, meet The Challenger.

S.P. won a Doobie in 2002 for “Gimme the Light”. To win a second Doobie, you might need politically controversial lyrics, for example:

Everyday we be burnin not concernin what nobody wanna say
We be earnin dollars turning cause we mind deh pon we pay

First Sean Paul reveals his libertarian streak. Then he speaks in some sort of code.

Some got gold and oil and diamonds all we got is Mary J
Legalize it, time to recognize it

Many mentions of drug use in rap/hip-hop/reggae amount to little more than glorification of getting messed up, and sometimes misogyny gets in the mix. (This is not to suggest women can't rhyme right back; more on this later.)

But here S.P. is engaging in real political speech! He's talking about justice! and what's more, he means it. From the High Times article:

Sean Paul has had run-ins with zealous police while practicing what he calls a "holy sacrament." He often wonders why his financially strapped homeland does not take fuller advantage of its number-one cash crop.

"The present government is talking about decriminalizing it," he says, skeptically. "Weed would do so much for the economy of my country. Just stop arresting people. Let it be."

Our Defending Champion reacts.

Check out the new and improved version:

Everyday we be burnin not concernin what nobody wanna say.
We be earnin dollars turning cause we mind de pon we pay.

BTW I hope the second line means something violently opposed to the goals of those for whom Walmart is bowdlerizing. However, I have no idea what it is to mind de pon we pay. BRACE YOURSELF FOR THE ALTERED LYRICS:

More than gold and oil and diamonds girls we need dem everyday.
Recognize it, time we realize it.

Dear Walmart,

I understand that economically you are probably a good thing. However, I am wondering if maybe you could sell printers for $24 delivered, and those gigantic pickle buckets for sixty-two cents, while at the same time being less of a dick. If not, I would like to understand in greater detail the circumstances which connect your excellent pickle and printer prices to the prickish pressure you impose on pop stars.

PLMK ASAP.

Thanx!
Joe

P.S. $24 is a good price, but less absurd than I'd imagined.

I mean to convey that the current legal regime arbitrarily preferences certain natural resources over others. The results for my people have been disastrous. The current arrangement seems to me economically bizarre. For those of you in the Midwest: I like bitches.

Related Notes I

I'm not a frequenter of the Walmart website, but it seems the Smiley Face Best Known for Rolling Back Prices has a less prominent status than (s)he did a few years ago. We all remember his/her less savory rollbacks; perhaps Walmart's PR peeps caught wind of the satire.


Related Notes II

It's not uncommon to hear complaints about how sex and violence is portrayed in, for example, rap music. If there is a class of songs which children should be shielded from, likely it would concern sexually explicit lyrics, in particular lyrics which glorify the degradation of one gender.

At least female rappers may reply with explicit lyrics of their own, a beautiful example of speech being countered by yet more speech. But still many rap albums demand Parental Advisory. WHY IS IT, THEN, that I might walk into a fast-food restaurant in midday and hear Mambo Number Five?

It's artistically inferior to even mildly competent rap music. Mambo's content is miserable and Mr. Bega uses language as well as Idahoans use chopsticks. PLUS MAMBO IS BAD FOR WOMEN. Read this trash!

A little bit of Monica in my life,
A little bit of Erica by my side.
A little bit of Rita's all I need,
A little bit of Tina's all I see.
A little bit of Sandra in the sun,
A little bit of Mary all night long.
A little bit of Jessica here I am,
A little bit of you makes me your man!!!!!!!!
Mambo number five.

Whereas thoughtful rappers like Biggie glorify the chase and explain how women drive them crazy, in Mr. Bega's world, women are practically thought of as spices.

IMHO this is bullshit. I would love to flip over the table in front of me, but my computer rests on top of it.


Related Notes III/Readers' Challenge

What is this product, exactly? It seems these plants must not contain THC. In earnest, what is the deal? Is Can of Bud awesome, or a grownup version of the kid in middle school who sold oregano? NOTE THE NON-RHETORICAL NATURE OF THIS QUESTION.

The can is round. The buds are round.

More Controversial Legal Advice for Imaginary Readers

ADVICE: Neither scroll down nor click here if you wish to serve on a jury of Sammy Sosa's peers.



























This would look great on those sculpted arms, a?

How I could be of use to Jay-Z

I could offer some advice regarding dealing with authority figures.

The year is '94 and in my trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother fuckin law
I got two choices y'all pull over the car or
Bounce on the devil put the pedal to the floor
Now I ain't tryin to see no highway chase with jake
Plus I got a few dollars I can fight the case
So I...pull over to the side of the road

Excellent choice.

And I heard "Son, do you know why I'm stoppin you for?"

Be respectful and you'll be on your way.

'cause I'm young and I'm black and my hat's real low?
Do I look like a mind reader sir, I don't know
Am I under arrest or should I guess some mo?

Oh boy. Definitely do not guess any mo.

"Well you was doin fifty five in a fifty four"
"License and registration and step out of the car"
"Are you carryin a weapon on you? I know alot of you are"

What I would've said: Officer, going one mile per hour over the speed limit hardly justifies pulling me over. Moreover, a 54 mph speed limit is unfair. I hadn't seen a sign in a while, and since speed limits are usually multiples of 5, I assumed the limit was 55. We're on a highway, after all. Plus, all these cars around us are going so much faster.
Also, how are your kids doing? And what's the deal with criminals? I mean, do they wanna go to prison? It's like, come on!

I ain't steppin out of shit all my papers legit

What I would've done:
1. Stepped out of shit, in particular, out of the car.
2. Backed up claims of legit papers with license and registration.

"Do you mind if I look 'round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that

Good spirit, but the officer doesn't need a warrant. In fact, reasonable suspicion is enough, and your combativeness is getting uncomfortably close to arousing such suspicion. (Yes, even in a car.)

"Aren't you sharp as a tack? You some type of lawyer or
something, somebody important or somethin?"

(quietly, to self): Who trained you, the ACLU?

Nah I ain't passed the bar but I know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit

SWEET RHYME, but I recommend against using profanity while speaking with the cop. After all, you are trying to get out of trouble, not write a rap song.

"We'll see how smart you are when the K-9's come"

No, it was not the ACLU who trained you.

I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one

Again, do not arouse reasonable suspicion. Thanx, the mngmnt.

With my guidance, a more manageable 98 problems

Ten questions for your day off

On Labor Day, relax by considering questions even an oscillating fan could answer, may he rest in peace.

I have an oscillating fan at home; it looks like it's saying 'Noo...' so I like to ask it questions that a fan would say 'no' to. "Do you keep my hair in place?" "Do you keep my documents in order?" "Do you have three settings?" Liar! My fan fuckin' lied to me! Now I will pull the pin up. Now you ain't sayin' shit!"

1. Is the Wu-Tang Clan anything to fuck with?


2. a. Is Andy Rooney in touch?
b. Insightful?
c. Incandescent ?

Did you ever notice that I'm annoying?

3. Should I subscribe to Psychology Today?


4. a. Should I wear this trucker hat backwards?
b. At all?

Did you ever notice that I'm annoying?

5. Do you want to come over and watch NASCAR?


6. How about a game of tic-tac-toe?

WTF happened here?

7. Do I look fat?


8. Does Chinatown smell great?


9. Wouldn't you rather be in Times Square right now?


10. Is Albert Pujols assailable?

Dear pitcher, You'll get 'em next time. Love, Albert

“Buster” is right

[Get it?]

Were the season to end tomorrow, Buster Olney would vote for Jermaine Dye for AL MVP. Worse candidates (namely, Derek Jeter) will likely receive first-place votes, but my issues with Mr. Olney are more particular.

The player that Jermaine Dye has become is the player he once was.

AHHH make it stop. This sentence hurts.

Late in the 2001 season, he drove in runs the way he does now, hit for power, performed like a leader. But in the playoffs against the Yankees that year, Dye fouled a ball off his left leg and crushed a bone, and that MVP-type player disappeared.

"It took him a long time to come back," Oakland general manager Billy Beane said yesterday. "What he was then, in the second half of the season, was unbelievable." What Dye is now is incredible. This week, White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen shook up his lineup, moving Dye up to the No. 3 spot, dropping Jim Thome to fourth and Paul Konerko to fifth. The reason for doing this, Guillen explained, is because Dye has more speed, and while batting behind Thome and Konerko, Dye is sometimes roadblocked on the bases.

So far the evidence for Dye being the league's MVP: he has come back from an injury sustained FIVE years ago [this has nothing to do with value, plus it's been FIVE YEARS]; his old GM and his current manager like him.

The shit about being roadblocked is great. In his career Dye has 41 SB, 21 CS. Since the breakeven point is around 70-75%, at his career clip he's actually more valuable to the White Sox when (those assholes!) Thome and Konerko and roadblocking him. In fairness, he's 7-for-10 this year. Whoopdee-fucking-doo.

But Guillen could have made the move entirely because of Dye's hitting ability. The guy is an RBI machine right now. At a time when the White Sox pitching has been inconsistent, sometimes more of a problem than a solution, Dye has been the anchor to the team. Chicago played 29 games in the month of August, and Dye drove in runs in 18 of those, including eight multi-RBI games. He drove in 30 runs in August.

Jermaine Dye:
2006 to date: 0.393 OBP, 0.646 SLG
July 2006: 0.393 OBP, 0.708 SLG, 96 AB
August 2006: 0.390 OBP, 0.682 SLG, 110 AB

A stronger argument is that he's been very good at the game of baseball in the second half of the season, assuming (as you do, Buster) that it matters at what stage of the season the White Sox earn their wins. Dye's been slugging the shit out of the ball, fine, but what distinguished August from the other months is that more people were on base (sometimes roadblocking, no doubt) while he was at the plate. RsBI is not a very good way of measuring how good at baseball is Jermaine Dye, nor anyone else.

"He's a production guy," a scout said yesterday. "He flourishes in a style where he attacks the baseball, rather than taking a lot of pitches. When you get right down to it, runs and RBI are the most important stats in baseball, and he's one of the best at that. He is healthy, he is hitting the ball the other way better than he did earlier in his career, and now he's got power to all fields."

Wait, that's it? No more numbers? You're back to quotes from people who think Jermaine Dye is, like, really neat? And forget managers; now it's a scout who thinks runs and RBI are the most important stats in baseball?!?!?!?! WHAT ABOUT BATTING AVERAGE, HAIRSTYLE, AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN?!?!?!?! Idiot.

OH, and this is actually kinda funny, David Ortiz and Travis Hafner are beating Jermaine Dye in the following categories: runs; RBI. By at least ten. Both players. In both categories. Like, “X's Y total is at least ten higher than Jermaine Dye's Y total” is true when: X=David Ortiz, Y=runs; X=David Ortiz, Y=RBI; X=Travis Hafner, Y=runs; X=Travis Hafner, Y=RBI.

The MVP voting in the AL is a close call. As of today, if I had a ballot, Dye would be the MVP, followed by: 2. Derek Jeter, 3. David Ortiz, 4. Travis Hafner, 5. Johan Santana, 6. Justin Morneau, 7. Joe Mauer, 8. Mariano Rivera, 9. Vladimir Guerrero and 10. Paul Konerko.

I don't know how one factors in position (SS, DH, SP, RP), but for now I'll just point out two features of your list.

(1) You have erroneously listed Derek Jeter second. Fun facts:
Travis Hafner: 0.439 OBP, 0.659 SLG
Manny Ramirez: 0.442 OBP, 0.628 SLG
Derek Jeter: 0.420 OBP, 0.484 SLG
Jason Giambi, DJ's fucking teammate: 0.413 OBP, 0.580 SLG

It is a close call, but its closeness has this much to do with Derek Jeter: zero.

(2) YOU FAILED TO LIST MANNY RAMIREZ IN YOUR TOP TEN.

Dye drove in a run against the Rays on Thursday, but the White Sox lost.

Um...okay. Wow, this is awkward. Seen any good movies lately? Uhh, I think I have to be somewhere now, but I'll talk to you later. No, I'll call you. Yeah, I can let myself out.

Comments regarding three Sharper Image products

1. The Dazer II Ultrasonic Dog Deterrent

Used extensively by outdoor professionals including mail carriers, couriers, animal-control personnel and meter readers

(a) “extensively”? Could I have the language of origin? Part of speech and definition? Could you use it in a(nother) sentence?
(b) “animal-control personnel” fits seamlessly with the other listed professions in the context of this product, eh?

The Dazer II is a humane substitute for pepper spray, mace or physical force.

Plus it's much lighter than a baseball bat or gun.

2. MicroTRAKgps-powered Locate 1

If your car went missing, could you find it right away? If your teen is told not to drive too far or too fast, how would you know? If you're managing a sales fleet, could you assure yourself they're making timely calls? The answer is "yes" to all these questions and more — with a hidden tracker from MicroTRAKgps™.

I agree. Other questions regarding this product to which the answer is "yes" include:

• Is it not so vaguely creepy?


• Are there better ways to spend $499.95 plus the cost of update services?


• Does the slogan “Secretly track anything that moves!” evoke private parts?


• Would it be awkward to explain how you knew your child or sales fleet had violated your wishes?


• Is it more or less retarded?

3. The Professional Series Ionic Breeze GP Silent Air Purifier with Ultraviolet Germicidal Protection

No beef with air purifiers or killing germs; just wondering what is Professional about this product. Professional-grade kitchen knives or basketball shoes are neat because you're using the very same product used by individuals whose livelihoods depend on that product performing well, WHEREAS your livelihood doesn't depend on the product's performance. WHO ARE THE PROFESSIONAL AIR BREATHERS and can I get an interview and what are the benefits?

Miths IV/No Major League Baseball Player Nor Reader Left Behind: Robinson Jose Cano

2005-2006 (through Friday)

Situation	AB	H	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Overall	894	278	22	113	31	5	111	0.311	0.338	0.466	0.804
Close and Late	137	42	1	11	5	0	18	0.307	0.331	0.409	0.740
RISP	238	57	7	93	12	2	32	0.239	0.282	0.387	0.668

His numbers are much better this year. This season he'd have my vote for MVRC (Most Valuable Robinson Cano), but I'm not a sportswriter and that's not a real award. If his BA improves by another 34 points next season, M-V-P chants might be in order. Plus, he's turning, what, 14 next year? You can't expect a kid who's just been bar mitzvah-ed to draw walks, though you can expect him to do the (apparently controversial) electric slide.

Be regular, Big Papi's beating heart, or witness the yoinking of your MVP award by Robi-Wan Canobi (as far as I know, I just made that up).

Watch the tefillin, Jorge

This Administration won't dignify just anything

The British TV network More4 will broadcast a docudrama depicting an assassination of W. The network head has described “Death of a President” as an “extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work”:

“It’s not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama,” [network head Peter Dale] said. “I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.”

Now. I understand political violence is a sensitive subject, but (obviously) the film isn't advocating violence. Dale explains:

“It’s a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic.”

The film hasn't been aired yet, so the White House can't say too much. Plus, I understand the desire to marginalize films made by, say, Michael Moore. But this?

The White House declined to comment on the network’s announcement, saying it would not dignify the program with a response.

Somewhere in the White House, someone knows the film will make serious criticisms of this Administration's war on terror. How fitting to respond to a depiction of political violence with a refusal to engage in actual political debate.


BUT THERE'S MORE. What do the people think?

A new film depicts President Bush being assassinated. Should it be shown? * 25704 responses
50% Yes, it's a good display of free speech.
44% No, the filmmakers have gone too far.
5.1% Perhaps -- but not in the United States.

Sure, MSNBC readers might not be representative. Sure, responses to a voluntary survey are tainted. But even when primed to think of the term “free speech,” 44% of (some group of people, likely including many Americans) think a depiction of an assassination shouldn't be shown. Probably the response would've been different if more vivid language had been used (Should its airers be prosecuted? Should the government prevent the network from airing it in the US? Should airing it be illegal?), but still, WTF?

Miths III/Readers' Request: David Americo Ortiz

2002-2006 (through Thursday)

Situation	AB	H	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Overall	2528	735	186	584	369	13	527	0.291	0.384	0.590	0.974
Close and Late	354	113	37	111	50	3	85	0.319	0.408	0.729	1.137
RISP	725	221	30	369	139	1	131	0.305	0.417	0.530	0.947

His middle name is like America, but masculine!

Note the AB/HR disparity (or what amounts to the same thing, the SLG disparity) in Close and Late versus Overall.

Also, Big Papi was still fastened to a foundation in 2002, but even then he was better in Close and Late. During 2003-present, in contrast, he's been off the chain.

My mom picked this out for me