hanchonk's Xanga

Your Baby's Name Is Gay-den

Tue, 06 May 2008 17:08:42 GMT

Top 14 Most Popular Male Baby Names of 2007, according to BabyNames.com:

1          AIDAN
2          BRADEN
3          KADEN
4          ETHAN
5          CALEB
6          NOAH
7          JADEN
8          CONNOR
9          LANDON
10        JACOB
11        JACKSON/JAXON
12        ELIJAH
13        GAVIN/GAVAN
14        DYLAN

Seriously...THESE names are the MOST popular names? When I was a kid, there were like six Christophers in my grade, since Christopher was one of the most popular names the year I was born. That mean that in about 10 years, some poor bastard's (not literal) fifth grade class will be filled with six Aidans, four Bradens, three Kadens and a couple of Jadens. Well, not exactly in those numbers. There will be some Aydins, some Braidyns, some Caydins and some Jhaidons. Because apparently you can spell your baby's name any way you like. I blame this on Bush.

My daughter's name will be Maiden. My son's name will be Baden Baden. And my dog's name will be John.

2008 Season Preview

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:20:51 GMT

I needed something fun and easy to read so I picked up "Now I Can Die in Peace" by Bill Simmons, a writer for ESPN.com. Now, I have always enjoyed Simmons' columns, I'll admit that. I would describe him sort of as like the average joe fan who turns out to be an above average writer. Not a great writer; it's a bit harder to read in book form and he definitely pales in comparison to other some-time ESPN contributers like Klosterman and Easterbrook. Those guys are on a whole different level.

Regardless, the focus of the book is about the journey of the 2004 Red Sox and all their long-suffering fans. 86 years between world championships for them, 1918 to 2004 (quickly followed by 2007, of course). And though Simmons' refuses to use the word "curse" to describe the plight of Red Sox fans, he incessantly harps about how "this always happens to us", saying how they're so unlucky or this is so terrible, or it's so hard to root for this team, blah blah blah.

What a bunch of whiny crap.

Look, unless you're actually like 86 years old, I don't buy any of this garbage about how long you've been suffering. This guy is like 10 years older than me, so I'll give him like 10 more years of following his team, so that takes him to around 1976 or 1977. That's like 30 seasons of baseball, out of which the Red Sox have only posted 5 seasons with losing records. The most they lost in a single season in that span was 89 games. They went to the playoffs 7 times from 1976 to 2003. So why are you crying so much you gigantic baby.

The Tigers last won a World Series in 1984. I was 5 at the time and had lived in Michigan for all of two months at that point, so I had no idea what was going on. I started to follow baseball in 1986 and was heartbroken when they lost in the playoffs in 1987. Now. Since 1986, the Tigers have posted 16 seasons with losing records, including four 100+ loss seasons. I almost feel like that 119 loss monstrosity in 2003 should count double. Even if a "Red Sox fan" could love their team as much as I love mine, you really think you've had it harder? You think you're that freaking important? Just shut up.

In my lifetime, we've had two playoff appearances (1987 and 2006). Both times we fielded excellent teams, and yet somehow ended up losing to, by any objective measure, the TWO WORST WORLD SERIES "CHAMPIONS" OF ALL TIME ('87 Twins, '06 Cards). You can't know what this feels like. It's like having your girlfriend stolen from you by Screech from Saved By the Bell. Twice.

And enough with the whole "Red Sox - Yankees is the best rivalry in sports" garbage. It's a great rivalry, no doubt, and for the time being, it's the best rivalry in baseball. But the best rivalry in the history of sports, past present or future, is Michigan - Ohio State. End of story.

My team has been terrible for most of my life. And if I were like a Red Sox fan, I would be crying and peeing all over myself, saying "Oh no....what if I grow old and die before my team wins a World Series?" Such a fan would use that as an excuse to expect the worst, to bail on their team when times get rough. Rough times? Try living through a 119 loss season. Seriously.

But even in 2003, I wasn't bemoaning my fate of rooting for a doomed team. Hell no. I believed that things would be better. Maybe not right away, but I didn't jump ship, I loved them with all their faults, maybe even because of their faults. And whether it was 1987, 2003 or 2006, I knew I would someday see the Tigers win the World Series. And not later on, like on my death bed. I knew I would see it in the foreseeable future. I knew it then. I know it now. I will see it happen.

So listen. I could give an exhaustive player-by-player breakdown about how I think the season will go. I could do that. I could give a Peter Gammons-esque list of things that need to break right for something to maybe happen, i.e. "if player X stays healthy, if player Y breaks out, then maybe Team Z has a shot at making noise in the playoffs." I did this last year. I said, "if the Tigers stay healthy, they could win 90 to 105 games." But what good is that? It's useless. It's gutless.

What is objectivity? What is factual truth? Can we ever truly know if the "facts" we hold to be true really are true? Is foresight any different from memory? Perhaps; knowledge of past is more than mere scienter; it's memory corroborated by extrinsic evidence. Maybe knowledge of the future seems less substantial; belief corroborated by nothing more than hope. But if that belief and that hope are strong and virtuous enough, maybe that foundation is no less shaky than that of the "facts" we take for granted.

Maybe that seems tangential, but the point is this: THE DETROIT TIGERS WILL WIN THE 2008 WORLD SERIES. And that's a fact.

Bad Breakup

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:40:25 GMT

I'm so tired of hack writers comparing everything to relationships or girls. Especially with respect to sports. It's always something like "Drafting Plaxico Burress on your fantasy football team is like dating a really hot but crazy chick; yeah she's super hot, but most of the time you're scared to death she's going to screw you over," or "Being a Knicks fan is like having an anorexic girlfriend," or "Matt Millen is a dirty whore." Blah blah blah. It's tired. But I guess this is my fair warning, because here comes another analogy. And I guess I'm hoping that by acknowledging that my approach may be trite and hackneyed, that my post will somehow become un-trite and un-hackneyed. Unlikely, but at least I tried.

But look. On many levels, following a sports team passionately is a lot like having a relationship. You give a lot of your time and effort to it, you start a lot of sentences with the words "I love...", you get mad for irrational reasons and you see the best in your team even though nobody else does. Maybe it's delusional, mostly the part where we feel like the team ever gives anything back to us, but then hey, maybe love is too.

But the thing that I think is different between real relationships and the love affairs people have with their teams is the serious commitment people put into their teams. In love, people break up, get divorced, or run away with their secretary all the time. In sports, you rarely see a fan abandon his team for another team (and if they do, they are disparaged as horrible people who don't deserve to live).

I have, within the framework of each major sport (MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, college football, college basketball), been devoutly monogamous to each of my hometown teams (Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Lions, Wolverines) for over 20 years. Okay, yeah, maybe I flirted a bit with Spartan basketball, but U-M basketball and I are "on a break"...and that's something that U-M basketball wanted, not me. And bottom line, U-M basketball is still first in my heart, no matter how many other guys she sleeps with. But I'm writing now because I've decided that after all this time, it's time for a break-up, a real, permanent break-up. It's time to break up with the Detroit Lions.

Just to be clear, this isn't one of those amicable break-ups, where both people realize that they don't love each other anymore, or that it's time to move on. This isn't something where lovers remain friends. No. This is one of those nasty breakups. This is one of those breakups where you absolutely loathe the other person. This is one of those breakups where you yell and scream and cry and yell and fight and bite and punch and defecate on the other persons porch. This is one of those breakups when you want them to die.

I hate the Lions. I hate them. I want them to lose next week. I want them to lose the week after. I want them to get a top draft pick in the 2008 draft and use their #1 pick to acquire another wide receiver who then gets injured and never plays football again. I want Jon Kitna to guarantee 10 wins again next year and then lose 16. I want Ford Field to burn to the ground. I want every Lions ticket holder to boycott every single game. I want the Lions to be the butt of every bad joke, every easy punchline, of every sportscaster on all the tv sets in all the world. I want them to live miserably and die miserably. I want them to suffer as much as I have suffered, then a thousand times more.

I was extremely apathetic about the Lions' hot start this year (see my post below). But a couple of weeks ago, something in me just snapped. This is the end of the road. We're done. We're through. Die a painful death. Die. Die. Die.

HOT HOT HOT STOVE

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:26:54 GMT

GO TIGERS!

Well, I haven't received this many calls / emails at once about the Tigers since Magglio hit that walk-off in October 2006. (Pause. Sigh. Tear. Okay.) What a trade! Earlier in the day, I was actually angered by potential talk of making Miller and Maybin available. Specifically, the rumor I heard first was Miller and Maybin for Erik Bedard of the Orioles. I thought that was too much to give up. But when I heard of the deal that did go through, Miller and Maybin and a grab bag of players for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, my first reaction was shock. I had, over the past couple of years, grown seriously attached to our high-ceiling prospects. But as this deal grew on me, I am thinking that mere potential pales in comparison to potential that has already been realized. Especially when that potential has been manifested in a player like Cabrera, who is already considered one of the top 5 hitters in the game, and is only 24 years old. Twenty-four!

Dontrelle I am not so psyched about; he is a big risk. Only 25, but it appears his best years are behind him already. Maybe he can become rejuvenated, but even during his near-Cy Young season (2005), I thought he was severely overrated. But as the secondary acquisition in this trade, I'll take him, and he gives us more depth in our rotation.

But seriously, what is the deal with all of the Marlins that Tigers GM (former Marlins GM) Dave Dombrowski is collecting on the team? Sheffield, Renteria and, of course, Leyland were all on the 1997 World Series "champion" Marlins team. Willis, Cabrera and Pudge were on the 2003 World Series "champion" Marlins team. Not to mention, Todd Jones and Nate Robertson came to us from the Marlins as well. Ridikkulus!

Now the Tigers gave up a TON in this deal, but I think most people are agreed that hey, you have to give up a lot to get alot. I can't believe this is the same team that lost 119 games in 2003. Well, it's not the same team...if the Tigers now trade Brandon Inge, there will be no remaining position players from that terrible '03 squad...

Let's take a look at this formidable lineup and how it was built by Dombrowski (and of course, a big hand goes to owner Mike Ilitch, who again is showing that he will spend what it takes to build a winner, just as he did for the Wings. Fans who doubted Mr. Ilitch's commitment to winning in the late 90's and up until 2004 should be ashamed of themselves; there's just no trust anymore. Mr. Ilitch made the mistake of making some very poor personnel decisions, particularly at the GM positions, but once he hired DD, I didn't doubt at all that Ilitch would start spending again once we had a shot at winning, even though the payroll was drastically reduced in 2003. Have some faith people! Anyone who bashed Ilitch should not be allowed to be a Tigers or Wings fan. And seriously, in a town that has to put up with the Fords and a country that has to put up with the Bushes, you'd think that people would realize what a GOOD owner / manager looks like? Alas...that's not how it works...):

1. Curtis Granderson - Center Field
Credentials: 2007 - .302/.361/.552, 122 R (3rd in AL), 38 2B, 23 3B (1st in MLB), 23 HR, 26 SB, Third player in history with 20/20/20/20, Finished 10th in AL MVP voting.
Acquired: Drafted by Tigers in 2002 draft, 3rd round.

2. Placido Polanco - Second Base
Credentials: 2007 - .341 BA (3rd in AL), 105 R, AL All-Star Game Starter, AL Silver Slugger Award, AL Gold Glove Award, Finished 19th in AL MVP voting. 2006 - ALCS MVP.
Acquired: Traded from Phillies mid-season 2005 for Ugueth Urbina.

3. Gary Sheffield - Designated Hitter
Credentials: 2007 - .307/.410/.560, 21 HR, 78 R, 52 RBI in 1st half last year before slowed by shoulder injury in 2nd half; still finished with 107 R, 22 SB, and 84 walks against only 71 strikeouts.
Acquired: Traded from Yankees in 2006/2007 offseason for Humberto Sanchez, Kevin Whelan, Anthony Claggett

4. Magglio Ordonez - Right Field
Credentials: 2007 - AL Batting Champion (.363), 1.029 OPS, 54 2B (1st in MLB), 28 HR, 139 RBI (2nd in MLB), AL Silver Slugger, Finished 2nd in AL MVP voting.
Acquired: Signed as free agent from White Sox in 2004/2005 offseason.

5. Miguel Cabrera - Third Base
Credentials: 2007 - .320/.401/.565, 91 R, 34 HR, 119 RBI, Finished 15th in NL MVP voting. 2006 - 5th in NL MVP voting.
Acquired: Traded along with Dontrelle Willis from Marlins yesterday for Andrew Miller, Cameron Maybin, four others.

6. Carlos Guillen - First Base
Credentials: 2007 - .296/.357/.502, 21 HR, 102 RBI, AL All-Star Team. 2006 - .318, 100 R, 19 HR, 85 RBI, 10th in AL MVP voting, Detroit Tigers Player of the Year.
Acquired: Traded from Seattle Mariners in 2003/2004 offseason for Ramon Santiago, Juan Gonzalez (pitcher).

7. Edgar Renteria - Shortstop
Credentials: Four-time All-Star, Two-time Gold Glove winner. 2007 - .332/.390/.470, 87 R, 12 HR, 57 RBI in 124 games.
Acquired: Traded from Braves in October for Jair Jurrjens and Gorkys Hernandez.

8. Ivan Rodriguez - Catcher
Credentials: First ballot Hall of Famer, 14-time All-Star, 13-time Gold Glove winner, 1999 AL MVP. 2007 - .281 average, 31 2B, 63 RBI.
Acquired: Signed as free agent from Marlins in 2003/2004 offseason.

9. Jacque Jones / Marcus Thames / Brandon Inge - Left Field / Utility
Credentials: Hit 27 HRs in 2006 / Hit 26 HRs in 2006 / Hit 27 HRs in 2006
Acquired: Traded from Cubs this offseason for Omar Infante / Signed as minor league free agent in 2003/2004 offseason / Drafted by Tigers in 1998, 2nd round.

That is one ridiculous lineup. The rotation is good too. Not as crazy scary as the lineup, but still pretty good:

1. Justin Verlander - RHP
Credentials: 2007 - 18-6, 3.66 ERA, 183 Ks, fifth in Cy Young voting (tie), no-hitter.
Acquired: Drafted by Tigers in 2004 draft, 1st round.

2. Kenny Rogers - LHP
Credentials: 210 career wins, 5 Gold Glove awards. Injured for much of 2007, went 3-4, 4.43 ERA. Fifth in Cy Young award voting in 2006, started 2006 All-Star game for AL, went 3-0, 0.00 ERA, 23 IP, 19 K in 2006 postseason.
Acquired: Signed as free agent from Rangers in 2005/2006 offseason.

3. Jeremy Bonderman - RHP
Credentials: 9-1, 3.48 ERA, 98 Ks in first half of 2007; appeared to be hampered by elbow injury during second half and pitched poorly. Full recovery expected by spring training. 14-8, 4.08, 202 Ks in 2006.
Acquired: Traded from Oakland, along with Carlos Pena and Franklyn German, in three team trade including Yankees, for Jeff Weaver.

4. Dontrelle Willis - LHP
Credentials: Started 2007 5-1 but struggled the entire year, still managing to pitch 200+ innings for third consecutive year. Cy Young award runner-up in 2005 after 22-10, 2.63 ERA season.
Acquired: Traded along with Miguel Cabrera from Marlins yesterday for Andrew Miller, Cameron Maybin, four others.

5. Nate Robertson - LHP
Credentials: Expected to break out in 2007 after lowering ERA in each of four previous seasons, but struggled for reasons unknown. Posted career-best 13 wins and 3.84 ERA in 2006.
Acquired: Traded from Florida in 2002/2003 offseason as part of Mark Redman deal.

The reason I list the "Acquired" section for each player listed above is to show that this team was built shrewdly. None of the players given away in trades have yet become a star player. The most successful player has been Jeff Weaver, and that's not a lot of success at all, especially considering the package we got for him.

If anything, the only questionable moves have been to let certain players just walk away, such as the 2007 comeback players of the year, Carlos Pena and Dmitri Young. Either of these players would have definitely contributed last year. There is talk now of letting Chris Shelton go, and I think it's a mistake at this point.

Oh my god, I love the Tigers. After all these years of suffering, after nineteen years of just pure misery, I can't believe that this is what I am being treated to. I mean, seriously...

The BCS Mess Part II

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:50:10 GMT

Nearly 4 years ago on this site, I wrote about how the BCS should be fixed (changing the BCS system to a simple average of the two polls, using computers only to break a tie). They didn't enact my exact plan, but close enough that the system works a lot better than it did then.

But after this season of ups and downs in college football, it's clear there is no way to isolate only two teams that should play for the national championship. And more and more, I'm getting on board with a playoff system. I always thought that a limited playoff would be best, like four teams, to preserve the prestige of the bowls and the integrity of regular season games.

Now, I think an eight team playoff would work, because it uses the system we already have in place, which are the four major bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta). You use those four bowls as the first round matchups (on or around Jan. 1), then a week later, have the semi-final matchups (use two of the above four locations), then another week later, have the BCS Championship game (using one of the remaining locations).

Participants in the eight team playoff would be the champions of the six major conferences (Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12, ACC, SEC) plus two at-large or "wildcard" teams. You could keep very similar rules to determining at-large participants to the BCS bowl games, but with less room to maneuver with only two at-large spots, as opposed to four.
    - A non-BCS conference team (e.g. Boise State, Hawaii) would gain an at-large bid by finishing in the top 10 in the BCS rankings.
    - No conference may have more than two schools in the playoff.
    - Notre Dame gets an automatic bid if it finishes in the top 8.
    - Applying the above rules first, you would then choose the teams who did not win their conference but are ranked highest in the polls.
    - Seeding will be based on the BCS standings, and matchups will be determined by seeding except that conference affiliations with a specific bowl will take precedence. The Big Ten champ will always play the Pac-10 champ in the Rose Bowl, the SEC champ will always go to Sugar Bowl, the Big 12 champ to Fiesta bowl and ACC champ to Orange bowl.

I know the Notre Dame rule makes no sense, but that's how the rules are now. It's not ideal, but I'm just trying to appease the most people here. Most of the rules above are the same or slight modifications to existing BCS bowl selection rules, but the last rule is one I added and I think it's important. While the BCS bowls may lose a little luster by being only "quarterfinals" of the real championship, they gain I think by preserving their conference affiliations. Instead of the Rose Bowl going out of their way to choose Illinois this year (seriously, what???) they can have their Big Ten / Pac 10 matchup every single year, just like they want.

Using the above rules, this season's bowl season would look something like this:

Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #7 USC
Sugar Bowl: #2 LSU vs. #10 Hawaii
Orange Bowl: #3 Virginia Tech vs. #9 West Virginia
Fiesta Bowl: #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia

Second round, you would reseed the matchups, highest remaining ranking against lowest remaining ranking and so forth.

Now is this not a few weeks of some fantastic football? Now even, with eight teams in the playoff, you're going to have a few teams complaining. Under this scenario, it would be primarily #6 Mizzou and #8 Kansas. But you know what? This is a playoff to determine the national champion! Mizzou lost TWICE to Oklahoma, so I'm pretty sure they're #2 at best. So forget them. And Kansas' schedule is a joke; if they didn't play such a sorry schedule then they wouldn't be ranked #8 in the first place; it's their own fault.

The problem, though, is that with so few at-large spots, I'm not sure it's fair to give automatic bids to every league champion. So I would also include another rule (I don't know if this would ever fly, but this is just my idea) that would prevent any conference champion ranked lower than #12 from competing in the playoff. We'll call this the "Big East Rule".

Of course, if people wanted to add more at-large teams to this down the line, we can have "play-in" games for the at-large spots, which would take place the second week in January. That could theoretically increase the number of teams in the playoff to ten. But that's just an option. And then you'd be adding too many games; with the above plan, you just add the two additional semifinal games, and that way, the other lesser bowls don't complain too much that no one is going to watch their games. By only adding two additional games, lesser bowl games won't become like the NIT, i.e. a ridiculous waste of time, but can remain nice rewards for solid but unspectacular seasons.

Bottom line, I think the format outlined above does the best job of balancing tradition, the interests of the conferences (major and mid-major), the schools, the major bowls, the minor bowls and producing some crazy entertaining games. Please copy and paste the above text and send in an email to your local sportswriter, football coach or celebrity spokesperson. Thanks.

----

As a postscript, let's see what last year would have looked like under this system:

Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #5 USC
Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #8 Boise State
Fiesta Bowl: #10 Oklahoma vs. #4 LSU
Orange Bowl: #3 Michigan vs. #6 Louisville
*ACC Champ Wake Forest (#14) did not qualify for the playoff under the Big East Rule.

Wow. That's crazy awesome entertaining too.

Lions Blow

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:15:55 GMT

The Lions freaking blow.

Everyone got all excited for some reason this year because the Lions started 6-2. 6-2...whooopeee! Big deal. Even when they were 6-2, I was telling everyone that would listen (not that many people) that they still wouldn't finish with a winning record, probably 6-10, maybe 7-9 if they're lucky. And most people were like, "pshaw, don't be such a grouch, they're your team, why do you have to be so negative...after all these years of suffering, can't you let Lions fans have a little hope?" But any hope that a fan can muster from this pathetic team is false hope; it's a lie you tell yourself so you can sleep better at night.

Now the wheels are falling off on this team. They've lost three straight, are now 6-5, and still have the following games ahead:
Week 13: @Vikings (I give the Lions a 25% chance of winning this game; it would be 50% at home, but since it's on the road it gets cut in half because the Lions suck even more on the road than they do at home)
Week 14: vs.Cowboys (0% chance of winning)
Week 15: @Chargers (10% chance)
Week 16: vs.Chiefs (depends on prior games; if the Lions win any of the above games, I give them a 50% chance to beat the Chiefs; if they lose all the above games, that means they will enter this game with a 6-8 record and a 6 game losing streak, in which case I would give them a 10% chance to win, because the Lions are a bunch of quitters, and once they start to lose they'll keep losing because they are losers)
Week 17: @Packers (normally, I would give Lions a 0% chance of winning a winter game in Green Bay, since they handle tough weather like little old ladies driving 7 miles an hour on the freeway, but since there's a possibility that the Packers will have already sewn up their playoff position at this point and playing for nothing and thus resting Favre and the rest of their starters, I'll give the Lions a 10% chance of winning this game)

Based on those relatively generous predictions, there's more than a 50% chance the Lions don't win any more games and finish 6-10 and less than a 3% chance that they end up with a winning record. See breakdown below:
11-5: 0% chance
10-6: 0.125%
9-7: 2.75%
8-8: 16.8%
7-9: 25.65%
6-10: 54.675%

The above figures are totally accurate. If by some miracle the Lions buck the odds and finish at .500 or better, it still doesn't mean they're good; it just means that they got lucky, like hitting a two-outer on the river in poker. Hey, sometimes it happens.

Even if the Lions somehow make the playoffs by some miracle, they will be destroyed. They have no chance at all of even getting to the Super Bowl, not to mention winning it. This team sucks this year, and next year they will suck again. They will continue to suck mostly because 1.) Matt Millen is the most inept executive in all of sports, even worse than Isiah, and it's not even close; 2.) the Ford family are idiots who don't know how to run a football franchise and have even less of an idea how to run an automobile company; and 3.) the uniforms suck. On point 3, why did they have add black to the uniform? I mean seriously...look, I think the black jerseys look okay. But when you have black trim on the regular jerseys it just looks weird, like some bad outline effect or something. And why go with the black alternate at all? This is just perpetuating the whole "black is bad" notion in uniforms that was already passe ten years ago. The Lions classic jerseys (no white, no black, just blue and silver) look the best; I know it, everyone knows it except the freaking Lions bureaucracy. What a bunch of idiots.

Did you know that only six NFL teams have never appeared in the Super Bowl? They are the Texans, the Jaguars, the Saints, the Browns, the Cardinals and, of course, the Lions. The sad thing is, all of the other teams have good excuses for not going: the Texans and Jags are recent expansion teams and haven't been around for very long; the Saints were an expansion team during the year of Super Bowl I, and followed the rule that should apply to all expansion teams, which is to suck for at least 10 years; the Browns CEASED TO EXIST for about 5 years; and the Cardinals moved from St. Louis to Arizona in 1987 and took awhile to adjust (and really who cares if they suck; this is a team that used to be called the St. Louis Cardinals. I freaking hate the Redbirds.) In fact, the Lions are the only team of this list that existed in its current incarnation and location during Super Bowl I (except for the Saints, who were brand spanking new).

The Lions are the worst run, least successful franchise in all of sports. This team doesn't deserve to win. They should lose, lose and lose forever, until the necessary changes are made that can give the city of Detroit a team it can be proud of. Until then, no matter how much false hope the team might seem to radiate, it is simply a mirage. This team is a disgrace to the game of football and to all of humanity.

Trivia Question: When was the last time that the Detroit Lions finished a season with a better winning percentage than the Michigan Wolverines football team?

Answer: 1967, when the Wolverines finished 4-6 (.400) and the Lions finished 5-7-2 (.417, assuming you don't count ties in the calculation). Um yeah, it's been FORTY years. The Lions suck forever. Go Blue.

2007 Playoffs

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:08:49 GMT

Blah blah blah let's just get into it...

- I still despise expansion teams. This year, that means Colorado and Arizona. In a sport where tradition and history and continuity means more than in any other sport, you have these upstart teams doing everything they can to ruin it. Colorado has been apparently trying to prove that they are the baddest team in town by excessively wearing their black tops. They look freaking terrible. They look like batting practice jerseys, like a minor league team. They are wearing black vests with white piping on the armholes with black shirts underneath. Who thinks this looks good? It looks awful. They are ruining the game. Your home jerseys are supposed to be WHITE, freaking wear them. Your road jerseys are supposed to be GRAY, freaking wear those. You can't wear black at home and black on the road. And if you think you look cool in black like Johnny Cash, realize that you are wearing a black hat with a PURPLE bill to top off that horrific ensemble. I can't say enough about this.

- The National League sucks. They freaking suck. People say blah blah blah, the Cardinals won the World Series in 2006. Sure they did. But they weren't a better team than the Tigers, and for that matter, they weren't even a GOOD team. I have said this before and I will say this until the day I die, the 2006 Cardinals were the worst world series "champions" in history. The fact that they won is an absolute travesty. It was luck, pure and simple. Furthermore, this year, every single AL playoff team had a better record than the best team in the NL, the Diamondbacks. And that gap is even more pronounced because AL teams were playing other AL teams all year long. Far superior competition. The Diamondbacks, on the other hand, were OUTSCORED this year, that's right, they had more runs scored on them than they scored all year. And that somehow translates to home field advantage? Are you kidding me? That team absolutely blows.

- More on the Diamondbacks: their home jerseys, for example, don't say "Diamondbacks" on the front. They say "D-backs". D-BACKS! D-BAGS!! I mean, what kind of a team parades around in jerseys that look like total crap (these new jerseys, by the way, are a complete rip-off of the Astros' redesign of a few years ago) and call themselves the DOUCHEBAGS???? Only a bunch of collective douchebags. This team is so bad offensively that Tony Clark plays a significant role for this team. Tony Clark, who was released by a 119 loss Tigers team. The NL is freaking horrendous.

- I may seem to be fixating on the jerseys, but you know what, a team that looks good deserves to win. A team that looks like crap looks like a bunch of minor league hacks, and it's just not good for the game. Good jerseys: Yankees, BoSox, Cleveland, Cubs, Phillies. Mediocre jerseys: Angels, Colorado (normal). Douchebag jerseys: Arizona. Garbage bag jerseys: Colorado in black.

- That said, here are my picks: Boston over Anaheim, Cleveland over New York, Cubs over D-Bags, Philly over Rox. Of course, since the last 12 months have pretty much been the most painful 12 months of my life in terms of sports, the opposite will most likely happen, and we'll see the freaking Yankees facing the Douchebags or the Rockies in the World Series. Which would really really blow in and of itself, but in that particular situation, I would probably have little choice but to root for the Yankees to win, since I value justice over spite. But making that choice would sort of be like choosing which deadly epidemic I would root for to eradicate all sentient beings from the face of the earth. Fun.

- The only expansion team that knows what it is doing are the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Look, they are named like a minor league team, look like a minor league team, play in a minor league stadium and play ball like a minor league team. They know their place. The Rockies, Marlins and D-backs need to learn their place. They need to follow the Tampa Bay model and suck for at least 20 straight years before making the playoffs. I despise these teams.

- I also despise the Twins and the Cardinals for different reasons. It's not about being bitter, I would totally respect these teams if they were good teams and deserved their respective '87 and '06 championships. But they don't because they were crap teams. And for all time everything associated with these two teams is deserving of my unabashed hatred.

- I hate the Yankees. I don't need to explain this.

- The Lions are 3-1 but they still suck.

- Now you may be thinking, "That's a lot of hate." But I believe in equal and opposite actions and reactions. I respect the yin and the yang. And all of this hate, all of this vituperation, all of this negative emotion is totally and utterly washed out by my love for the Detroit Tigers. That love is glorious and unconditional, and will shine on like a lighthouse beacon piercing the foggy night for all eternity, until the mountains turn into gouda and the oceans turn into minestrone. TIGERS RULE.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:09:51 GMT

My secretary sent me this message:

-----------------------------
Subject: Message
Your friend Optamus Pran called sorry if the spelling is incorrect.

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

....My friends are idiots.

Barry

Sun, 13 May 2007 17:04:21 GMT

I am deeply uncomfortable when I see Barry Bonds playing in front of a hostile crowd away from home. It's understandable why he is unpopular. It appears that he took steroids. He is a huge prima donna, notoriously surly and probably not that nice of a guy. Fine. But none of that explains the absolute rancor with which he is often greeted. It's not the boos that make me uneasy; it's the magnitude of the vehemence that is spewed at him by fans, who are, in most cases, white.

I'm not saying that every person who doesn't like Barry Bonds is a racist. But to say that the public reaction to him has nothing to do with race is being stupidly optimistic. It's all about race. If this were a white guy trying to break Aaron's record under a cloud of steroid allegations, if this were Mark McGwire (who, by most accounts, was not exactly the nicest guy either; he wouldn't sign autographs for kids unless they called him "Mr. McGwire"), sure, he'd get booed. Sure, he'd be unpopular. But would the attacks on him by the media and by fans be as poisonous? I really don't think so.

In my mind, there are some interesting parallels between Barry and O.J. Simpson. Both black sports stars, accused of doing something reprehensible which, in all probability, he probably did. And as before, certain white people (or, more fairly, non-black Americans) will absolutely deny that public sentiments have anything to do with race. I don't think some of these people realize how deep rooted their own biases run; the worst thing is that they aren't self-aware to the point that they can realize that their own emotions are arising out of certain latent prejudices.

The difference is that Barry Bonds didn't murder anyone. Even if you assume all the allegations are true, he is guilty of taking a performance enhancing drug, which 1.) baseball was deliberately turning a blind eye to at the time, 2.) a preponderance of other players were also taking, and 3.) he is no longer taking now, and still performing at an elite level. He was taking every advantage he could, borderline legitimate or not, to gain an edge in his chosen profession. It was a stupid mistake. It's dishonorable to the game of baseball. But I don't think it's that much different from lying on a resume or cheating on a test in high school. (Neither of which I have ever done or would condone in any way, by the way. But I'm sure that you probably have a friend or two who has.)

Bottom line, Barry Bonds is, steroids or not, a once in a generation athlete. He has been flirting with greatness, something magnificent that goes beyond stardom. His achievements have been diminished, sadly, by these allegations, and if they are true, then deservedly so. And what I feel is disappointment, a pang of regret on his behalf. His life has all the elements of Shakespearean tragedy. And I can understand if some people feel deceived, if they feel a twinge of anger. But when those feelings turn to self-righteous indignation, when distaste turns to loathing, one has to stop and wonder exactly what additional ingredient is feeding that flame of revulsion. Smells like racial bias to me.

It's Almost April...

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:31:01 GMT

March Madness has begun, and since Michigan basketball is terrible and undeserving of love, the tourney means only one thing...once the tourney is over, baseball can begin!

If you'll notice, after a flurry of posting activity in the fall of 2006, I spent much of November in denial, anger and deep sadness. It's not that the Tigers went to the World Series and lost, because they had a great run with some great postseason moments. It's that the Tigers went to the World Series...and LOST to the WORST WORLD SERIES CHAMPION IN HISTORY.

This is not exaggeration, this is based on empirical evidence, statistics and observation. Based on wins, the 2006 Cards have the least amount of wins of ANY champ in history. Do you know what makes this even worse? Do you know who the SECOND WORST World Series was? The 1987 Minnesota Twins, who beat the Tigers in the ALCS that year. ('06 Cards: 83 crappy wins, 78 deserving losses. '87 Twins: 85 crappy wins, 77 deserving losses.)

So basically, I have watched my beloved Tigers go to the postseason exactly twice in my entire life...and both times they lose to teams SO INFERIOR that those two teams are the TWO WORST WORLD SERIES CHAMPS IN ALL OF ETERNITY. Is there ANY QUESTION as to why this PISSES ME OFF? You've got to be FREAKING KIDDING ME.

I've been upset for NINETEEN YEARS about 1987 because we lost to an INFERIOR TEAM. We were the best team in the majors that year. And so what do the Tigers do? They go to the World Series finally and lose to an EVEN WORSE TEAM. The Cards are the WORST WORLD SERIES CHAMPION SINCE THE DAWN OF THE UNIVERSE.

I give the Cards no respect. They did not win the World Series. The Tigers BLEW IT. They committed stupid errors and forgot how to hit against CRAPPY PITCHING and BLEW IT. The Cards have two and a half good players; everyone else is TOTAL CRAP. WHAT A GOD AWFUL TEAM; WHAT A TRAVESTY; WHAT AN ENDLESS NIGHTMARE I AM LIVING IN THAT WILL NEVER END BECAUSE I CAN'T TURN BACK TIME AND MAKE THINGS RIGHT, MAKE THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, AND EVEN GOD KNOWS THAT SOMETHING WENT HORRIBLY HORRIBLY WRONG THAT MEDIOCRITY SHOULD BE GLORIFIED OVER THAT WHICH IS BEAUTIFUL AND WORTHY.

*sigh*...

Anyways...

2007 Projected Lineup:
1. CF Curtis Granderson
2. 2B Placido Polanco
3. DH Gary Sheffield
4. RF Magglio Ordonez
5. SS Carlos Guillen
6. C Ivan Rodriguez
7. 1B Sean Casey
8. LF Craig Monroe
9. 3B Brandon Inge

2007 Projected Rotation:
1. LHP Kenny Rogers
2. RHP Jeremy Bonderman
3. LHP Nate Robertson
4. RHP Justin Verlander
5. LHP Mike Maroth

2007 Bullpen:
Setup: Zumaya, Mesa, Rodney
Closer: Todd Jones

Players I think will improve in 2007: Granderson, Sheffield, Casey, Bonderman, Robertson.
-I see Granderson as still having huge upside, and everyone seems to fixate on the fact that he led the AL in strikeouts last year. But he still had a decent amount of walks and as long as he continues to draw walks, who really cares about strikeouts? Potential for a huge huge year.
-Sheffield was a big acquisition for us, and reports are that his wrist is healed. He is exactly the kind of hitter we needed, and he will make a HUGE impact on offense if he can stay healthy all year. At the time of the deal (Humberto Sanchez and two live arms) I thought we gave up too much, but sometimes it's okay to pay alot when what you get is high quality.
-Casey seems very happy in Detroit and he had a big postseason performance last year. I think he will hit.
-Bonderman and Verlander have the two highest ceilings on the starting staff, and I see Bonderman as much more likely of getting there. Verlander could either take a huge step forward this year, or struggle with his command and completely collapse. It's a toss up, and I would be hesitant to bet on either. Bondo is going to break out big one of these years; it might not be this year but I hope it is. He has security with his new contract, and he may be the type of personality to pitch better with the contract in place as opposed to during a contract expiration year.
-Robertson flew under the radar last year, but Kenny Rogers started the All-Star game and at the time of the game, Robertson had better numbers in every significant pitching category than Rogers, except wins. He's also dropped his ERA three years straight. One of these years, the luck has to turn around and he's going to rack up 15-19 wins. And as one of the only Tigers to make their offseason home in Metro Detroit, he is definitely likable.

Players I think will decline in 2007: Rogers, Maroth, Rodriguez.
- Kenny has been going at it strong and it almost seems like he is improving. I really hope he can still be effective but you've got to think his supernatural postseason effort took something out of him. I really hope I'm wrong, but I don't see him winning 17 this year, but I'd be very happy with something around 13 or 14 wins from the 42-year old.
-Maroth has the lowest ceiling of any Tigers starter. He started off hot last year before he got hurt, and as a long tenured Tiger, he is popular with fans. However, the more he pitches, the more his flaws are likely to be exposed. He's been living on the edge for too long; I will be surprised if he stays in the rotation the whole year. If he struggles, fans will turn on him, but I hope they don't, as he's still a good guy; it's just that people shouldn't expect too much from a guy with average stuff.
-Pudge is hitting the end of the line. Numbers are down every year, but defensively and in the clubhouse he is still a fine asset. And even at last year's numbers, considering how few good hitting catchers there are in the majors, he was an above average hitter. However, this is Pudge's free agent year, and I don't believe the Tigers should spend a lot of money to resign him. Who, then, should play catcher for 2008? I had an epiphany a week ago about this, and I really hope management comes up with the same solution, but Inge should move back to catcher. Remember when Pudge signed in '04, Inge was our starting catcher, and though not as acclaimed, Inge was a very very good defensive catcher. But he couldn't hit. Well, once Inge moved out from behind the plate, he started to hit. I believe he could be an elite defensive catcher, and if he continues to hit, I believe he would also become one of the best hitting catchers in the majors. Also, as there have been talks of Guillen being unable to cut it at short in the long term (not sure I agree, but he did have a ton of errors at short last season), third might be the ideal swtich for Guillen, a la Cal Ripken late in his career. Guillen did play some 3B when he was in Seattle, and he has the same big frame that seems more suited to third than short. I really think that this is a terrific idea and I hope Dave Dombrowski or Jim Leyland reads this, implements it, then takes credit for the idea as their own. I don't need credit; I just want results.

Other players...
-I don't know what happend to Chris Shelton last year. I still think he can be an elite hitter in the majors, but something happened to him mentally last year and now his plate approach is all jacked up. Stubbornness? Pride? Casey can hold down the fort for now, but I really thought Shelton was going to be the next big thing for us, the white Cecil Fielder of the 21st century. We shall see...
-I think Andrew Miller, our first round draft pick last year, could be really great. They already sent him to the minors, but if Maroth struggles, you could see Miller in the rotation by the end of the year. He might struggle at first, but his stuff is at the Bonderman/Verlander level, and he appears to have a high maturity level. The kid excites me.
-Every night I go to bed and I pray that when I wake up the Tigers will have cut Neifi Perez. Sometimes I dream about it happening and then I wake up to reality and I am so sad. I have never despised a player on my own team as much as I despise this "player." He is awful. If not for Neifi, we would have had the best record in the majors last year, I have no doubt about it. He's terrible; he's a "Cardinals" type player. In fact, he would probably start for them at second base. I HATE HIM.
-Jones was not as bad as people said last year. He had a rough start, and a couple shaky saves, but preseason prognosticators see him as one of the shakiest closers in the majors. I don't know what these guys are talking about; after the All-Star Break last year, Jones had a 1.80 ERA, 14 saves and 17 Ks in 30 IP. The Ks are a bit low, but he was pretty reliable.
-And while for awhile I was against Zumaya being the "closer-in-waiting," I see no problem with him in that role if we have enough starting pitching. It's just that, Zumaya was a starter all the way through the minors and I want to give him the chance for true greatness, not "reliever greatness." I guess we'll see. After Jones leaves, I think Rodney should close. Rodney flew so under the radar last year because of Zumaya's hype. But fact is, Zumaya still will have bouts of wildness, which is really detrimental to closers who have to come in in pressure situations. If Rogers leaves after this year, why not give Zumaya a shot in the rotation, a la Papelbon in Boston this year? A good starter is so much more valuable than a good reliever.

Overall
The biggest uncontrollable factor is injuries; no one can predict the magnitude and frequency of injuries a club will experience over the season. But given that the team more or less stays on the field all year, I see plenty of room for improvement to offset the inevitable backslide from some of last year's star performers. I don't see any reason why the Tigers won't win 90 games this year; the question is whether that will be enough this year in the AL Central, without a doubt the strongest division in baseball. Any of Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland could win it. I see us winning between 90 and 105, and finishing anywhere between 1st and 4th; it should be a very fun season. Only Kansas City doesn't have a chance in hell, but neither would St. Louis if they were in our division. They are both freaking terrible. The state of Missouri should be obliterated from the face of the earth.