Based on her newest single, "What the Hell". The lack of a question mark is hers, not mine. I read some Freud once, so I am totally qualified to do this. At least I'm as much of a doctor as this guy (Well, I can't find the video I want to go there. I'll give this an update when I do). Anyway, we're going to go through this song line by line. If you really don't like yourself and wish to hear it, here you are. And Avril, if you're reading this, I promise this will hurt me as much as it hurts you. If you're wondering why, click on that last link with the volume turned up. And now it begins.
You say that I'm messing with your head
Though we do not know the identity of the accuser here, we cannot completely dismiss their opinion of Avril's actions. And as people who are messing others around are often acting out some issues of their own, this is not a promising beginning.
All 'cause I was making out with your friend
Well Avril, you see, until very recently you were married (I, ummm, had to look that up. I swear). So, presuming the other in question is your ex, he would seem to have a legitimate complaint here.
Love hurts whether it's right or wrong
Clearly Avril is now trying to deflect the blame/guilt she feels for her make out session. "It's not my fault! It's love's fault!"
I can't stop 'cause I'm having too much fun
In Infinite Jest, 'too much fun' is used to describe self-demapping via an overdose of one's personal addictive substance of choice. Given the fact that she can't stop, it logically follows that Avril is planning suicide through excessive making out.
You're on your knees begging "Please stay with me"
Clearly Avril feels some anger towards her ex still, as she presents him as desperate to keep her around, even after she has confessed her suicidal plans and addiction to making out. Perhaps we should be psychoanalyzing him too. But anyway, their relationship being rather dysfunctional w/r/t ending might be due to the fact that he produced the majority of her new album after the divorce (See previous parenthetical). I'm sure that wasn't awkward at all.
But honestly I just need to be a little crazy!
Giving your problem a name is the first step, Avril. Good for you.
All my life I've been good, but now
Here Avril is claiming she is merely breaking the repressive societal bonds which have held her in check for the majority of her life, forcing her to adhere to a moral code she evidently does not believe in, though she still chooses to uphold it by giving it the designation of 'good'. Though considering she has been a famous music person/thing since her teens, I don't know how much we should believe this claim.
[Auto-tuned Tarzan howl]
OH DEAR GOD, WHAT IS THAT?!?
I'm thinking what the hell
Thinking? I doubt it.
All I want is to mess around
Good for you. You've identified a want. That's a baby step towards being human. You know what? I'm content with offering a diagnosis now, because reading these lyrics is beginning to affect my quality of life. Based on my incredible background in the science of the mind (Not to be confused with 'Virus of the Mind,' which was a (bad) song by Heather Nova), I can say that Avril Lavigne is very clearly suicidally depressed. This could be for one of several reasons, which I will now list numerically:
1. The recent failure of her marriage, coupled with spending significant amounts of time with her ex in the recording studio.
2. The fact that the hook someone wrote for her song is that Tarzan thing, because good lord does that sound terrible.
3. The fact that said Tarzan thing is very clearly auto-tuned, implying that she can't actually sing it.
4. The fact that she lives in a world where someone would even want her to sing that.
5. The fact that she clearly either has the emotional make-up of a confused 12-year old or
6. Is pretending to relate to confused 12-year olds expressly for the purpose of manipulating them into giving her money.
7. The Tarzan thing again.
My Recommendation: Kill it. Kill it with fire.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Mike Versus The Fine Arts, Part Deux: Avenge The Revengeful
I am a bit of a neophyte to this whole 'Theater' thing, having grown up much more on forms of art which featured the open destruction of instruments, which really didn't alter the tones they were producing all that much. For some reason this form of personal expression has never really seemed to gain the love of audiences everywhere, or even NEA grants, though it's hard to see how G.G. Allin is much different from Robert Mapplethorpe (Also, I cannot recommend google image searching (Yes, this is a verb now) those names. If you do, it's on you. I am just the messenger here). So, despite being the world's leading authority on most subjects, I am willing to admit that there are one or two people out there slightly more familiar with musical theater than I am. Your grandmother. Probably someone somehow involved in the production of Glee. John Hodgman. In fact, my background with musicals of any kind is mostly limited to a strong loathing of White Christmas, which definitely deserves it. So I am not necessarily the definitive voice to weigh in on this pressing issue, but as Hodgman has thus far remained silent, I must do the duty he is shirking, which is to say this: Renegade's performance of Parade is the best piece of musical theater I have ever seen.
This is not to say it is perfect. No, the only perfect piece of theater is my upcoming 9-act opera about dinosaurs with rocket launchers, which will (most likely literally) destroy all other plays. And mankind. But until some theater troupe finally gets the balls to put on THE GREATEST ACT MANKIND WILL EVER SEE, Parade can have top billing. Now, why am I telling you this right at the beginning of the blog post, you may be asking? Don't most great authors (Like Hemingway) save the climax of a piece (Dying in the rain) for the end of the work, hoping to keep up suspense among the readers (Clinically depressed/alcoholic English majors)? Probably. But here, I am hoping to set a (meta-)frame up for the rest of the piece. Because, you see, most art has flaws. Moby Dick had the cetology of whales. Bruce Springsteen had Hungry Heart. The Beatles had Paul McCartney. And Parade, while excellent, is not perfect. It has the chance to become more than it winds up being, and fails to take the extra step. So, lavish praise out of the way, let us now criticize.
(Note: I will probably (Unless I forget) be referring to characters by the first names of the actors portraying them both because I forgot my copy of the programme in the car, and because I am familiar with them primarily by first names due to the presence of The Official Girlfriend in the cast, even though most of them are not familiar with me. This will likely make me look like some sort of creepy stalker. But I'm not, as far as the police department knows.)
/puts on serious face
Parade is set in Atlanta in 1913, and framed with scenes featuring some battle imagery, which is pretty clearly symbolic, as Atlanta was either not involved in any armed conflicts that year, or was very sneaky about them if it was. This refers much more to a city that is still fighting a conflict that ended long ago, the Civil War. It has often been said by people in the North that the South never truly stopped fighting this war, carrying on a lingering resentment of the victors in the North, who were able to let it go because we're way better people than the Southerners. The main part of the play focuses on Jewish factory foreman Leo Frank, uncomfortably living far away from his home of Brooklyn. When a young girl dies in his factory, this resentment comes forth in a flood, the murder investigation becoming the excuse for an outpouring of long-smoldering anger. This is largely possible because the townsfolk do not see Frank as a person. Rather, he is an emissary, representative and veritable effigy of another , the hated North. And this is where the play has its greatest failure.
Leo's wife Jenna (Jena? Anyway, not the character's name) has been raised in Atlanta, and spent her whole life surrounded by the smoldering remnants of the war. She does not seem to be very close to Leo, who is clearly dismissive of Atlanta and its residents, and misses Brooklyn. But when the trial comes, she launches into a defense of her fairly-estranged husband, fighting with both those who seek to convict him and with Leo himself, who does not believe the help of someone he clearly views as inferior could be of value. Why? Because for her, the North has a human face.
It is easy to demonize a group of people. For example, from 2000 until 2008, it was clear to me that America was a bunch of ignorant Rednecks fully intent on running the country directly into the ground and picking fights with any nation who wouldn't grovel when we glanced in their direction. And yet, most everyone I met was really nice. When you meet the demon in person, it often turns out you share much more than you disagree on. This is how it is for Jenna. For her, the demon is a man. He is not The North, he is not the Jew. He is a man who goes to work every day to try to get ahead in life, like just about everyone else. She has been raised in this resentful atmosphere to the point where it must permeate her every pore, and yet for her the demon is a human. And as the first act rolls on, this internal conflict comes close to the forefront, but always pulls away just before it can truly be addressed. And when act 2 comes, the character has been completely neutered, and spends the rest of the play as The Good Wife, a character from whom all the interesting facets have been removed. There are not many characters out there who even have the chance to get close to the heights this one just misses, but it is a miss nonetheless. This pains me far more than any of the sad songs she sings.
The lesser place where the show misses the mark is with Andy's governor in Act 2, a man who is pursuing the truth while knowing it likely will lead to his political downfall (That he also helped cause the mess seems to be strangely unaddressed). This is a much more common sort of character conflict than that of Jenna in Act 1, and also a less rewarding one, but still not an opportunity to be treated as briefly as the script does, essentially referencing the situation for about 90 seconds before moving on, leaving this as another lost chance (Man, these both deal with internally conflicted characters. I must really sound like a Democrat right now (<--THIS IS WHY I'M NOT A POLITICAL SATIRIST)).
Now, these are more criticisms of the play itself, not the specific performance. This is because I know little of acting (Though I do know enough to know that Expectant Dads will be the greatest movie ever), and clearly much about writing, so most of what I have to say has focused on the area of my expertise. But there is one more point I am wholly unqualified to discuss, and that is the music. You see, it turns out musical theater often features music (Who knew?!). Parade is no exception to this apparently time-honored tradition. I suspect I am in the minority of the audience when I say that the songs did not really stick with me, but I also suspect I am in the minority when I go to a musical theater performance without really looking forward to the music part of the proceedings. I make no claims to being normal. There were two parts that stood out even to me, though. The first is a rather excellent drunken number performed by Andy in Act 1 as a reporter. The second, more lasting one is the decision to drop the musical accompaniment for the first couple bars of the closing refrain, with pretty much the entire cast on stage belting it out. This was an extremely striking moment, and thoroughly excellent, closing out the performance on a high note. And for a performance that hits the heights this one does, that note is a fitting way to remember it. When I think back on it, Jenna's character conflict in Act 1 brings to my mind nothing less than Dostoevsky's 'Grand Inquisitor' from The Brothers Karamazov. You're not getting praise much higher than that in these parts unless you figure out a way to reanimate DFW (No, not Dallas Fort Worth). Odds are if you're reading this you're related to me and live in Vermont, but if this is somehow not the case, get on down to Teatro Zuccone and watch a showing of Parade. And try the Two Hearted Ale. They go well together.
This is not to say it is perfect. No, the only perfect piece of theater is my upcoming 9-act opera about dinosaurs with rocket launchers, which will (most likely literally) destroy all other plays. And mankind. But until some theater troupe finally gets the balls to put on THE GREATEST ACT MANKIND WILL EVER SEE, Parade can have top billing. Now, why am I telling you this right at the beginning of the blog post, you may be asking? Don't most great authors (Like Hemingway) save the climax of a piece (Dying in the rain) for the end of the work, hoping to keep up suspense among the readers (Clinically depressed/alcoholic English majors)? Probably. But here, I am hoping to set a (meta-)frame up for the rest of the piece. Because, you see, most art has flaws. Moby Dick had the cetology of whales. Bruce Springsteen had Hungry Heart. The Beatles had Paul McCartney. And Parade, while excellent, is not perfect. It has the chance to become more than it winds up being, and fails to take the extra step. So, lavish praise out of the way, let us now criticize.
(Note: I will probably (Unless I forget) be referring to characters by the first names of the actors portraying them both because I forgot my copy of the programme in the car, and because I am familiar with them primarily by first names due to the presence of The Official Girlfriend in the cast, even though most of them are not familiar with me. This will likely make me look like some sort of creepy stalker. But I'm not, as far as the police department knows.)
/puts on serious face
Parade is set in Atlanta in 1913, and framed with scenes featuring some battle imagery, which is pretty clearly symbolic, as Atlanta was either not involved in any armed conflicts that year, or was very sneaky about them if it was. This refers much more to a city that is still fighting a conflict that ended long ago, the Civil War. It has often been said by people in the North that the South never truly stopped fighting this war, carrying on a lingering resentment of the victors in the North, who were able to let it go because we're way better people than the Southerners. The main part of the play focuses on Jewish factory foreman Leo Frank, uncomfortably living far away from his home of Brooklyn. When a young girl dies in his factory, this resentment comes forth in a flood, the murder investigation becoming the excuse for an outpouring of long-smoldering anger. This is largely possible because the townsfolk do not see Frank as a person. Rather, he is an emissary, representative and veritable effigy of another , the hated North. And this is where the play has its greatest failure.
Leo's wife Jenna (Jena? Anyway, not the character's name) has been raised in Atlanta, and spent her whole life surrounded by the smoldering remnants of the war. She does not seem to be very close to Leo, who is clearly dismissive of Atlanta and its residents, and misses Brooklyn. But when the trial comes, she launches into a defense of her fairly-estranged husband, fighting with both those who seek to convict him and with Leo himself, who does not believe the help of someone he clearly views as inferior could be of value. Why? Because for her, the North has a human face.
It is easy to demonize a group of people. For example, from 2000 until 2008, it was clear to me that America was a bunch of ignorant Rednecks fully intent on running the country directly into the ground and picking fights with any nation who wouldn't grovel when we glanced in their direction. And yet, most everyone I met was really nice. When you meet the demon in person, it often turns out you share much more than you disagree on. This is how it is for Jenna. For her, the demon is a man. He is not The North, he is not the Jew. He is a man who goes to work every day to try to get ahead in life, like just about everyone else. She has been raised in this resentful atmosphere to the point where it must permeate her every pore, and yet for her the demon is a human. And as the first act rolls on, this internal conflict comes close to the forefront, but always pulls away just before it can truly be addressed. And when act 2 comes, the character has been completely neutered, and spends the rest of the play as The Good Wife, a character from whom all the interesting facets have been removed. There are not many characters out there who even have the chance to get close to the heights this one just misses, but it is a miss nonetheless. This pains me far more than any of the sad songs she sings.
The lesser place where the show misses the mark is with Andy's governor in Act 2, a man who is pursuing the truth while knowing it likely will lead to his political downfall (That he also helped cause the mess seems to be strangely unaddressed). This is a much more common sort of character conflict than that of Jenna in Act 1, and also a less rewarding one, but still not an opportunity to be treated as briefly as the script does, essentially referencing the situation for about 90 seconds before moving on, leaving this as another lost chance (Man, these both deal with internally conflicted characters. I must really sound like a Democrat right now (<--THIS IS WHY I'M NOT A POLITICAL SATIRIST)).
Now, these are more criticisms of the play itself, not the specific performance. This is because I know little of acting (Though I do know enough to know that Expectant Dads will be the greatest movie ever), and clearly much about writing, so most of what I have to say has focused on the area of my expertise. But there is one more point I am wholly unqualified to discuss, and that is the music. You see, it turns out musical theater often features music (Who knew?!). Parade is no exception to this apparently time-honored tradition. I suspect I am in the minority of the audience when I say that the songs did not really stick with me, but I also suspect I am in the minority when I go to a musical theater performance without really looking forward to the music part of the proceedings. I make no claims to being normal. There were two parts that stood out even to me, though. The first is a rather excellent drunken number performed by Andy in Act 1 as a reporter. The second, more lasting one is the decision to drop the musical accompaniment for the first couple bars of the closing refrain, with pretty much the entire cast on stage belting it out. This was an extremely striking moment, and thoroughly excellent, closing out the performance on a high note. And for a performance that hits the heights this one does, that note is a fitting way to remember it. When I think back on it, Jenna's character conflict in Act 1 brings to my mind nothing less than Dostoevsky's 'Grand Inquisitor' from The Brothers Karamazov. You're not getting praise much higher than that in these parts unless you figure out a way to reanimate DFW (No, not Dallas Fort Worth). Odds are if you're reading this you're related to me and live in Vermont, but if this is somehow not the case, get on down to Teatro Zuccone and watch a showing of Parade. And try the Two Hearted Ale. They go well together.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Great Moments In Conversing With Dani While She's Half Asleep
Her: What time is it?
Me: Ten after seven.
Her: You've gotta get going soon.
Me (Looking at clock): Quarter after seven.
Her: Oh. You're okay then.
Me: Ten after seven.
Her: You've gotta get going soon.
Me (Looking at clock): Quarter after seven.
Her: Oh. You're okay then.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, December 24, 2010
VII: Another Chance
Voice-over: We'll be returning to our feature film in just a few short moments, but first, we'd like to take a moment to tell you about a product certain to replace Tickle Me Elmo and Canadian whiskey straight from the bottle as THE gift of the holiday season.
Man #1: Thanks Ed. Now, Brad, I don't know about you, but I often spend the weeks and months before Christmas standing in never-ending lines subsisting on pemmican waiting for the year's newest toy that my child absolutely needs to keep up the will to live, only to find out that they sold the last one to the woman in front of me in the line, and I get the feeling I'm not alone here. How often does this happen to you?
Man #2: Never, since I bought a gun.
Man #1: (Silence)
Man #2: Kidding! (Mouthing to camera: Not really kidding)
Man #1: I can see you, you know.
Man #2: Oh. Well Chad, now you'll never have to do that again, because we've got this holiday season's hottest gift right here, and you can get it shipped directly to your home for the low, low price of just 17 easy payments of $14.83!
Man #1: Wow! That is a low, low price! But enough about how good a deal this is, and it's certainly a good one. What's it for?
Man #2: I'm glad you asked. Chad, how often have you wanted to own your own dinosaur?
Man #1: Ever since I saw Jurassic Park!
Man #2: Are you mocking me? I can't tell. (Pause) Well, what if I told you we've got something even better than that. A dinosaur....
Man #1: Yes?
Man #2: With a rocket launcher!
Man #1: Wow! That sounds like such an amazing idea, I'm surprised Bill Gates hasn't already filed for a patent on it!
Man #2: Actually, he has. We took it (Mouthing to audience: The gun).
Man #1: Well, let's hope he doesn't press charges! But what kind of dinosaurs are we talking about here?
Man #2: With this introductory offer at the low, low price of just 14 easy payments of $19.85, we'll even let you pick the dinosaur!
V-O (Over shots of TOTALLY AWESOME dinosaurs with rocket launchers): That's right guys. You can get your very own rocket-wielding velociraptor! Or a Tyrannosaurus Rex! Or a brontosaurus with side-mounted missiles!
Man #1: What about my very own Maiosaurus?
Man #2: No, because that one's a pussy.
Man #1: (Sulks)
Man #2: Be the envy of what's left of your block! Get yourself a dinosaur with a rocket launcher today for just 182 easy payments of just $103.74! Heck, at that price get them for the whole family!
Man #1: I will, Chad! And I'm never standing in line again!
Man #2: Because your dinosaur will kill everyone in line?
Man #1: No, because people are going to order these to come in the mail. What is wrong with you?
V-O: So just call 1-900-AWESOME and don't check your monthly statements too closely! Satisfaction probable! We now return you to It's a Wonderful Life, already in progress.
Man #1: Thanks Ed. Now, Brad, I don't know about you, but I often spend the weeks and months before Christmas standing in never-ending lines subsisting on pemmican waiting for the year's newest toy that my child absolutely needs to keep up the will to live, only to find out that they sold the last one to the woman in front of me in the line, and I get the feeling I'm not alone here. How often does this happen to you?
Man #2: Never, since I bought a gun.
Man #1: (Silence)
Man #2: Kidding! (Mouthing to camera: Not really kidding)
Man #1: I can see you, you know.
Man #2: Oh. Well Chad, now you'll never have to do that again, because we've got this holiday season's hottest gift right here, and you can get it shipped directly to your home for the low, low price of just 17 easy payments of $14.83!
Man #1: Wow! That is a low, low price! But enough about how good a deal this is, and it's certainly a good one. What's it for?
Man #2: I'm glad you asked. Chad, how often have you wanted to own your own dinosaur?
Man #1: Ever since I saw Jurassic Park!
Man #2: Are you mocking me? I can't tell. (Pause) Well, what if I told you we've got something even better than that. A dinosaur....
Man #1: Yes?
Man #2: With a rocket launcher!
Man #1: Wow! That sounds like such an amazing idea, I'm surprised Bill Gates hasn't already filed for a patent on it!
Man #2: Actually, he has. We took it (Mouthing to audience: The gun).
Man #1: Well, let's hope he doesn't press charges! But what kind of dinosaurs are we talking about here?
Man #2: With this introductory offer at the low, low price of just 14 easy payments of $19.85, we'll even let you pick the dinosaur!
V-O (Over shots of TOTALLY AWESOME dinosaurs with rocket launchers): That's right guys. You can get your very own rocket-wielding velociraptor! Or a Tyrannosaurus Rex! Or a brontosaurus with side-mounted missiles!
Man #1: What about my very own Maiosaurus?
Man #2: No, because that one's a pussy.
Man #1: (Sulks)
Man #2: Be the envy of what's left of your block! Get yourself a dinosaur with a rocket launcher today for just 182 easy payments of just $103.74! Heck, at that price get them for the whole family!
Man #1: I will, Chad! And I'm never standing in line again!
Man #2: Because your dinosaur will kill everyone in line?
Man #1: No, because people are going to order these to come in the mail. What is wrong with you?
V-O: So just call 1-900-AWESOME and don't check your monthly statements too closely! Satisfaction probable! We now return you to It's a Wonderful Life, already in progress.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Sabathia-Hernandez Debate
It's AL Cy Young Day! Hoorays! Anyway, here's something I started a while back and forgot about, then revived before it becomes even less timely. Hopefully I caught all the tenses and things which needed changing now. Alright, here we go.
There's a spirited yelling match currently going on between the old-school writers who believe that the Cy Young award should be given to the grittiest player regardless of results (Because "You can't trust them statistics.") (Also: This player is David Eckstein. Even though he doesn't pitch) and the sabermetrics crowd, who want the award to go to whoever their Excel spreadsheet says it should (These caricatures are completely hackneyed by this point. Sorry for any groan-induced pains reading them may have caused). So, with bedlam gripping the nation as we wait to see who will finally be deemed the best by a small sample of the BBWAA in the voting this afternoon, I have decided to submit a completely unscientific entry that proves absolutely nothing to the discussion. You're welcome.
Most of the disagreement is coming from the 'Wins' statistic. Sabathia (Record of 21-7) led the league in wins, which, it should be noted, are technically something a team earns, rather than an individual player. Hernandez had a record of 13 wins and 12 losses. Which does not sound all that impressive. However, Sabathia also led the league in run support, the runs his offensive players, who he has no control over (Unless he is injecting them with steroids between innings), scored in his starts, whereas Hernandez finished dead last in this, as his teammates are still hoping that someday a coach will tell them which end of the bat they are supposed to hold. This may have had some slight impact on that 'Wins' statistic. So, to complicate things further, I am now going to match up game logs, and keep Sabathia's statistics from each game, but give him the run support Hernandez received in his corresponding start. To make things slightly tipped in Sabathia's favor (And balance out park effects, which are completely ignored here, a bit), it shall be assumed that all run support was scored while he was still in the game, and all relievers who followed him gave up no runs. Also, his runs allowed will be used rather than his earned runs, because, at the heart of it all, the concept of an 'earned' run is fairly convoluted and stupid. Either it scores or it doesn't. Anyway, there are many, many flaws in this method which prevent it from being a tool that is actually useful, but it seems like fun, so I'm going to do it. Basically, pitcher wins are a stupid stat, so I am using a fairly stupid method to point that out. Feel free to point out its flaws in the comments!
Format: Start #: Seattle Runs-Sabathia Runs Allowed, Decision (Pitcher record)
1: 5-5, ND (0-0)
2: 4-0, W (1-0)
3:11-1, W (2-0)
4: 4-4, ND (2-0)
5: 1-3, L (2-1)
6: 3-1, W (3-1)
7: 0-3, L (3-2)
8: 5-6, L (3-3)
9: 5-1, W (4-3)
10: 1-6, L (4-4)
11: 1-5, L (4-5)
12: 4-3, W (5-5)
13: 1-2, L (5-6)
14: 4-3, W (6-6)
15: 5-0, W (7-6)
16: 2-1, W (8-6)
17: 7-2, W (9-6)
18: 4-1, W (10-6)
19: 4-1, W (11-6)
20: 2-4, L (11-7)
21: 2-4, L (11-8)
22: 1-4, L (11-9)
23: 0-3, L (11-10)
24: 0-2, L (11-11)
25: 2-3, L (11-12)
26: 1-2, L (11-13)
27: 6-0, W (12-13)
28: 4-5, L (12-14)
29: 3-0, W (13-14)
30: 3-6, L (13-15)
31: 4-0, W (14-15)
32: 2-3, L (14-16)
33: 0-7, L (14-17)
34: 3-1, W (15-17)
So fictional CC Sabathia pitching for the Seattle Mariners with a perfect bullpen put up a 2010 record of 15-17, tying for the major league lead in losses. Now, this is an imperfect exercise, but it does nicely show how poor the reasoning behind voting for Sabathia this year is. Still have doubts? We can move onto some advanced statistics that matter immensely if you'd like. Hernandez led Sabathia in innings pitched, strikeouts, and runs allowed (Like, he gave up fewer runs). To vote for Sabathia, one has to announce to the world that the only statistic they care about is pitcher wins, and nothing else matters to them. Considering this is what mainstream media writers often like to accuse statistically-minded people of doing (If you sub in, say, VORP for pitcher wins), well, I find this rather amusing. Even though the writers who vote for Sabathia will never understand why.
There's a spirited yelling match currently going on between the old-school writers who believe that the Cy Young award should be given to the grittiest player regardless of results (Because "You can't trust them statistics.") (Also: This player is David Eckstein. Even though he doesn't pitch) and the sabermetrics crowd, who want the award to go to whoever their Excel spreadsheet says it should (These caricatures are completely hackneyed by this point. Sorry for any groan-induced pains reading them may have caused). So, with bedlam gripping the nation as we wait to see who will finally be deemed the best by a small sample of the BBWAA in the voting this afternoon, I have decided to submit a completely unscientific entry that proves absolutely nothing to the discussion. You're welcome.
Most of the disagreement is coming from the 'Wins' statistic. Sabathia (Record of 21-7) led the league in wins, which, it should be noted, are technically something a team earns, rather than an individual player. Hernandez had a record of 13 wins and 12 losses. Which does not sound all that impressive. However, Sabathia also led the league in run support, the runs his offensive players, who he has no control over (Unless he is injecting them with steroids between innings), scored in his starts, whereas Hernandez finished dead last in this, as his teammates are still hoping that someday a coach will tell them which end of the bat they are supposed to hold. This may have had some slight impact on that 'Wins' statistic. So, to complicate things further, I am now going to match up game logs, and keep Sabathia's statistics from each game, but give him the run support Hernandez received in his corresponding start. To make things slightly tipped in Sabathia's favor (And balance out park effects, which are completely ignored here, a bit), it shall be assumed that all run support was scored while he was still in the game, and all relievers who followed him gave up no runs. Also, his runs allowed will be used rather than his earned runs, because, at the heart of it all, the concept of an 'earned' run is fairly convoluted and stupid. Either it scores or it doesn't. Anyway, there are many, many flaws in this method which prevent it from being a tool that is actually useful, but it seems like fun, so I'm going to do it. Basically, pitcher wins are a stupid stat, so I am using a fairly stupid method to point that out. Feel free to point out its flaws in the comments!
Format: Start #: Seattle Runs-Sabathia Runs Allowed, Decision (Pitcher record)
1: 5-5, ND (0-0)
2: 4-0, W (1-0)
3:11-1, W (2-0)
4: 4-4, ND (2-0)
5: 1-3, L (2-1)
6: 3-1, W (3-1)
7: 0-3, L (3-2)
8: 5-6, L (3-3)
9: 5-1, W (4-3)
10: 1-6, L (4-4)
11: 1-5, L (4-5)
12: 4-3, W (5-5)
13: 1-2, L (5-6)
14: 4-3, W (6-6)
15: 5-0, W (7-6)
16: 2-1, W (8-6)
17: 7-2, W (9-6)
18: 4-1, W (10-6)
19: 4-1, W (11-6)
20: 2-4, L (11-7)
21: 2-4, L (11-8)
22: 1-4, L (11-9)
23: 0-3, L (11-10)
24: 0-2, L (11-11)
25: 2-3, L (11-12)
26: 1-2, L (11-13)
27: 6-0, W (12-13)
28: 4-5, L (12-14)
29: 3-0, W (13-14)
30: 3-6, L (13-15)
31: 4-0, W (14-15)
32: 2-3, L (14-16)
33: 0-7, L (14-17)
34: 3-1, W (15-17)
So fictional CC Sabathia pitching for the Seattle Mariners with a perfect bullpen put up a 2010 record of 15-17, tying for the major league lead in losses. Now, this is an imperfect exercise, but it does nicely show how poor the reasoning behind voting for Sabathia this year is. Still have doubts? We can move onto some advanced statistics that matter immensely if you'd like. Hernandez led Sabathia in innings pitched, strikeouts, and runs allowed (Like, he gave up fewer runs). To vote for Sabathia, one has to announce to the world that the only statistic they care about is pitcher wins, and nothing else matters to them. Considering this is what mainstream media writers often like to accuse statistically-minded people of doing (If you sub in, say, VORP for pitcher wins), well, I find this rather amusing. Even though the writers who vote for Sabathia will never understand why.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Marlins Strike! Wait, That's Too Dramatic.
The Florida Marlins are one of the most intelligently-run organizations in baseball. After winning two World Series championships in the last fifteen years and being almost annual playoff contenders these days despite a ridiculous shoestring budget, it's safe to say that if you don't understand the moves the Marlins are making, the fault is on your end. The team always seems able to summon young, cost-controlled talent at will from its farm system, and they have an absolutely unlimited supply of power arms down there, waiting for a chance to pitch for the parent club.
That said, I have no idea what the Marlins are doing right now.
The offseason has just begun, and the Marlins have already struck with three trades and one free agent signing following each other in rapid succession. Let's take them approximately chronologically.
Traded LHP Andrew Miller to the Boston Red Sox for LHP Dustin Richardson. This one is easy enough to figure out: The Marlins are attempting to save money. Both Miller and Richardson suck, but Miller has a history of being a top prospect with electric stuff that he has somehow misplaced, and therefore is getting paid a mid-range sum of money this year, whereas Richardson sucks on the cheap. Essentially, the Marlins are betting $1.5 million that Miller never recovers from whatever ails him.
Traded CF Cameron Maybin to the San Diego Padres for RHP Edward Mujica and RHP Ryan Webb. Now, both Webb and Mujica are quality pitchers, albeit relievers rather than starters. But Maybin is still very young, cheap, and while his bat is still a work in progress, he has hit very well in AAA and plays excellent defense in center field. This is usually the sort of player the Marlins look for, not trade away. He is out of minor league options, so maybe they didn't think he'd be good enough to make the team out of Spring Training next year and wanted to move him before that became a problem. Which is weird, because he hit very well in AAA this year, and they have no centerfielder on the roster.
Traded 2B Dan Uggla to the Atlanta Braves for LHP Mike Dunn and utilityman Omar Infante.This is just strange and/or awful. Uggla is an All Star-caliber second baseman under team control for one more year. Infante is a utilityman with no patience or power at the plate who is also signed for another year, and Mike Dunn is a cheap reliever who once heard rumor of a strange land called the strike zone, but dismissed it. Again, though: The Marlins do save money.
Signed C John Buck to a 3-year, $18 million dollar contract. And there goes that money. I know you need a catcher to prevent the ball from rolling to the backstop every play, but it seems to me that if your catcher is going to cost you $6,000,000 guaranteed each season, he should probably not suck. Unfortunately for them, the Marlins do not agree with me about this. Because they signed Buck, who sucks. I could detail how he sucks, but it will be far less painful for all parties concerned if you just take my word for it. You want something anyway? Fine. Here's an unfair comparison: Buck's career .301 on-base percentage is slightly worse than the career OBP of Smoky Joe Wood with the Red Sox. Don't make me actually break Buck down. I will do it. And it will be long. And I'm starting to kind of want to.
Unless there's going to be a sudden pandemic that affects only relief pitchers, I'm mystified here. The Marlins are trading away assets to stockpile players at the least valuable position on a baseball team (Well, okay, more valuable than 'The Guy Who Backs Up Albert Pujols'. But that's about it). Normally the Marlins are a very sharp ballclub, but they suddenly seem to have a dearth of outfielders after jettisoning Maybin and (Slightly more distantly) Cody Ross, and announcing that Chris Coghlan will move back to the infield this season. The relievers will be useful if the team contends, but with the lineup they currently have, that seems unlikely. However, they are moving into a new stadium soon, and should have a rise in revenue from that. And while they've already wasted about 2/3 of what they've saved in the trades on Buck, there's still some left over from that. I wouldn't be surprised if that money plus some more gets invested in a player or two more as the offseason continues, with a goal of moving the team up into contention this year, be it via free agency (Baseless speculation that will never ever happen: Carl Crawford?) or a trade for a high-salaried player (With the Dodgers' reported financial issues, Matt Kemp, perhaps?). These moves just feel like the precursor to something bigger, something that will make the Marlins a Team To Beat in 2011. Because otherwise they just screwed up royally, and a team this smart wouldn't do that. Right?
Update - They will move Coghlan to centerfield. So I figured hey, when's the next time I'll be in Haiti?
That said, I have no idea what the Marlins are doing right now.
The offseason has just begun, and the Marlins have already struck with three trades and one free agent signing following each other in rapid succession. Let's take them approximately chronologically.
Traded LHP Andrew Miller to the Boston Red Sox for LHP Dustin Richardson. This one is easy enough to figure out: The Marlins are attempting to save money. Both Miller and Richardson suck, but Miller has a history of being a top prospect with electric stuff that he has somehow misplaced, and therefore is getting paid a mid-range sum of money this year, whereas Richardson sucks on the cheap. Essentially, the Marlins are betting $1.5 million that Miller never recovers from whatever ails him.
Traded CF Cameron Maybin to the San Diego Padres for RHP Edward Mujica and RHP Ryan Webb. Now, both Webb and Mujica are quality pitchers, albeit relievers rather than starters. But Maybin is still very young, cheap, and while his bat is still a work in progress, he has hit very well in AAA and plays excellent defense in center field. This is usually the sort of player the Marlins look for, not trade away. He is out of minor league options, so maybe they didn't think he'd be good enough to make the team out of Spring Training next year and wanted to move him before that became a problem. Which is weird, because he hit very well in AAA this year, and they have no centerfielder on the roster.
Traded 2B Dan Uggla to the Atlanta Braves for LHP Mike Dunn and utilityman Omar Infante.This is just strange and/or awful. Uggla is an All Star-caliber second baseman under team control for one more year. Infante is a utilityman with no patience or power at the plate who is also signed for another year, and Mike Dunn is a cheap reliever who once heard rumor of a strange land called the strike zone, but dismissed it. Again, though: The Marlins do save money.
Signed C John Buck to a 3-year, $18 million dollar contract. And there goes that money. I know you need a catcher to prevent the ball from rolling to the backstop every play, but it seems to me that if your catcher is going to cost you $6,000,000 guaranteed each season, he should probably not suck. Unfortunately for them, the Marlins do not agree with me about this. Because they signed Buck, who sucks. I could detail how he sucks, but it will be far less painful for all parties concerned if you just take my word for it. You want something anyway? Fine. Here's an unfair comparison: Buck's career .301 on-base percentage is slightly worse than the career OBP of Smoky Joe Wood with the Red Sox. Don't make me actually break Buck down. I will do it. And it will be long. And I'm starting to kind of want to.
Unless there's going to be a sudden pandemic that affects only relief pitchers, I'm mystified here. The Marlins are trading away assets to stockpile players at the least valuable position on a baseball team (Well, okay, more valuable than 'The Guy Who Backs Up Albert Pujols'. But that's about it). Normally the Marlins are a very sharp ballclub, but they suddenly seem to have a dearth of outfielders after jettisoning Maybin and (Slightly more distantly) Cody Ross, and announcing that Chris Coghlan will move back to the infield this season. The relievers will be useful if the team contends, but with the lineup they currently have, that seems unlikely. However, they are moving into a new stadium soon, and should have a rise in revenue from that. And while they've already wasted about 2/3 of what they've saved in the trades on Buck, there's still some left over from that. I wouldn't be surprised if that money plus some more gets invested in a player or two more as the offseason continues, with a goal of moving the team up into contention this year, be it via free agency (Baseless speculation that will never ever happen: Carl Crawford?) or a trade for a high-salaried player (With the Dodgers' reported financial issues, Matt Kemp, perhaps?). These moves just feel like the precursor to something bigger, something that will make the Marlins a Team To Beat in 2011. Because otherwise they just screwed up royally, and a team this smart wouldn't do that. Right?
Update - They will move Coghlan to centerfield. So I figured hey, when's the next time I'll be in Haiti?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire Has Ruined Everything
In the beginning there were only two game shows, as God intended. Jeopardy and (For those who had suffered frontal lobe damage and enjoyed the fine sport of competitive clapping) Wheel of Fortune. Sure, there were rumors of something called The Price is Right, but I am a blogger. I have no time for vague legends. These two shows kept everyone happy, and for everyone else, there was America's Funniest Home Videos (Quote from a wise man upon a shot of Bob Saget on this program:"Look closely at his face. That's the face of a man who hates himself.") Then in 1999, a show imported from the Brits as part of their most recent attempt to destroy America emerged: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. This programme (SEE WHAT I DID THERE?) was in the form of Jeopardy in that it was a quiz show, but featured only a single contestant attempting to answer questions of increasing difficulty, with possible answers being listed in a multiple-choice format. If this sounds extremely straightforward, well, that's because it is. What the eventually will be known for is something other than these things. Millionaire's legacy is the
Interminable
Pauses
Employed by host Regis Philbin after the contestant has ALREADY GIVEN HIM THEIR ANSWER. These are presumably done to heighten the tension or some absolute crap like that, but all they do is drag out the proceedings and make this vein in my forehead start pulsing. I really should get that checked out now that I have a job that gives me benefits. Eventually Millionaire left primetime for syndication, but while it is now removed from the spotlight, the pauses have taken over everything (Except Jeopardy. Thank God for Jeopardy). The Official Girlfriend has been watching a lot of The Gameshow Network lately, and for each one-hour programme (I DID IT AGAIN), I would estimate there is approximately 3 minutes of actual gameshow combined with 572 minutes of pauses. My math may be off there, but let's just go with it. It is no longer limited to gameshows, either. NBC'ssmash only hit show The Biggest Loser each week features 25 minutes of actual show (In a two-hour time slot) and a full hour of people standing on a giant scale while the number goes up and down at random despite the fact that IT'S A DIGITAL SCALE AND DEAR GOD JUST SAY WHAT THEY WEIGH AND GET ON WITH IT. This is why, when the multitudes ask me on a daily basis "Mike, why is network television dying?" I tell them that it's all Regis Philbin's fault.
Interminable
Pauses
Employed by host Regis Philbin after the contestant has ALREADY GIVEN HIM THEIR ANSWER. These are presumably done to heighten the tension or some absolute crap like that, but all they do is drag out the proceedings and make this vein in my forehead start pulsing. I really should get that checked out now that I have a job that gives me benefits. Eventually Millionaire left primetime for syndication, but while it is now removed from the spotlight, the pauses have taken over everything (Except Jeopardy. Thank God for Jeopardy). The Official Girlfriend has been watching a lot of The Gameshow Network lately, and for each one-hour programme (I DID IT AGAIN), I would estimate there is approximately 3 minutes of actual gameshow combined with 572 minutes of pauses. My math may be off there, but let's just go with it. It is no longer limited to gameshows, either. NBC's
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)