For today, I've decided to include a bunch of hits from the 90s, a decade full of inexplicable music. To make the cut for this post, the track must:
1) Be by an artist who would not be successful today outside of Europe.
2) Have an incomprehensible music video that occasionally borders on the criminally insane.
3) Have a pumpin' beat.
4) Techno Viking must approve.
Enjoy.
"Be My Lover" by La Bouche
"Around the World" by ATC
"Lollipop" by Aqua
"Mr. Vain" by Culture Beat
Culture Beat - Mr. Vain
Uploaded by Hakunamatata67. - Explore more music videos.
"Blue" by Eiffel 65
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
(Kinda) Daily Good Music
Today's jam is "List of Demands" by Saul Williams.
You may recognize it from the Nike advertising campaign, but is an excellent song in its own right.
Enjoy.
You may recognize it from the Nike advertising campaign, but is an excellent song in its own right.
Enjoy.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The Baseball Hall of Fame: Where History and Insanity Have a Leisurely Cup of Tea
First and foremost: Congratulations to Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, and Pat Gillick. It was announced yesterday that Alomar and Blyleven had both been named on the necessary 75+% of ballots for induction into the baseball hall of fame. They will join Gillick, the former executive, who was elected by the Veterans Committee in December 2010, as the Class of 2011. All three men are highly deserving and will join the elite of America's most hallowed and revered past time.
Now that I've finished congratulating people, I must go into bitch and moan mode. For the purpose of organization, allow me to breakdown the ballot and offer my commentary.
As far as the Veterans Committee vote goes, I don't have too much to complain about. Gillick was a clear choice. He was the General Manager for 3 title teams (1992 and 1993 in Toronto and 2008 in Philadelphia). His teams were pretty universally successful. The Blue Jays won 5 division titles and two World Series titles under his watch and haven't been to the playoffs since his departure. In his tenure with the Orioles, he assembled two of the most dominant teams to never win a World Series in 1996 and 1997 and the Orioles have been a pit of despair so intense that their fans routinely cry themselves to sleep at night since his departure. His time in Seattle was marked by successfully trading Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey, Jr. for legitimate parts, the signing of future Hall of Famer Ichiro Suzuki and the 116-win 2001 season. Of course while with the Phillies, Gillick won the 2008 World Series and laid the groundwork for the most dominant team in the National League the past 5 years and going forward.
The rest of the ballot was pretty inoffensive, save for one major omission. Dave Concepcion was a solid player who got some votes but, despite Joe Morgan's consistentGary Sheffield support, was just a very good player on some really good Reds teams. George Steinbrenner, while a larger-than-life figure, probably didn't do enough for the game to warrant Hall of Fame induction. He won a lot. But he also lost a lot and the Yankees had some of their darkest days under his watch. Still, his accomplishments are notable, but I think the gorgeous new Yankee Stadium and a plaque you can see from space in Monument Park is enough. Other vote getters include a host of solid players (Tommy John, Steve Garvey, etc.) amongst others but nobody who really qualifies as Hall of Fame material or even really fringe material.
Except Marvin Miller.
Hall of Fame broadcaster Red Barber once said, "Marvin Miller, along with Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson, is one of the two or three most important men in baseball history." I will go so far as to say that those three along with Muhammed Ali and Michael Jordan comprise the 5 most important men in American sporting history (another essay for another time). If America is a country that rewards those who earn, it is a shock that more people don't know Miller. Miller was the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association from 1966 to 1982. Under Miller's watch, free agency and big-money sports flourished. Prior to Miller's work in strengthening the MLBPA, players were limited by the "reserve clause", which essentially bound players to one team for the entirety of their career. This meant that the team entirely controlled a player's earning. The only power players had was the power to retire. In addition, many players didn't make enough money to constitute a full-time job and required players to take up other jobs too. Miller's work ushered in free agency into major professional sports and with it brought big money, greater exposure, and greater levels of professionalism. Players now earn money in line with the revenue they generate. I know there will be some of you who take the short-sighted and ignorant route who say, "Baseball players shouldn't earn this much money!" but even you cannot deny the impact of Miller on the game. As such, the Hall of Fame is, first and foremost, a museum to honor the history of the game. It is designed to acknowledge those who made lasting contributions. A man who only revolutionized how the sport and all of sports is run certainly qualifies. But sadly, the Veterans Committee is dominated (oddly enough, seeing as how "veterans" implies guys who actually played the game) by management, who in their ever-persistent ego and pride refuse to acknowledge a man who caused them some trouble.
As for the player portion of the ballot, Roberto Alomar received 90% of the vote. A clear choice, Alomar stands to be the first player inducted into the Hall of Fame as a Blue Jay (I will assume that's his selection, though I'd love to see him as an Oriole). Alomar is one of the best-fielders not only at second base but also of all time. His diving stops and throws from his knees were routine and he won a record 10 Gold Gloves at second. A 12-time All Star, was a clear asset at a position usually reserved for offensive sinkholes. He hit .300 for his career with a .814 OPS and was good for an excellent 80.6% success rate on stolen bases. The only complaint I have is that his induction was not in his first year of eligibility. Many writers did not vote for Alomar last year as punishment for the incident in 1996 when he spit on umpire John Hirschbeck. While this certainly is not behavior to be condoned, Alomar did apologize and it was one isolated incident. There is a character clause in the criteria for Hall of Fame induction as provided by the institution, but Ty Cobb is in the Hall and he once went into the stands to be the tar out of a man with no arms simply for heckling Cobb. So there's that.
Bert Blyleven was another obvious choice to me, though it took the BBWAA (the body responsible for voting) 14 years to decide. It still baffles my how it took this long for Blyleven. Yes he was only a two-time All Star, and yes he never won a Cy Young award or led the league in wins. But, Blyleven was a simply dominant pitcher. Baseball is a team game and, especially when it comes to a pitcher, you can only look at number he can control to determine how effective a player he is. This is why wins is a misleading stat for pitchers. If a pitcher goes 8 innings, gives up 3 hits, no walks, 1 run, and strikes out 10, he had a great game. However, if his offense (something he very little control over or none at all, in the American League) scores 0 runs, he will lose the game. But the pitcher still pitched well. The baseball community is slow to recognize this. Sure, wins is still a stat worth keeping, but it is ultimately not as effective a stat. The same goes for RBI and runs, they are too dependent on other things. Baseball finally starts to be recognizing this (Felix Hernandez's Cy Young win this year is a good example) but many of the crotchety old BBWAA members haven't embraced it. Blyleven won only 287 (I say only as if that's a small number) and lost 250, so many writers have held that against him, but his other numbers indicate a truly dominant pitcher. Blyleven's impressive career statistics include: 4970 IP (14th all time), 3701 Ks (5th), 60 shut outs (9th), a career WHIP of 1.198, a career ERA of 3.31 and a career ERA+ of 118.
This, of course, leads me to the discussion of why the thought process of some voters is moronic. There are two major issues I have with the Hall of Fame voter. The first issue is this idea of "he's not a first ballot guy, so I'm not gonna vote for him for 3 years". Look, I understand some guys are "better" Hall of Famers than others. Hank Aaron was clearly a better player than Wade Boggs (though Boggs was a better drinker). But either a guy is a Hall of Fame player or he isn't. Why did it take Blyleven 14 years to get into the Hall? It's not like he pitched more. It's not like he somehow completely changed his statistics. He did literally nothing in those 14 years. How could that many people change their minds? Now I'm happy they did for Blyleven, a guy who deserved to be in. But he's the same candidate he was before.
Thee second issue I have is when writers decide "I'm not voting for this guy because of some unfounded or arbitrary moral stance." Let me show you the statistical lines of 2 players, A and B:
Player A: 6256 plate appearances, 971 runs, 1451 hits, 216 doubles, 369 HRs, 1015 RBIs, 22 SBs, 1011 BBs, .279 BA, .398 OBP, .548 SLG, 149 OPS+, 6 All Star appearances, 0 MVPs
Player B: 6673 plate appearances, 974 runs, 1726 hits, 389 doubles, 381 HRs, 1239 RBIs, 88 SBs, 683 BBs, .295 BA, .369 OBP, .564 SLG, 143 OPS+, 5 All Star appearances, 0 MVPs
Who is the better player? Tough to decide... I'd say player B but really you could make an argument for either. Both were feared sluggers in their day and both had their careers cut short by injuries. Who are these players? Player A is Ralph Kiner, a Hall of Famer. Player B is Albert Belle, who is not. Why? Kiner was a nice guy and personable dude that the press loved. Belle was an asshole (at least according to the media...I don't know the guy). Think I'm wrong? Kiner stayed on the Hall of Fame ballot for 15 years. Belle was off after 2. I don't know if either is qualified (players who had careers cut short by injury are tough to decide), but if one guy stuck around that long, should the other have gotten some serious consideration?
The other moral stance that has gained a lot of steam recently is the issue of cheating (or at least perceived cheating) which includes steroids. First of all, steroids are bad for your health. Steroids are a controlled substance in the United States and should not be used or abused without the supervision and recommendation of a professional. Anabolic steroids can make a player stronger and improve muscle recovery rate. As far as baseball and steroids are concerned, anabolic steroids and other "performance-enhancing drugs" are illegal and testing positive for steroid use is grounds for suspension of 10, 30, or 60 games, a full season, or at the commissioner's discretion, depending on what number offense the player has committed. A player cannot be retroactively be suspended or punished for past transgressions beyond the previously-mentioned suspension system. These are the facts.
I am against the use of steroids in baseball. I think it sets a bad precedent and is dangerous. But, I don't understand how any logical person can punish players for alleged steroid use by not voting for them for the Hall of Fame. Look, I get it's cheating. But cheaters have been in the sport from the beginning. People who have been acting illegally have been in the sport from the beginning. The playing field has never been level in the sport from the beginning. The spitball has been illegal in baseball since 1920 (and was only made so after a thrown spitball struck and killed Ray Chapman in the temple). Yet plenty of players were allowed to be "grandfathered" in and continue using it. Think about that: baseball allowed players to continue to use a lethal pitch. In addition, Gaylord Perry, despite having a hilarious name, was a known spitballer and he only began pitching in 1962. Perry was even ejected from a game as late as the early 80s for using the pitch. So what did Hall of Fame voters do in 1991? They chose Perry for enshrinement in his third year of eligibility. The fact was that Perry was a part of baseball history because of his impressive achievements in the game. Unlike Perry, many of these so-called "steroid era" players were never caught. Sure many were mentioned in the Mitchell Report (a total farce by the way...An extremely high number of Yankees were on the report and a low number of Red Sox were, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were no where to be found in the report even though they both tested positive for banned substances...George Mitchell? a member of the Red Sox Board of Directors) or were associated with BALCO, but as I said, it is impossible to retroactively punish someone. And only a handful of players who were eventually suspended were so for beyond the minimum 10 games.
But maybe you could suspend them on the grounds of steroids being an illegal activity. Except there are plenty of "unpunished" players who participated in illegal acts. Take Juan Marichal. Marichal was one of the greatest pitchers of the 1960s. In 16 seasons, he posted a ridiculously low 2.89 ERA and 1.101 WHIP. So his credentials can't be denied. However, in 1965, Marichal got into a heated incident with Dodgers' catcher Johnny Roseboro. After Roseboro got up and started jawing, Marichal turned around and proceeded to repeated beat Roseboro over the head with his bat. Let me repeat: HE BEAT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OVER THE HEAD WITH A BASEBALL BAT. My knowledge of the specifics of the law are not prosecutor quality, but I'm pretty certain that constitutes assault. For all the negatives that come with steroids, Mark McGwire never knocked the piss out of another man with his bat in front of tens of thousands of fans because the other guy might have said something akin to "your skills as a player are paltry and you clam up around girls!" (I can neither confirm nor deny that this was what prompted Marichal to act as he did). So how did baseball punish Marichal? He was ejected from the game, suspended 9 days (which for a starting pitcher amounts to 2 starts, maximum), and he was fined a whopping $1,750. But surely the baseball Hall of Fame punished the man! Nope. In his third year of eligibility, Marichal was enshrined in sports' most hallowed ground. So to recap: Man assaults opposing player on the field and gets in on the third try. Other man takes some injections to hit an extra 5-10 homeruns a year and can never in the good conscience of all that is right and holy in this world be allowed to even think of being honored.
But now I hear cries of "But, Ben, Marichal and others' actions didn't give them an edge in the game! Steroids make it an uneven playing field!" Fair enough, but then I must ask, "When has the playing field ever been even?" Players have been trying to get an edge for years. Whether doctoring baseballs, stealing signals, or sending women of ill repute to the opposing team's hotel, baseball players have never been as pious a bunch as we'd hope. In addition, the sport itself must be questioned. Let's examine a brief timeline of professional baseball as we know it: Prior to 1947, black players were not allowed in the Major Leagues and they didn't become prevalent until the 1960s. So we have to throw out everything prior to 1960 because the competition pool wasn't complete without adequate representation and opportunity for black and Latino players. Then we can't really count anything during the 1960s because the pitching mound had been raised up above 10 inches (the current height), which gave pitchers and unfair edge in the game. And then steroids have been around in various incarnations since the early 70s (members of the "Steel Curtain" Pittsburgh Steelers have admitted to using PEDs) but we'll give baseball the benefit of the doubt and say they weren't prevalent until the 80s. So we have to throw all those years out because testing was so lax or inaccurate until the work of the Mitchell Report that we really have no feasible way of saying who was using and who wasn't. And we can't just assume that only the burly sluggers like McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds were using. Because for every Mo Vaughn mentioned in the report, there was also the ever-imposing Manny Alexander, all 150lbs and 15 career homeruns of him. So that leaves us the 1970s and anything after 2007 (the year of the Mitchell Report), and none of those players have gained eligibility for induction yet. So until we have that shining beacon of hope Ryan Braun eligible some time around 2030, the only players who never had to deal with an unfair playing field were the funky-haired men of the 1970s. Now while I support this if only because it makes the accomplishments of the great Oscar Gamble look that much more impressive, this is clearly not an option. As such, while the players were perhaps wrong to take steroids, it is completely illogical and unjust to not vote for them for something that was too long ignored by the populace and Major League Baseball. There are appropriate rules in place now and players who break said rules will be appropriately punished.
This brings me to my last point (I swear) about not voting for players with supposed steroided pasts. The sanctimonious hypocrisy of the BBWAA and related parties. Let me take you back to 1998. Armageddon was tops at the box office, Eagle Eye Cherry came out with hit "Save Tonight" (and was never heard from again), and Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were chasing down Roger Maris' record of 61 homeruns in a single season. Despite both players looking bigger than reject comic book heroes, America was enthralled with the chase. McGwire ended up breaking the record and Sosa won MVP. They were credited with saving baseball in the wake of the 1994 labor strike. Sports Illustrated went so far as to name them co-sportsmen of the year. They were gods amongst men. And a mere 12 years later, Sosa is a complete pariah and McGwire, despite hitting 583 homeruns with a .394 OBP and .588 SLG, is floundering with around 20% of the Hall of Fame vote. Which is it BBWAA? There were allegations of PED use back in 1998 but everyone chose to ignore it because it was fun to watch a home run chase. It is the height of hypocrisy to condemn what you once praised as the ultimate achievement in sport. And ultimately this is why nobody can keep somebody out of the Hall for steroid use. All we can do is examine what actually happened on the field and judge by that.
As far as the rest of the ballot goes, the players who I felt belong in the Hall are Barry Larkin (best shortstop in the NL during his career, if Ozzie Smith is in, Larkin belongs in twice), Jeff Bagwell (his stats are universally HOF-caliber and he doesn't even have the baggage of steroid suspicions...how did he not get in on the first ballot?!?!), Tim Raines (the Rock is one of the finest leadoff men of the past 30 years...he's half the player Rickey Henderson was, but, as Bill James said, "If you split Rickey Henderson into two players, you'd have two Hall of Famers"), Edgar Martinez (too fine a hitter...didn't play defense but there are plenty of crappy defenders in the Hall), Mark McGwire (previously mentioned), and Rafael Palmeiro (steroids again cloud his candidacy, but the facts are that only he, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Eddie Murray reached 3000 hits and 500 homeruns).
Now that I've finished congratulating people, I must go into bitch and moan mode. For the purpose of organization, allow me to breakdown the ballot and offer my commentary.
As far as the Veterans Committee vote goes, I don't have too much to complain about. Gillick was a clear choice. He was the General Manager for 3 title teams (1992 and 1993 in Toronto and 2008 in Philadelphia). His teams were pretty universally successful. The Blue Jays won 5 division titles and two World Series titles under his watch and haven't been to the playoffs since his departure. In his tenure with the Orioles, he assembled two of the most dominant teams to never win a World Series in 1996 and 1997 and the Orioles have been a pit of despair so intense that their fans routinely cry themselves to sleep at night since his departure. His time in Seattle was marked by successfully trading Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey, Jr. for legitimate parts, the signing of future Hall of Famer Ichiro Suzuki and the 116-win 2001 season. Of course while with the Phillies, Gillick won the 2008 World Series and laid the groundwork for the most dominant team in the National League the past 5 years and going forward.
The rest of the ballot was pretty inoffensive, save for one major omission. Dave Concepcion was a solid player who got some votes but, despite Joe Morgan's consistent
Except Marvin Miller.
Hall of Fame broadcaster Red Barber once said, "Marvin Miller, along with Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson, is one of the two or three most important men in baseball history." I will go so far as to say that those three along with Muhammed Ali and Michael Jordan comprise the 5 most important men in American sporting history (another essay for another time). If America is a country that rewards those who earn, it is a shock that more people don't know Miller. Miller was the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association from 1966 to 1982. Under Miller's watch, free agency and big-money sports flourished. Prior to Miller's work in strengthening the MLBPA, players were limited by the "reserve clause", which essentially bound players to one team for the entirety of their career. This meant that the team entirely controlled a player's earning. The only power players had was the power to retire. In addition, many players didn't make enough money to constitute a full-time job and required players to take up other jobs too. Miller's work ushered in free agency into major professional sports and with it brought big money, greater exposure, and greater levels of professionalism. Players now earn money in line with the revenue they generate. I know there will be some of you who take the short-sighted and ignorant route who say, "Baseball players shouldn't earn this much money!" but even you cannot deny the impact of Miller on the game. As such, the Hall of Fame is, first and foremost, a museum to honor the history of the game. It is designed to acknowledge those who made lasting contributions. A man who only revolutionized how the sport and all of sports is run certainly qualifies. But sadly, the Veterans Committee is dominated (oddly enough, seeing as how "veterans" implies guys who actually played the game) by management, who in their ever-persistent ego and pride refuse to acknowledge a man who caused them some trouble.
As for the player portion of the ballot, Roberto Alomar received 90% of the vote. A clear choice, Alomar stands to be the first player inducted into the Hall of Fame as a Blue Jay (I will assume that's his selection, though I'd love to see him as an Oriole). Alomar is one of the best-fielders not only at second base but also of all time. His diving stops and throws from his knees were routine and he won a record 10 Gold Gloves at second. A 12-time All Star, was a clear asset at a position usually reserved for offensive sinkholes. He hit .300 for his career with a .814 OPS and was good for an excellent 80.6% success rate on stolen bases. The only complaint I have is that his induction was not in his first year of eligibility. Many writers did not vote for Alomar last year as punishment for the incident in 1996 when he spit on umpire John Hirschbeck. While this certainly is not behavior to be condoned, Alomar did apologize and it was one isolated incident. There is a character clause in the criteria for Hall of Fame induction as provided by the institution, but Ty Cobb is in the Hall and he once went into the stands to be the tar out of a man with no arms simply for heckling Cobb. So there's that.
Bert Blyleven was another obvious choice to me, though it took the BBWAA (the body responsible for voting) 14 years to decide. It still baffles my how it took this long for Blyleven. Yes he was only a two-time All Star, and yes he never won a Cy Young award or led the league in wins. But, Blyleven was a simply dominant pitcher. Baseball is a team game and, especially when it comes to a pitcher, you can only look at number he can control to determine how effective a player he is. This is why wins is a misleading stat for pitchers. If a pitcher goes 8 innings, gives up 3 hits, no walks, 1 run, and strikes out 10, he had a great game. However, if his offense (something he very little control over or none at all, in the American League) scores 0 runs, he will lose the game. But the pitcher still pitched well. The baseball community is slow to recognize this. Sure, wins is still a stat worth keeping, but it is ultimately not as effective a stat. The same goes for RBI and runs, they are too dependent on other things. Baseball finally starts to be recognizing this (Felix Hernandez's Cy Young win this year is a good example) but many of the crotchety old BBWAA members haven't embraced it. Blyleven won only 287 (I say only as if that's a small number) and lost 250, so many writers have held that against him, but his other numbers indicate a truly dominant pitcher. Blyleven's impressive career statistics include: 4970 IP (14th all time), 3701 Ks (5th), 60 shut outs (9th), a career WHIP of 1.198, a career ERA of 3.31 and a career ERA+ of 118.
This, of course, leads me to the discussion of why the thought process of some voters is moronic. There are two major issues I have with the Hall of Fame voter. The first issue is this idea of "he's not a first ballot guy, so I'm not gonna vote for him for 3 years". Look, I understand some guys are "better" Hall of Famers than others. Hank Aaron was clearly a better player than Wade Boggs (though Boggs was a better drinker). But either a guy is a Hall of Fame player or he isn't. Why did it take Blyleven 14 years to get into the Hall? It's not like he pitched more. It's not like he somehow completely changed his statistics. He did literally nothing in those 14 years. How could that many people change their minds? Now I'm happy they did for Blyleven, a guy who deserved to be in. But he's the same candidate he was before.
Thee second issue I have is when writers decide "I'm not voting for this guy because of some unfounded or arbitrary moral stance." Let me show you the statistical lines of 2 players, A and B:
Player A: 6256 plate appearances, 971 runs, 1451 hits, 216 doubles, 369 HRs, 1015 RBIs, 22 SBs, 1011 BBs, .279 BA, .398 OBP, .548 SLG, 149 OPS+, 6 All Star appearances, 0 MVPs
Player B: 6673 plate appearances, 974 runs, 1726 hits, 389 doubles, 381 HRs, 1239 RBIs, 88 SBs, 683 BBs, .295 BA, .369 OBP, .564 SLG, 143 OPS+, 5 All Star appearances, 0 MVPs
Who is the better player? Tough to decide... I'd say player B but really you could make an argument for either. Both were feared sluggers in their day and both had their careers cut short by injuries. Who are these players? Player A is Ralph Kiner, a Hall of Famer. Player B is Albert Belle, who is not. Why? Kiner was a nice guy and personable dude that the press loved. Belle was an asshole (at least according to the media...I don't know the guy). Think I'm wrong? Kiner stayed on the Hall of Fame ballot for 15 years. Belle was off after 2. I don't know if either is qualified (players who had careers cut short by injury are tough to decide), but if one guy stuck around that long, should the other have gotten some serious consideration?
The other moral stance that has gained a lot of steam recently is the issue of cheating (or at least perceived cheating) which includes steroids. First of all, steroids are bad for your health. Steroids are a controlled substance in the United States and should not be used or abused without the supervision and recommendation of a professional. Anabolic steroids can make a player stronger and improve muscle recovery rate. As far as baseball and steroids are concerned, anabolic steroids and other "performance-enhancing drugs" are illegal and testing positive for steroid use is grounds for suspension of 10, 30, or 60 games, a full season, or at the commissioner's discretion, depending on what number offense the player has committed. A player cannot be retroactively be suspended or punished for past transgressions beyond the previously-mentioned suspension system. These are the facts.
I am against the use of steroids in baseball. I think it sets a bad precedent and is dangerous. But, I don't understand how any logical person can punish players for alleged steroid use by not voting for them for the Hall of Fame. Look, I get it's cheating. But cheaters have been in the sport from the beginning. People who have been acting illegally have been in the sport from the beginning. The playing field has never been level in the sport from the beginning. The spitball has been illegal in baseball since 1920 (and was only made so after a thrown spitball struck and killed Ray Chapman in the temple). Yet plenty of players were allowed to be "grandfathered" in and continue using it. Think about that: baseball allowed players to continue to use a lethal pitch. In addition, Gaylord Perry, despite having a hilarious name, was a known spitballer and he only began pitching in 1962. Perry was even ejected from a game as late as the early 80s for using the pitch. So what did Hall of Fame voters do in 1991? They chose Perry for enshrinement in his third year of eligibility. The fact was that Perry was a part of baseball history because of his impressive achievements in the game. Unlike Perry, many of these so-called "steroid era" players were never caught. Sure many were mentioned in the Mitchell Report (a total farce by the way...An extremely high number of Yankees were on the report and a low number of Red Sox were, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were no where to be found in the report even though they both tested positive for banned substances...George Mitchell? a member of the Red Sox Board of Directors) or were associated with BALCO, but as I said, it is impossible to retroactively punish someone. And only a handful of players who were eventually suspended were so for beyond the minimum 10 games.
But maybe you could suspend them on the grounds of steroids being an illegal activity. Except there are plenty of "unpunished" players who participated in illegal acts. Take Juan Marichal. Marichal was one of the greatest pitchers of the 1960s. In 16 seasons, he posted a ridiculously low 2.89 ERA and 1.101 WHIP. So his credentials can't be denied. However, in 1965, Marichal got into a heated incident with Dodgers' catcher Johnny Roseboro. After Roseboro got up and started jawing, Marichal turned around and proceeded to repeated beat Roseboro over the head with his bat. Let me repeat: HE BEAT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OVER THE HEAD WITH A BASEBALL BAT. My knowledge of the specifics of the law are not prosecutor quality, but I'm pretty certain that constitutes assault. For all the negatives that come with steroids, Mark McGwire never knocked the piss out of another man with his bat in front of tens of thousands of fans because the other guy might have said something akin to "your skills as a player are paltry and you clam up around girls!" (I can neither confirm nor deny that this was what prompted Marichal to act as he did). So how did baseball punish Marichal? He was ejected from the game, suspended 9 days (which for a starting pitcher amounts to 2 starts, maximum), and he was fined a whopping $1,750. But surely the baseball Hall of Fame punished the man! Nope. In his third year of eligibility, Marichal was enshrined in sports' most hallowed ground. So to recap: Man assaults opposing player on the field and gets in on the third try. Other man takes some injections to hit an extra 5-10 homeruns a year and can never in the good conscience of all that is right and holy in this world be allowed to even think of being honored.
But now I hear cries of "But, Ben, Marichal and others' actions didn't give them an edge in the game! Steroids make it an uneven playing field!" Fair enough, but then I must ask, "When has the playing field ever been even?" Players have been trying to get an edge for years. Whether doctoring baseballs, stealing signals, or sending women of ill repute to the opposing team's hotel, baseball players have never been as pious a bunch as we'd hope. In addition, the sport itself must be questioned. Let's examine a brief timeline of professional baseball as we know it: Prior to 1947, black players were not allowed in the Major Leagues and they didn't become prevalent until the 1960s. So we have to throw out everything prior to 1960 because the competition pool wasn't complete without adequate representation and opportunity for black and Latino players. Then we can't really count anything during the 1960s because the pitching mound had been raised up above 10 inches (the current height), which gave pitchers and unfair edge in the game. And then steroids have been around in various incarnations since the early 70s (members of the "Steel Curtain" Pittsburgh Steelers have admitted to using PEDs) but we'll give baseball the benefit of the doubt and say they weren't prevalent until the 80s. So we have to throw all those years out because testing was so lax or inaccurate until the work of the Mitchell Report that we really have no feasible way of saying who was using and who wasn't. And we can't just assume that only the burly sluggers like McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds were using. Because for every Mo Vaughn mentioned in the report, there was also the ever-imposing Manny Alexander, all 150lbs and 15 career homeruns of him. So that leaves us the 1970s and anything after 2007 (the year of the Mitchell Report), and none of those players have gained eligibility for induction yet. So until we have that shining beacon of hope Ryan Braun eligible some time around 2030, the only players who never had to deal with an unfair playing field were the funky-haired men of the 1970s. Now while I support this if only because it makes the accomplishments of the great Oscar Gamble look that much more impressive, this is clearly not an option. As such, while the players were perhaps wrong to take steroids, it is completely illogical and unjust to not vote for them for something that was too long ignored by the populace and Major League Baseball. There are appropriate rules in place now and players who break said rules will be appropriately punished.
This brings me to my last point (I swear) about not voting for players with supposed steroided pasts. The sanctimonious hypocrisy of the BBWAA and related parties. Let me take you back to 1998. Armageddon was tops at the box office, Eagle Eye Cherry came out with hit "Save Tonight" (and was never heard from again), and Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were chasing down Roger Maris' record of 61 homeruns in a single season. Despite both players looking bigger than reject comic book heroes, America was enthralled with the chase. McGwire ended up breaking the record and Sosa won MVP. They were credited with saving baseball in the wake of the 1994 labor strike. Sports Illustrated went so far as to name them co-sportsmen of the year. They were gods amongst men. And a mere 12 years later, Sosa is a complete pariah and McGwire, despite hitting 583 homeruns with a .394 OBP and .588 SLG, is floundering with around 20% of the Hall of Fame vote. Which is it BBWAA? There were allegations of PED use back in 1998 but everyone chose to ignore it because it was fun to watch a home run chase. It is the height of hypocrisy to condemn what you once praised as the ultimate achievement in sport. And ultimately this is why nobody can keep somebody out of the Hall for steroid use. All we can do is examine what actually happened on the field and judge by that.
As far as the rest of the ballot goes, the players who I felt belong in the Hall are Barry Larkin (best shortstop in the NL during his career, if Ozzie Smith is in, Larkin belongs in twice), Jeff Bagwell (his stats are universally HOF-caliber and he doesn't even have the baggage of steroid suspicions...how did he not get in on the first ballot?!?!), Tim Raines (the Rock is one of the finest leadoff men of the past 30 years...he's half the player Rickey Henderson was, but, as Bill James said, "If you split Rickey Henderson into two players, you'd have two Hall of Famers"), Edgar Martinez (too fine a hitter...didn't play defense but there are plenty of crappy defenders in the Hall), Mark McGwire (previously mentioned), and Rafael Palmeiro (steroids again cloud his candidacy, but the facts are that only he, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Eddie Murray reached 3000 hits and 500 homeruns).
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
(Kinda) Daily Good Music
Today's selection is a recommendation. I consider myself to have good musical taste. While this point is debatable, what is not debatable is I know a lot of music. Wide range of many bands over many genres. However, I had somehow completely missed The Black Keys. And that is terrible.
So I encourage you to enjoy them and their song "Tighten Up" as I start delving into their library.
So I encourage you to enjoy them and their song "Tighten Up" as I start delving into their library.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
(Kinda) Daily Good Music
Today's track is "Simple Man" by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Many will discuss "Free Bird" or "Sweet Home Alabama" or "Gimme Three Steps" as the greatest Skynyrd song, but for my money, "Simple Man" is not only the best Skynyrd song, but arguably the best Southern Rock song ever. So there.
I have also chosen to include covers by Shinedown and the Deftones. Why? It's a good song.
Enjoy.
I have also chosen to include covers by Shinedown and the Deftones. Why? It's a good song.
Enjoy.
Ben Johannes and the Infinite Sadness
A little over a month ago, my girlfriend broke up with me. It was about as amicable as could be; there was no argument, no yelling, really no hard feelings whatsoever. The impetuses of the split didn't reflect too poorly on either of us. And while I didn't want to take this course of action and I certainly was and still am upset that the breakup happened, I want her to be happy.
While the two of us were having "the talk", she said, "Let's try to be happy." At the time, I didn't think much of it, and even she seemed kinda confused by her statement. It, superficially, appeared to be the kind of thing one says when they don't know what to say but they want to say something positive in a bad situation. And at first, that's what I took it as. But as the days have passed, I realized that this turned out to be highly insightful and pertinent, especially for me. I don't know if this was her intention when she said it (a high possibility, she's a very smart girl, smarter than I) or not, but this small imperative perfectly encapsulates the struggle of holding on to our happiness.
In my month-long examination of "what went wrong" I have learned what I always kind of knew about myself: injustice is infuriating to me. Injustice isn't totally the right word, and to say that me getting broken up with was an injustice would be a gross and almost offensive overstatement. Somalian genocide is an injustice. I'm just a guy who got dumped. No in this instance, I get upset because even though all the elements were adding up to one result, another happened.
Now the obvious foil to this is, "Well, Ben, sometimes shit happens. And you can't always get what you want." I know that. I get that. I even accept that most of the time. But really, things just don't happen for no reason; there is almost always some motivation. You may think that Angela is talking trash about you behind your back for no reason, but really there some reason. Maybe she wants the same guy you want. Maybe you wronged her in the past and she's holding a grudge. Maybe she's just a bitch. (Angela, you bitch) It doesn't have to be a good reason, but there is a reason. But every once in a while, something happens for no reason. I was a good boyfriend. I was kind, honest, funny, and engaging. I treated her with great respect. This is not debatable and not me just not seeing my flaws; I am the first person to see my flaws (stubbornness is my number one). She and I liked each other, were attracted to each other, both physically and emotionally, and were mentally compatible. All signs point to continued success (success being "the relationship goes on"). But it didn't.
Now, I'm a big boy. I will get over it and will bounce back in some way. I always have. I have a lot of legitimate prospects going for me: I'm intelligent. I work hard. I am pretty good-looking. I am charming and engaging (at least in person...trust me, Skeptical Reader). I will land on my feet. But why do this and other problems with no reason take me so long to get over? If anything, I should be pleased with the fact that, really, it wasn't my fault. When I'm wronged by Angela, I don't dwell on it because I understand that she is always gonna talk behind my back because she's a bitch. That's just how it goes. But when one of these unprovoked wrongs happens, when it's out of my control or out of the grasp of reason, that kills me.
What afflicts me is ultimately not the outcome itself. It's not the consequences of that outcome. Rather it's how the outcome came to be. And I can't let that go. Why? In my estimation, it is a combination of my highly-developed senses of justice and logic and my arrogance. Despite my behavior that would lead one to believe otherwise, most everything I do or say is done with a logical purpose. Again, nothing happens for nothing. A wise man named Kele Okereke once said, "You get sadder the smarter you get," and that applies here. This is not to say I'm necessarily smarter than most, but rather that I think about and am more aware of the motivations of others. And because I expect a logical and just conclusion to things, when something different happens, I'm frustrated. My arrogance is associated more with being stubborn than pure hubris. I trust only myself and refuse the help of others at times because of this. Of course there is some hubris involved (the self-indulgence of this piece, for instance), but my arrogance comes from years of being conditioned to face a problem head on and defeat it. Some of my acquaintances will say, "But, Benjo, when you're pissed or glum, you just sit around and play videogames." But while that is happening, I'm not saying "woe is me". Rather, I am constantly formulating ways to overcome my issue and avoid it in the future.
But maybe I should just wallow in self-pity and be done with it. While others move on, I am stuck constantly reopening the wounds of past conflicts of which I, usually, could never have any affect on the outcome. Trying to move forward with open wounds is impossible and there is no way I could be without that "healing". This is not to say I am depressed; depression is something very real on a chemical level and that is not my situation. But I do put myself at a level below what my potential happiness should be.
So how do I fix this? I can't just not think about it. My brain is too active and I am too intelligent for that. For me to force my non-thought would be simply ignoring things and to do that would be to fundamentally change my being, something I either cannot or am not prepared to do. So the burden lies with me addressing my arrogance. To better myself and to make myself happier and a more complete person, not just in a relationship setting but also in my job, family interactions, and life in general, I must get past, or at least tame this streak. I don't know how I'm going to do that. But I think recognition is a solid first step.
I don't know what is going to become of the relationship between my ex and myself. I want there to be some involvement of some kind. But even if there isn't, as big a shame as that would be, I do need to thank her for asking me to be happy. Without it, I wouldn't be thinking of this. I wouldn't be have recognized this. And I wouldn't be trying.
Monday, January 3, 2011
(Kinda) Daily Good Music
Happy new year and all that.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must ask himself, "Do I like progressive rock? Do I like yodeling solos? Would I want to put them together for almost 7 minutes?"
The clear answer to all these questions is yes.
And so...
I give you, the reader...
"Hocus Pocus" by Focus
There comes a time in every man's life when he must ask himself, "Do I like progressive rock? Do I like yodeling solos? Would I want to put them together for almost 7 minutes?"
The clear answer to all these questions is yes.
And so...
I give you, the reader...
"Hocus Pocus" by Focus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)