My "Why Hasn't The Future Happened Yet" article is up on MSN, again, with some updates. Check it out.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Yankees Reserve Seats For Either Messiah's or Anti-Christ's Arrival
After weeks of fans, bloggers, and the media speculating why the Yankees don't drop ticket prices for their laughably inaccessible "Legends Seats" behind home plate and along the basepaths (look at that medieval moat!), Adam's Life has uncovered the real reason why the team seemingly doesn't want anyone to sit there.
"This place is a cathedral," an anonymous source told us. "And those seats are reserved for whichever army ends up winning the battle between good and evil."
Privately, the source stated that he personally hopes the "good" side wins, and occupies the extra-cushy, prime view seating. But he emphasized the official Yankee position is neutral.
"If the anti-christ wins, we don't want to offend him. He and his minions will certainly have a right to those seats and the privilege of free access to the Legends Club food service," the source said.
Suspicions were raised after New York University seniors were denied access to the seats for their graduation ceremonies.
"Of course it didn't make sense if we were only reserving those seats for big spenders. There wasn't a game that day," the source said. "But we're anticipating the end of days any minute now, and we need to make sure those seats are untarnished by mere mortals."
Initially, Yankees owner and Order of the Sixth Stone member George Steinbrenner was reluctant to put any price on the seats, but was finally convinced that anybody spending that kind of money had to be a god, angel, or demon. "It was a way to earn a few bucks and meet a few of the holy warriors deciding mankind's fate," the source said.
Yankee fans must be patient, the source urged.
"We know how it looks, with all those empty seats," he said. "But once the apocalypse arrives, all of the supernatural forces, weary from battle, will pour in through those turnstiles and make this a full stadium again. Unless of course, its a weekday series versus the Mariners."
Phil Loadofbull, a biblical scholar, says he became concerned about the Yankees franchise dabbling in armageddonology when he learned the outfield turf of the new stadium was not Kentucky bluegrass but rather sod taken directly from Meggido, prophetical site of the final war between God and the Devil.
"I thought it strange at the time but didn't really voice my concerns until I saw what they did to Monument Park," said Loadafbull. The once holy ground of the Yankees was hidden behind a wall and buried beneath a casino-sponsored den of opulence. "I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees host the final battle themselves. It'll be one hell of a ballgame. And think of how much they'll make on concessions alone. Incidentally, I'm a big fan of their garlic fries."
The source insists there are no plans for Yankee stadium to be the final battleground, only the site of the post-war celebration. "Of course," he said, "if they wanted to battle here, I'm sure we could find a corporate sponsor."
After weeks of fans, bloggers, and the media speculating why the Yankees don't drop ticket prices for their laughably inaccessible "Legends Seats" behind home plate and along the basepaths (look at that medieval moat!), Adam's Life has uncovered the real reason why the team seemingly doesn't want anyone to sit there.
"This place is a cathedral," an anonymous source told us. "And those seats are reserved for whichever army ends up winning the battle between good and evil."
Privately, the source stated that he personally hopes the "good" side wins, and occupies the extra-cushy, prime view seating. But he emphasized the official Yankee position is neutral.
"If the anti-christ wins, we don't want to offend him. He and his minions will certainly have a right to those seats and the privilege of free access to the Legends Club food service," the source said.
Suspicions were raised after New York University seniors were denied access to the seats for their graduation ceremonies.
"Of course it didn't make sense if we were only reserving those seats for big spenders. There wasn't a game that day," the source said. "But we're anticipating the end of days any minute now, and we need to make sure those seats are untarnished by mere mortals."
Initially, Yankees owner and Order of the Sixth Stone member George Steinbrenner was reluctant to put any price on the seats, but was finally convinced that anybody spending that kind of money had to be a god, angel, or demon. "It was a way to earn a few bucks and meet a few of the holy warriors deciding mankind's fate," the source said.
Yankee fans must be patient, the source urged.
"We know how it looks, with all those empty seats," he said. "But once the apocalypse arrives, all of the supernatural forces, weary from battle, will pour in through those turnstiles and make this a full stadium again. Unless of course, its a weekday series versus the Mariners."
Phil Loadofbull, a biblical scholar, says he became concerned about the Yankees franchise dabbling in armageddonology when he learned the outfield turf of the new stadium was not Kentucky bluegrass but rather sod taken directly from Meggido, prophetical site of the final war between God and the Devil.
"I thought it strange at the time but didn't really voice my concerns until I saw what they did to Monument Park," said Loadafbull. The once holy ground of the Yankees was hidden behind a wall and buried beneath a casino-sponsored den of opulence. "I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees host the final battle themselves. It'll be one hell of a ballgame. And think of how much they'll make on concessions alone. Incidentally, I'm a big fan of their garlic fries."
The source insists there are no plans for Yankee stadium to be the final battleground, only the site of the post-war celebration. "Of course," he said, "if they wanted to battle here, I'm sure we could find a corporate sponsor."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Malcolm Gladwell Won't Shut Up About The Full-Court Press
And to my mind, he shouldn't. He's right.
Gladwell's part of a discussion on ESPN.com today in which he expounds more about the inflexibility of pro teams to adopt unorthodox strategies to win.
It's not just basketball. Last football season, sports commentators went crazy when the Miami Dolphins started using a "Wildcat" offense-- using the quarterback position as more than just a passer or a guy that hands the ball off. The Dolphins strategy paid off-- a team that finished last in the AFC East the previous year suddenly won the division... despite fielding a quarterback that was outright dropped by his former team.
It was impressive enough a display that EA Sports is even including a "Wildcat" playbook in its Madden X game coming out this year.
Of course, while some NFL teams began instituting their own "Wildcat"-style plays (if only as "trick" change-of-pace plays), there was still evidence that the powers that be are reluctant to celebrate innovation: the two-quarterback, 11-receiver A-11 offense was banned by the National Federation of State High School Associations.
I asked blog readers to chime in on their winning sports strategies that are puzzlingly not-used by the pros. No one really offered any. So here's mine:
Golf: Happy Gilmore Tee-offs
There's nothing in golf's rules that say you can't tee off like this:
But, as the New York Times reported yesterday, driving like that can actually increase a drive's distance by quite a lot.
Sure, messing up would earn a lot of laughs. But with enough practice, you're telling me that a skilled golfer can't pull this off? If it means turning a Par 4 into a Par 3, then why wouldn't you at least try??
Football: The No-Huddle
The Colts do it. The Patriots do it. They don't huddle before the play, they just launch into the next one. The result? The opposing defense can't get the right personnel in. They get tired. They get confused.
Now, there are times you want to control the clock. Keep your defense off the field for some rest. But why not use the no-huddle more as a surprise? First down, you use a huddle. Second down, you huddle. But then on third and short, you fake walking back to the huddle, but quickly turn around and hike the ball. Chances are, you'll catch the defense sleeping.
Why don't teams do this all the time???
Ice Hockey: Stop Fighting
I never played ice hockey. But I do watch it. And one thing that consistently baffles me is fighting. Don't get me wrong: I love it. Goalie fights especially. But it seems like fighting is a losing strategy.
In today's NHL, starting a fight carries a 2:00 penalty on top of a 5:00 penalty for fighting. That means, at the very least, the team that starts the fight will be a man down for two minutes.
Yet, teams stockpile "enforcers," guys who do little more than skate and punch. They claim its to defend their stars from dirty play. But isn't that what the refs are for? And in what backwards bizarro world does purposely putting your team at the wrong end of a power play get revenge for a cheap shot on your star player?
Most sports tell players to avoid penalties. Hockey is the one sport that signs players who intentionally cause them.
Baseball: Using Your "Closer" Whenever
Mariano Rivera is the greatest closer of the last decade. His career ERA is 2.30. He's compiled 488 saves. When he's on the mound, hitters rarely do damage. Yet, the most innings he's ever pitched in one season was 107.2, back in 1996. His ERA that year? 2.09. Oh, and by the way, the Yankees won the World Series that year.
My point? If Mariano is so good, why not put him in when the game is on the line... which isn't always the ninth inning.
On May 6th, Mariano did pitch the ninth... in a tie game against the Tampa Bay Rays. But then the Yankees manager, Joe Girardi, took Mo out in the tenth. Phil Coke promptly let up the game-deciding home run. Why couldn't Mo pitch two innings? Shouldn't a major league reliever be able to pitch more than one inning?
The day before, May 5th, Mariano didn't even get in the game. Although maybe he should have. Against the Red Sox, down 4-3 in the top of the eighth inning, the Yankees still had the game within reach. Then the Red Sox got Jason Bay on base due to an error. Bay stole second. He moved to third on a ground out. To score a run, all the Sox had to do was hit one marginally deep to the outfield. The Yankees walked J.D. Drew to set up a possible double play.
But they stayed with reliever Albaladejo. They didn't go to Rivera, their best pitcher, even though he would only have to get two more outs than he usually would.
Albaladejo gave up the sacrifice fly. And then a single. 6-3 Boston.
Why not put your best reliever in when you need him? Especially in the eigth, when he'd only be pitching 2 more outs than normal. Is that 2/3 of an inning really going to destroy Mariano's arm?
No. Closers should get a new name. I like Stoppers. They stop the bleeding.
Any other winning sports strategies that teams don't use? Drop me a comment.
And to my mind, he shouldn't. He's right.
Gladwell's part of a discussion on ESPN.com today in which he expounds more about the inflexibility of pro teams to adopt unorthodox strategies to win.
It's not just basketball. Last football season, sports commentators went crazy when the Miami Dolphins started using a "Wildcat" offense-- using the quarterback position as more than just a passer or a guy that hands the ball off. The Dolphins strategy paid off-- a team that finished last in the AFC East the previous year suddenly won the division... despite fielding a quarterback that was outright dropped by his former team.
It was impressive enough a display that EA Sports is even including a "Wildcat" playbook in its Madden X game coming out this year.
Of course, while some NFL teams began instituting their own "Wildcat"-style plays (if only as "trick" change-of-pace plays), there was still evidence that the powers that be are reluctant to celebrate innovation: the two-quarterback, 11-receiver A-11 offense was banned by the National Federation of State High School Associations.
I asked blog readers to chime in on their winning sports strategies that are puzzlingly not-used by the pros. No one really offered any. So here's mine:
Golf: Happy Gilmore Tee-offs
There's nothing in golf's rules that say you can't tee off like this:
But, as the New York Times reported yesterday, driving like that can actually increase a drive's distance by quite a lot.
It turned out that Harrington generated about 7 miles per hour more club head speed with his driver doing it Happy’s way, and he increased his usual drive of 296 yards by about 30 yards.A long video of how it works, here.
Sure, messing up would earn a lot of laughs. But with enough practice, you're telling me that a skilled golfer can't pull this off? If it means turning a Par 4 into a Par 3, then why wouldn't you at least try??
Football: The No-Huddle
The Colts do it. The Patriots do it. They don't huddle before the play, they just launch into the next one. The result? The opposing defense can't get the right personnel in. They get tired. They get confused.
Now, there are times you want to control the clock. Keep your defense off the field for some rest. But why not use the no-huddle more as a surprise? First down, you use a huddle. Second down, you huddle. But then on third and short, you fake walking back to the huddle, but quickly turn around and hike the ball. Chances are, you'll catch the defense sleeping.
Why don't teams do this all the time???
Ice Hockey: Stop Fighting
I never played ice hockey. But I do watch it. And one thing that consistently baffles me is fighting. Don't get me wrong: I love it. Goalie fights especially. But it seems like fighting is a losing strategy.
In today's NHL, starting a fight carries a 2:00 penalty on top of a 5:00 penalty for fighting. That means, at the very least, the team that starts the fight will be a man down for two minutes.
Yet, teams stockpile "enforcers," guys who do little more than skate and punch. They claim its to defend their stars from dirty play. But isn't that what the refs are for? And in what backwards bizarro world does purposely putting your team at the wrong end of a power play get revenge for a cheap shot on your star player?
Most sports tell players to avoid penalties. Hockey is the one sport that signs players who intentionally cause them.
Baseball: Using Your "Closer" Whenever
Mariano Rivera is the greatest closer of the last decade. His career ERA is 2.30. He's compiled 488 saves. When he's on the mound, hitters rarely do damage. Yet, the most innings he's ever pitched in one season was 107.2, back in 1996. His ERA that year? 2.09. Oh, and by the way, the Yankees won the World Series that year.
My point? If Mariano is so good, why not put him in when the game is on the line... which isn't always the ninth inning.
On May 6th, Mariano did pitch the ninth... in a tie game against the Tampa Bay Rays. But then the Yankees manager, Joe Girardi, took Mo out in the tenth. Phil Coke promptly let up the game-deciding home run. Why couldn't Mo pitch two innings? Shouldn't a major league reliever be able to pitch more than one inning?
The day before, May 5th, Mariano didn't even get in the game. Although maybe he should have. Against the Red Sox, down 4-3 in the top of the eighth inning, the Yankees still had the game within reach. Then the Red Sox got Jason Bay on base due to an error. Bay stole second. He moved to third on a ground out. To score a run, all the Sox had to do was hit one marginally deep to the outfield. The Yankees walked J.D. Drew to set up a possible double play.
But they stayed with reliever Albaladejo. They didn't go to Rivera, their best pitcher, even though he would only have to get two more outs than he usually would.
Albaladejo gave up the sacrifice fly. And then a single. 6-3 Boston.
Why not put your best reliever in when you need him? Especially in the eigth, when he'd only be pitching 2 more outs than normal. Is that 2/3 of an inning really going to destroy Mariano's arm?
No. Closers should get a new name. I like Stoppers. They stop the bleeding.
Any other winning sports strategies that teams don't use? Drop me a comment.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Gun Control Anyone?
"The Muhs were known to police and have previous arrests..."
Yet they owned a shotgun.
Which they used.
To kill a 7-year-old boy.
You can't tell me that's what our founding fathers wanted.
"The Muhs were known to police and have previous arrests..."
Yet they owned a shotgun.
Which they used.
To kill a 7-year-old boy.
The two cars stopped on the county-owned road outside the Muhs' home so one of the boys could go to the bathroom by the side of the road.There's a problem in this country when known criminals, who threaten to shoot to kill, are allowed firearms.
That's when, DeFoor said, the couple ran out of their house.
"Sheila Muhs started cursing at them 'Get off our property,'" DeFoor said and fired off at least one round, causing the Jeep, which had started to leave, to veer off the road.
Muhs, he said, then put the shotgun down and chased after the Jeep on her all-terrain vehicle, eventually catching up to it on the levee about 100 yards away, the ATVs headlights pointed at the Jeep.
While that was happening, DeFoor said Gayle Muhs picked up the discarded shotgun and fired at the SUV. DeFoor said the trajectory of that shot showed that the back of the SUV was sprayed with pellets, it's rear window blown out.
"The SUV was in the process to flee," the officer said.
Nelton told the Houston Chronicle that they yelled at the Muhs after the first shot that they had kids in the car and to stop shooting, but another gunshot -- possibly more -- is all they heard in return.
You can't tell me that's what our founding fathers wanted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)