Right or Wrong?

As the end of every baseball season draws near (as does the fantasy baseball season), I take a look back at all the decisions I made, and invariably, many of them are wrong. But there are also always a handful where the outcome was poor, but I was not wrong, per se. It's a distinction that many people don't grasp--at least it seems that way any time a football coach goes for 2 at the end of the game when down by 1, judging by the uproar.

But the thing is, it is not the outcome that makes a decision right or wrong, it's the reasoning. It's like standing on a 20 in blackjack and the dealer draws a 21. Yeah, you lost, but standing on 20 is absolutely the right decision given the information that you have. In the same way, if the expected value of going for two at the end of a game is higher than kicking a PAT, you should go for two, no matter what the monday morning quarterbacks will say.

So I don't feel bad not acquiring someone like David Price, whose numbers belie his true talent level (high, but not THAT high), or the similar Clay Buchholz. Their true talent levels (measured by xFIP) are closer to 4.00 than 2.00, and more often than not, that's how they'll perform. But the dealer drew a 21 on them. Bummer, but no sleep lost.

But I was clearly wrong on Jose Bautista. Wow. There's not a whole lot to say about that, but one interesting thing about him that most people don't know is that of his 48 home runs to date, he has pulled EVERY SINGLE ONE:



The plot is from the wonderful Hittracker. You'd think pitchers would just throw everything low and outside to him, but I guessed they missed 48 times. Or maybe hitting to all fields is overrated.

All I Want For Christmas is Fluuuuu....Shots

Sometimes, when I go to an Asian barber (and it's always only the Asian ones, for some reason), they'll shave my neck and sideburns with an old-fashioned straight razor, and I've always loved the "cshhh" sound it makes as it slices through my hair and arteries. So lately, I've devoted myself to the religion of wetshaving - using an old-school double edge safety razor, applying the cream with the badger hair brush, etc. As an added benefit, after an initially expensive outlay, the cost per shave goes down immensely compared to the ridiculously overpriced 12-blade cartridge style razors.

I bought the brush and the cream a while ago, but it wasn't until today that I received my NOS 1970's Gillette Super Speed razor handle in the mail. I decided that I probably shouldn't use the 40 year old blades included in the package, so I dropped by Walgreens to pick up a set of their crappy generic blades, and I was met by this sign (yes I know I'm inside the store; it's the same on both sides):



Now look, I'm not an ingrate. My parents have shafted me out of so many gifts through the years that I really do appreciate anything. Socks, underwear, whatever. But even I have to admit that this one would really be a reach for me. "Merry Christmas Billy! It's a gift card for your flu shots! Why are you crying, Billy?"

I used to think a CVS gift card was the silliest idea conceived by man (again, not because I'm ungrateful, but if someone needs contact lens solution, just buy them contact lens solution); now I'm not so sure.

Anyway, I got my Walgreens razor blades and clamped one into my Super Speed and went to work - not without some trepidation, I might add. And boy, was it fantastic. It took a lot longer and you have to do it with the utmost care, lest you slice your carotid artery, but it felt great and gave me one of the closest shaves I've ever had. And there's just something so artisanal about it, like the difference between driving stick and driving an automatic. Most people will tell you that the first DE shave is going to be a mess, but I have a built-in advantage: I have about three facial hairs.

They're not even all in the same place, but patchily distributed everywhere. Ironically, I have to be MORE vigilant about shaving than someone who has densely distributed facial hair, because I don't grow a sexy 5 o'clock shadow. Mine grows like I'm a burn victim, one patch on my cheek, one patch under my nose, a patch on my neck, etc...not real attractive. When I let it grow out I look like a Mexican high school boy just starting puberty.

FINALLY

A Plea to Old Fogies

Please don't ever retire.

I'll come right out and say it - I hope Brett Favre plays another season. Two or three, even. Not because I particularly like him, but he's the last remaining skill position player in the NFL who was playing at the time that I really started following sports, around 1991 or 1992. Once the entire league turns over completely, I'll officially be old. And you know those annoying old guys who are always like, "Well in my opinion, nobody holds a candle to Otto Graham," and you kind of roll your eyes and regret that anyone ever invented Social Security? I've become that guy! The other day I was lamenting that I miss the days of less flashy, more fundamental basketball with Michael Jordan and John Stockton.

But as long as SOMEONE from 1992 is still playing, I still feel like I'm young. But these guys are dropping like flies.

MLB: We've got Jamie Moyer, Matt Stairs, Omar Vizquel (who is hitting .289!), Tim Wakefield and Jim Thome.
NFL: Favre (maybe), Matt Turk, John Kasay
NBA: Shaquille O'Neal
NHL: Mark Recchi, Mathieu Schneider, Teemu Selanne, Robert Lang, Doug Weight, Mike Modano, Adam Foote, and a whole bunch of other defensemen.

Now get off my lawn!

Stop Using Time Travel As a Plot Device!

Utterly preventable.

Of all the technologies that humanity has yet to perfect, time travel and seedless cherries have been particularly captivating to the imagination of the average person. That's presumably why every sci-fi television series has to have the requisite time travel episode, and also why the Back to the Future flicks have grossed nearly 1 billion dollars in aggregate. Trivia time: in Back to the Future II, the era with the flying cars, hoverboards, and self-fastening shoes is 2015, just 5 years from now. Did anyone in 1989 really think that we'd have flying cars in just 26 years? Sorry to disappoint you guys.

Due to the nature of the time travel, it is exceedingly difficult to craft a story that actually makes a modicum of sense whatsoever. To wit: in Back to the Future III, Marty sees Doc Brown's tombstone from 1885 and goes back in time to prevent his death, which he successfully does. But if that is the case, then the tombstone will never exist for Marty to see in the future, so he wouldn't go back in time to save him in the first place. It's a strange paradox.

But some movies make an even greater (and preventable) mockery of time travel and our intelligence. I recently re-watched Star Trek: Generations, for which, as a kid, I possessed unabashed love, but has now been attenuated down to mild tolerance. Basically, a scientist named Soran walks around on the Enterprise for a while, escapes and blows up a star system to redirect a stellar phenomenon called the Nexus right into his face. The Nexus, you see, is kind of like a space cocaine gateway into dreamworld. Picard gets caught up in it too and frantically recruits Captain Kirk to come back with him into real life and stop Soran. When they do decide to go back to reality, they can choose any time, because "time has no meaning in the Nexus," whatever the fuck that means. Let me reiterate. THEY CAN CHOOSE ANY TIME IN HISTORY TO RETURN TO, and they choose the few minutes right before Soran launches his space missile. Of course, there's a frantic struggle in which the protagonists almost fail and Kirk dies (spoiler alert). But none of that would have even been necessary if they had just gone back further in time to when Soran was putzing around on board the Enterprise with nary a care in the world. Or hell, go back even further and kill his parents, I dunno. Really disappointing. And who cares if you fail anyway? Just get back in the Nexus, go back in time and then try again.