Do you remember Dan and Dave? I do  


I was watching PTI two days ago, and they were talking about an American Express ad campaign for the US open that featured Andy Roddick. Apparently, Andy got knocked out in some early round and now the campaign is a big failure. The guys on PTI then discussed Nike's campaign from the '92 olympics about the two decathelete guys, dan and dave. They said that the campaign was a HUGE disaster b/c Dave didn't even qualify for the olympics.

Let me rephrase what they were saying, and we'll see if you agree....

"hey, remember that commercial from 13 years ago?"
"of course I do, how could I forget?"
"yeah, that commercial wasn't sucessful".

The ONLY point of a commerical is to force the consumer to recognize your name. THIRTEEN (doesn't it look longer by writing it out?) years later, and we still remember.

yeah, what a failure.

An update to my DMB rant....even Dave himself agrees with me  


The College Experience  


I'm going to do things backwards here. I am requesting my readers (all 2 of you), to rant (or rave) to me about the college experience. Specifically, I'm trying to understand what value a college education has (other than the piece of paper that you get to hang on your wall and the line on your resume). I feel like the money i spent on college was a huge waste (and let's not even talk about law school). I feel like i have enough of a curiosity and thirst for knowledge that I could learn independently. Yes, there was an occassional thought provoking professor or two, but i feel like we are all professors and all students (wow, that sounds cliched).

What did you learn in college that you couldn't learn by reading on your own? whether in a book or on the internet? What kind of structured lectures couldn't be recreated in a conversation at a bar?

In my mind, college was 4 years of quasi independence, w/o any real world concerns or obligations. We were surrounded by people our age, and obviously that faciliated finding interesting people who were thought provoking and who challenged the way you went about thinking. But that's not really "college". that's the atmosphere around it. That college ave, not Rutgers.

So, explain to me what i'm missing? Because i really want to believe that college is something more than a scam to transfer middle class families' life savings into these moneymaking institutions.

discuss. PLEASE.

"it's all about the beer" - what does that even mean?  


I hope i'm dreaming right now, b/c if that commercial was real, then our society is much worse off thatn i thought.

Two Asian kids appear on screen clearly trying to "act black". they are getting two 40's of malt liquor and talking in slang. Then they see a black guy getting a 6 pack of heineken. They head nod. Then the black guy walks away using a different kind of slang.

Cut to the cash register, where the asian kids are now using the new slang....and of course buying Heineken.

"heineken - it's all about the beer"

Huh? how is it about the beer? it's about the status of the beer. It's about the fact that Heineken is a cool fad right now. It's about how black people drink heineken, and how asian people want to be black. This has to be the most racist commercial i've ever seen.

I mean, if it was really about the beer, are they really saying that by showing that people who were ready to drink 40's of MALT LIQUOR like it?

Seriously, this is the LAST time i rant on the intentional walk  


In the bottom of the 10th, Torre intentionally walked the bases loaded. There had previously been a runner on 1st and 3rd with two outs. In other words, one run will win the game for TB. There's no concern over creating a double play opportunity or anything. It's quite simple: record an out before that guy on third comes home.

He had two choices. Pitch to Huff or walk Huff and pitch to Gomes. There are 4 ways that the runner can score:

1) passed ball or wild pitch. The chances of this happening are unknown to me, but are the same regardless of whether Huff or Gomes is at bat (roughly). Thus, we can ignore it.

2) the batter hits a ball that is either misplayed (error), or a fielder's choice that doesn't record and out. An example would be a play deep in the SS hole where Jeter is forced to go to 2nd instead of making the long throw to first. Perhaps if there was a ton of speed on first, and the hitter was fast himself, then it might make sense to load the bases just on that rare chance that such a perfect ground ball is hit. But, Perez was on first and doesn't have a stolen base all season. Huff has 8 sbs in a full season, and Gomes has 4 since beign called up. They are not exceptionally fast, and this scenerio thus isn't applicable. And the chances of a fielder commiting an error are also probably the same regardless of the hitter.

3) They pitch to huff and huff gets a hit. Everyone knows how to measure the chance huff is going to get a hit right? While there are many things to consider (pitcher he's facing, past performance, etc etc), let's keep this nice and simple and look at 2 stats. His average for the season is .265. Thus, 26.5% of his "at bats" turn out to be a hit. His carreer average is better: .290. So, if you pitch to "average Huff", he'll get a hit slightly less than 30% of the time.

4) They walk Huff, and then pitch to Gomes. Now, even though Gomes is batting .279, one could argue that it's less stable than Huff's .290 b/c he's basically a rookie and thus it's a small sample space. I wouldn't argue that Huff is a better hitter than Gomes....he probably is. But, Gomes doesn't need to get a hit. he needs to either get a hit OR walk. So, looking at his OBP yields a number of .373. Over 37% of the time this season, Gomes has gotten on base either by walk or a hit.

And while Gomes' numbers are unstable b/c they are a small sample size...there's no doubt that his OBP will be higher than Huff's average. Let's throw in the fact that Proctor has control problems and thus is even more likely to walk someone.

If you were manager of the Yankees, would you rather put yourself in a situation where you lose 29% of the time, or 37% of the time?

Torre's decision is ponderous. What's more confusing is why he's allowed to continue to make these decisions.

ad hominem  


"According to the new book by conservative author and journalist Bernard Goldberg, 100 people are to blame for the sad state of our country, and most are decidedly liberal."

#1 - Michael Moore.

2nd Knicks post within the past 5 minutes  


Doing a little research on the Allan Houston Rule...

[sidenote: the knicks' websites, when discussing Jerome's waiver, dont' even call it the allan houston rule. what brainwashing! but, in truth, i keep calling it the allan houston rule over and over again b/c i want to make sure you all know how ridiculous it is that they didn't use the allan houston rule on allan houston]

...and I came across this little gem of a quote

“You’ve heard the mantra before in terms of getting younger and more athletic,” said Thomas. “That’s the type of player we’re looking for, whether he’d be a wing or play up front or in the middle.

Way to think outside the box ishiah. btw, in case you forgot, here's the definition of "mantra"

"A sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities."

At least Zeke used the word correctly.

Multiple Choice Test on the "Allan Houston Rule"  


Is everyone familiar with the "allan houston" rule? basically, with the new CBA, NBA teams are allowed to waive one guy in an amenesty move. You still have to pay the guy, and he still counts against the cap (i think), but you no longer have to pay the luxery tax on his contract. It's been informally dubbed the Allan Houston Rule b/c houston's contract is an albatross, arguably the worst contract in all of sports. While there are equally unworthy contracts, this one was shocking right from day one, as the Knicks out bid themselves for this aging shooting guard who can't play defense.

Ok, so with all that being said, would you care to guess who the knicks chose to use the Allan Houston Rule on?

A) Allan Houston - aging shooting guard who can't play defense and who's knees are so bad that he hasn't been able to play for any extended period of time in the last two years. He's the 2nd highest paid player in the NBA this upcoming season, and will get a RAISE next season as well. Waiving him would save 39.8 million in luxury tax.

B) Shannon Anderson - No longer a Knick because he was waived last season. Thus, using the rule on him would cost the Knicks nothing talent wise, but would shave 18 million in luxury tax.

C) Maurice Taylor - all offense, no defense. Not a good combination for the defensive minded Larry Brown. Cutting him would save 19.8 million.

D) Jerome Williams - Defensive and Rebounding Role player who has little offense. Cutting him would only save 12.5 million.

If your answer was D, please stop reading my blog, b/c i don't like you Mr. Dolan.

beez in the 'hood  


There has been a growing level of hatred that I feel towards Applebees [note to self: try and find that multiple page letter i wrote them], but their non stop advertising campaign that they are part of the neighborhood is driving me crazy.

Their latest commercial is how the local football team comes to them after they lost the big game. Even though it's past closing time, applebees decides to stay open for them b/c "they care". Applebees, you see, cares about the local area despite the fact that they are a huge chain of identical franchises.

I have very very very little faith in the american consumer (mainly b/c they are american). But come on, do they really buy into this? What's more "local"? a mom-pop shop that's been around the neighborhood for 3 generations, or this corporate franchise that just steamrolls in? Putting some posters of the local team on your wall doesn't make you local.

If anyone goes to applebees to support local authenticity, they should be shot.

a post on a six feet under message board  


there was a debate going on about the scene in which a younger Nate was crying over the death of Kurt Cobain. One poster took offense to another poster's use of the word "genius" when describing Kurt. Then, in another post, they were debating whether a 30 year old would even care.

one poster had a comment that went something like this: "i'm about Nate's age, and was thus around 30 or so too when Curt died. I didn't cry. I couldn't even imagine crying. I didn't even really know of Curt until AFTER he died. It's unrealistic that someone my age would cry".

What a self centered view of the world. She admitted to not even knowing who kurt was! but somehow her emotions are on the same level as someone who may have actually been a fan?!?