i'm watching the old real world, and i can't figure out why they hate their job so much. is it b/c it's a job? they complain that their boss treats them like little kids, but i think that's b/c they never show up on time. What do they expect?

there was a segment on sportscenter tonight about the two best female basketball teams in the nation, duke and tenn. "how do these teams get better? by playing men." Both teams have a "practice team" consisting of random guys from their college. Not real basketball players. just college guys. these guys DESTROY the girls teams in practice. the best female players in college were quoted as saying "they are so much better than us, we can't do anything against them"

so, pj's theory is proven true.

PJ's down on our team, but I think it looks good.

13 teams play 4 corner infielders each (split obviously between 2 1st and 2 3rd, but combined here for simplicity). That means there are 52 corner infielders starting, and (ignoring bench), that would put the waiver wire guy at 53.

An average team would have these corner outfielders: 25, 26, 27, 28.

Our corner infielders are: 5, 18, 24, 27.

Our middle infielders (instead of the average 24, 25, 26, 27) are:

19, 23, 26, 31. (there's a player or two who is both a CI and MI so i tried to count them once)

Average catchers are 13, 14.

Ours are: 6, 12.

5x13 Outfielders = 65 playing.

Average is: 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.

Ours: 1, 6, 7, 32, 43

Now, this math is oversimplified b/c the talent pool is not bell curve, but pyramid. Thus, it's better to have the ends of the spectrum (a stud and a scrub are better than two average players.) But I don't have time to get into all of That. Besides, if that's the issue, then our Pitching is really going to do some damage. Let's assume that teams are going 6/2 for SP RP.

That puts the average pitchers at:

6x13 = 78

37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

Ours? 2, 12, 15, 26, 32, 33

Closers (again, assuming 2)

Average: 13, 14.

Ours: 3, 4.

to sum: I like our chances.

The double slit experiment –

Picture three playing cards standing up like dominoes. The first card has one hole in it. The second card has two holes in it. The third card has no holes in it. As the light comes out of the 2 holes they interact with each other in a process called “diffraction”. Imagine throwing stones into the water. Some of the waves that form will cancel each other out (the dark patches), while other waves will combine to form bigger waves (bright patches). These patches of light and dark land on the last card and is called “interference”.

This interference obviously indicates that light is acting like a wave and not a particle. If light acted like a particle, you’d expect big blobs of light behind the two holes. Imagine throwing darts through the holes.

Electrons shot out will form an interference pattern, but each individual one creates a point like a particle. So, electrons travel like waves, but land as particles. Light, electrons, and all other quantum particles thus act as both waves and particles.

Here’s where the things get crazy: If you shoot out electrons one at a time, the interference pattern still forms. That means 2 things. 1) Each electron must be passing through both holes at the same time AND 2) a single electron is then interacting with itself to create the wave (and interference). Remember, the patches are based on waves interacting with each other. But how can a single electron interact with itself?

Furthermore, shooting them out one at a time still creates the same overall pattern. That means that they “know” where their fellow particles have landed and continue the pattern accordingly. Shooting a million out at the same time will create the exact same pattern as shooting a million separate shots. But how do they “Know”???

Now, when you set up a detector at card 2 to see which hole a particle of light (or electron) is going through, everything changes. Instead of going through both holes and interacting with itself to form an interference pattern, all of a sudden they start acting like particles (darts) and 1) go through only one hole and 2) thus just form 2 blobs of light on card 3. They know they are being watched! Their behavior changes based on being observed.

The second you turn the detector off, they go back to acting “weird”.

So, they then created a “delayed choice” experiment. Instead of detecting the light at the holes in card two, they wanted to look at it half way between card 2 and card 3. Obviously, by this point, the light has passed through card 2 (either through one hole {particle/blob}, or both holes {wave/interference}).

When the detector is on (in mid flight mind you), the light lands as blobs (indicating that they passed as particles. But, if the detector is turned off, they form an interference pattern. So, the decision of whether or not to look at the light at this moment somehow affects how the light acted BEFORE it got to this moment. Past, present, time, causation??? Throw it all out of the window, it no longer exists.

We are only talking about billionths of a second here, but in theory, this should work for anything. There’s something called gravitational lensing. In short, as light travels through galaxies it can be bent by extreme gravitational forces. It’s similar to having the two cards out there in space, galaxies apart. If we decide to observe the light now, it should change to acting like a particle. Not just change now, but go back into time (before our solar system was even formed) and change then. How can what we do now affect a decision that was made billions of years ago?

On monday, I had what may have been the finest moment of my law school career (which in and of itself is a sad commentary on how pathetic my career has been)

In professional responsibility (which is an ethics class), the professor was talking about a life experience. The short version is that when he was a new lawyer, his friend came to him covered in blood and in hysterics. The Prof was able to calm the guy down and call the cops to turn himself in. The cops, in their infinite wisdom, brought the prof in as well and wouldn't let him leave. They demanded that the prof tell them certain information about when the guy came to see him. The professor wasn't sure if he was ethically allowed to divulge certain information (for the non lawyers reading this, just think of "attorney-client privlidge" and you get the BASIC idea).

The professor then began stroking his ego talking about how conflicted he was in his decision making process and how he was balancing all types of issues of ethics and morals. Then, the cops came back and threatened to ruin his career ("how do you think RU Law will react to hearing that one of their profs is being detained as a material witness for a murder?"). So, after a long episode of crying like a baby, the Professor came up with a deal. "if i show you where the knife is, will you let me go?".

Now, whether or not it is "wrong" to show the cops where the knife is is open for debate. Legally, it's a gray area in terms of rules of confidentiality. Similarly, it is reasonable for a person to conclude that the heinessness of murder superseeds (sp) the loyalty you show a friend. But, and here is the important part, the professor didn't make his decision based on either of these two factors. The thing that 100% controlled his decision is how his disclosure would affect him personally.

He asked for comments regarding his decision and someone a few rows in front of me praised him for making the right decision. "you did exactly what i would have done, and you did it for the right reasons." This actually caused me to lift my head up from under my computer and before i knew it, i had my hand up.

"um, getting back to your example professor, if the cops had let you go, would you have still volunteered the location of the knife?"

"no, i wouldn't have.".

"so the way i see it, and correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems like your decision was based entirely on the fact that you had something personally at stake. You only decided to disclose the knife after they threatened your career. You can talk about valor all you want, but that sounds pretty selfish and self serving to me and I don't see how that's 'ethical'".

"well, yeah, i guess you are right, but like i was telling you, i had a little birdie on my shoulder of my old professor who was going over the legal obligations and whether or not i had to disclose the information...."

"yeah, i understand all that, but like you said, you didn't make your decision based on that issue. You said you turned over the knife b/c of their threats, and if those threats didn't exist, you wouldn't have turned over the knife. So, your decision was based on personal gains."

"well, maybe i would have felt the guilty the next morning and gone back to them and turned in teh knife."

"ok. fine."

as i was done getting off my high horse, dan goes "i can't believe you just did that."

during the break 2 people came up to me and said "are you the one who called out the professor for being a hypocrite? way to go!"

the next day, another person came up to me and was all excited by my comments.

And thus, I have started the revolution. It only took 2 years and 10 months.

I'll right the valley part of the blog tomm. i'm tired and busy.

1) the split screen NCAA commercials where the jocks claim to be something more than jocks. We don't care. Move on. It was worse last year, with that stupid swimmer's commerical that played EVERY break between games in the first two rounds.

2) commercials, in general, that make "music" with something other than instruments. McDonalds did it back in the day. Pringles had a nice run. Now there's a banging on the car commercial. We get it. It's over.

curb, apprentice, failed suicide attempt, night terrors, other convos, elimindate, liberal comedy, poker tables, and such and such.

i'm just too tired. i know i've already forgotten the good ones.

I had forgotten this story, but steve reminded me, so here we go.....

Before they moved in, we went to check out their apartment (it's 2 blocks from my house). As we were walking (they refused to carry me), we get blindsided by the most ferocious dog that Newark has to offer. This thing was behind a fence, but i was scared enough to jump backward when it started barking.

Having none of what he was offering, we decided to cross the street to avoid this demon. Well, just as we get to the other side, we are "pearl harbored" by a dog that was twice the size (and three times the "evil") of the one across the street. This reincarnation of hitler didn't get excited, per se, when it saw us. It was almost as though it was expecting us and snuck up to the gate to get the perfect angle of attack.

As I ran in horror, i turned my head and i SWEAR i saw the two dogs head nod to each other. We were apparently the victims of a diabolical plan developed by the two dogs. Well played, canines, well played.

[i swore that day that i would never walk to their house again, or at the very least, i would take the long route. i don't know whatever happened to those dogs though, b/c they aren't there anymore. perhaps they took their show on the road]

in that his arguments against steroids just sucked the strength out of me. I was attempting to intelligently go through all the elements of the steroids issue to seperate fact from fiction. Maybe, we could then figure out WHY we are so against them. but tuna, once again in his simplicity, kept arguing "but drugs are bad, mmmkay?".

so, i'm ending the argument. I would have liked to discuss things such as laser eye surgery, tommy john surgery actually improving arm strength and the like. Then i'd follow it with a moral debate about what we want out of sports and how the essence of the game is natural ability and how steroids takes away from that.

but i give up. steroids are just bad. very very bad. the end.

Hopefully, by the end of this, i'll have an opinion on the issue. As of now, i'm undecided.

If we are going to get past the simplistic "steroids are bad, mmmkay" i think we need to decide WHY they are bad. So, in no particular order, here are reasons why one might think that steroids are "wrong"

1) They are illegal.

I guess I lied when I said i was going to tackle these subjects in no particlar order, b/c i specifically picked this one b/c of it's simplicitity. This is the weakest argument by far against steroids. If steroids became legal, would the argument against them be over? Not by a long shot. Furthermore, many of the things in question (like the growth hormone i believe) were legal at the time. as are suppliments like creotean. If it was "proven" that legal suppliments were as effective as "steroids", then the next argument would probably have to be:

2) steroids have harmful side effects.

While there is evidence indicating that high doses of steroids over a long period of time have some harful effects there haven't been any studies in terms of small doses over a short period of time. There is no way of knowing what steroids can do to people if they were only taking in moderation during a career. Most of our fear of steroids stem from hyperbole and hysteria. We have all heard of "roid rage", shrunken testicles, and the like, but who knows if any of that is true. And besides, there are a lot of things that are KNOWN to be detrimental to the body, such as cocaine, partying all night, cigarettes, and a bunch of other stuff that ballplayers do. While they test for cocaine, do we really want a situation where MLB is watching over their players like big brother and

[i'm tired and am going to bed. i'll finish this tomm. that is all]

Another connect the dots movie....when will i ever learn?

this one got me extra frustrated because they didn't even attempt to make a real "twist". Instead they basically give you 4 options right off the bat and the entire two hours is spent wondering which one it is. That's it, that's the movie. No real development, no "playing detective" by the audience. A good movie allows the audience to think along with the main character and try to "solve" the puzzle. But this wasn't a puzzle to be solved. It was more like rolling the dice. I waited two hours to see that a "3" came up.

the trick for these movies is to find the character / fact that seems to have no other point in the movie. If you have to ask "why have we been introduced to this character" then this character is the one who's going to pull the heel turn. I caught the comment in the middle of the movie, and then had to sit through the rest of it.

The really annoying thing is that they threw in misinformation as a "twist". One character would do something that would lead the viewer to think "oh, it has to be him." well, of course that's too obvious. But, i would love to put the writer/director on the stand and cross him about some of this stuff he threw in. "well, if this guy didn't do it, then why did he do this". There's no answer to this question, at least not a reasonable one. And furthermore, after the real guy is discovered, the reason it is so shocking is b/c IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

It's just lazy writing and i feel so guilty for wasting my money on something that I KNEW was going to be stupid.

Rosa wasn't out to start a revolution. She was just a tired woman who wanted a seat on the bus. She may not have realized it at the time, but her actions had monumental consequences. My bathroom protest will one day be held in the same esteem.

I know this will come as a shock to all, but I'm not that big into such superficial things like fashion or interial decorating and the like. I don't really care how things look and am not worried about dressing stuff up. However it was brought to my attention that my bathroom looks kind of bare. While I was going to put absolutely no effort into rectifying this problem, I admitted to my mother (when pressed) that i wouldn't be vehemently opposed to allowing a picture to be put up in there.

Fastfoward two weeks and in walks my mom with a really dumb looking framed ____ (I don't know the word. it's not a poster, it's not a picture... it's something). The "thing" apparently has some type of bathroom humor written on it. a top ten list if you will. Well, this is NOT what i had in mind (again though, it wasn't even my mind to begin with. i was indifferent at best). I politely hinted that i didn't think the thing was what i wanted. when that generated a "yeah it is", I said that it would look stupid in the bathroom. "no it won't, it's for the bathroom." when she asked what wall i wanted it on i said "how about the wall in your bathroom at home." 5 minutes later, it was in fact on my wall.

Luckily, nobody has used my bathroom yet, but that day is surely coming. And I know i'm going to get mocked for having something so stupid on my wall. And of course my defense of "it was my mom's idea" will only get me further ridiculed. But, really, what was i to do? Of course i could have put up a bigger fight, perhaps even arguing about it. But what's the point over arguing over something so stupid?

So, instead of getting into a huge fight over something that i don't even care about, I'm going to take a page out of Rosa's book. In a non violent protest, i will refuse to read this top ten list. Do you realize the effort this is going to take? Every day i will be face to face with this monster, but i will not yield. Not one line. I don't care what it says. Maybe it's funny, although probably it is not. Of course I have a morbid curiosity about what's on it, but the line in the sand has to be drawn. I will not back down from this battle.

And the war rages on.

some things that i will rant on when i get home and have the time:

movie twisted

nfl, owens, cap

survivor, susan hawk

"girl power"

steve/jeter bashing

man, i can't remember the rest....i know i had 3 really good ones, but i can't remember. if only this connection wasn't so slow, i could have remembered.

i'm on my desktop at home home. put on some random songs while i'm checking email. this song came up:

darryl worley - have you forgotten

i highly suggest you all d/l it so you can appreciate how angry i am.

This has bothered me for years, so here we go....

Anyone remember the episode where the Russian chess player came to challenge Screech? No? Anyway, I can't remember the exact details, but I think zack and crew were worried that Screech was going to lose b/c he didn't have his lucky berret (it was stolen by the rival school). So, they did what any rational human being would do...They kidnapped the russian star and threw him in a closet. Zack then dressed up like the russian and was ready to throw the game to Screech. Of course, not knowing how to play chess, Zack was forced to jump the pieces like they were checkers. When the triple jump worked (and screech was impressed), Zack just forfeited the game. If i recall, the russian was able to escape from the closet, challenged screech to a real game, and screech won.

Now, there was one part of the episode that really bothered me. I can accept the fact that a russian genius would come all the way to bayside for no good reason. I can accept that this game was being broadcast on radio or tv (Slater and Lisa were doing play by play if i recall). I can accept that Zack would commit a felony by kidnapping a person, that they wouldn't later press charges on him, and even that Screech wouldn't recognize his best friend with a fake wig and moustache. All of that is plausible. What really bothers me, though, is that a great chess player like screech wouldn't know that you can't triple jump in chess. The writers are very insulting to us, the viewers, by thinking we will accept that. Saved by the Bell was a great show because it was a realistic portrayal of school. We watched because we shared a common bond with Zack and the crew. For them to shatter the realism of the show with such a ridiculous plot is very disturbing. Regardless how "true" the show reamined after that (like the episode where the grew went into business selling tomato sauce), there was always this thing lingering in the back of my mind. A little part of me died inside when Screech said "wow, that was a great move"

I know this will come as a complete shock to most, but I was once again disturbed by the "rainman" mentality that consumed catholics yesterday. Instead of watching jeopardy at 5 o'clock, people instead had to flock to go get their ashes. Organized religion trully is the opium of the masses.

This isn't a question of whether or not God exists. Obviously, that is a personal question that every person has to answer on their own. But, assuming arguendo, that She does exist, i think it's safe to say that you wont be able to trick her by going through the motions. Saying "oh i HAVE to go do that tonight" is an exercise in futility. If you do something only out of "obligation" then it's not worth doing it at all. Rituals and formality have no business in spirtuality. God doesn't have a checklist to see if you "qualify" as a good christian. "hmm, ashes the past 4 years, but ate meat twice in 1999".

God doesn't care about your diet, or if you formally adhere to the rituals that an organization has put in place. Not to sound completely gay/cliched, but living a decent life where you put other people first and try to do "good" should be enough. If God is more concerned about my diet and not whether i'm a decent human being, then screw it, i'm not buying what She's selling.


btw, OF COURSE i wrote "she" just to mess with your minds. I hate having to explain my jokes, but you know it will go right over Tuna's head.

"As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced that a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to convince you and I promise you right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo. Except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is - I collect your f'n head. Just like this f'er here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f'n time."

Christina, you and I don't always agree on subjects, and that's ok. I imagine our differences stem from the fact that I use logic and common sense, and you well, you have developed your ideology from staring at the pattern of tea leaves in a cup. At times, your ridiculous and wacky beliefs are almost amusing to me, like watching a struggling puppy trying to swim.

Apparently, however, you have not learned your role. You continue to think you have the right to "show me the error of my ways". If you want to engage in an unwinable battle, that is your choice. But for the record, in the future, the definition of pretentious is someone who goes on someone else's blog and tells them they don't have a right to their opinions. This is my blog! These are my thoughts! I'm not going around telling people what to think. This is what I think. If you don't like it, don't read. I'm completely fine with someone posting a disagreeing opinion for the purpose of healthy debate. But that's not what you did here. You are incapable of debating an opinion without become emotional about it. And furthermore, your comments are entirely inappropriate because of their arrogance...both with the name calling and the hypocracy of your pretentious statements. But, if it's a war you want, it's a war you got. Enjoy.

Well I am so glad that you apparently have such an insight into raising children. I am sure that all your experience with childcare really gives you the right to write such a great message.

You should just attach a string to your back so people can pull it and have you crow "You don't have a right to an opinion, b/c you don't do it for a living." Over and over and over again, you take such a high and mighty road when it comes to your job. Not only is your job apparently the most important (and hardest) in the world, but NOBODY knows how tough it is. You really should be annointed for sainthood. Please, oh wise one, explain to me the error of my ways. I understand the "concept" of children, but I have NO idea about anything regarding any issue regarding them (?) Do you really believe you need to experience something first hand to have an opinion on it?

Do you think the hollocaust was bad? No wait, don't answer that because you didn't experience it. Just because I haven't worked extentsively in day care doesn't mean that I can't LOGICALLY come to the conclusion that it's important for a child to hear the answer "no". Is that really that hard a concept to grasp? If anything, my post is overly simplistic. I'm stating the obvious. "parents should tell their children no sometimes". I'm not reinventing the wheel here. I realize you put blinders on when it comes to your job and that it consumes your every thought, but that's not how life works for normal people. It's ok, in fact almost encouraged, to try and understand more areas of culture and society OTHER than your own narrow niche. If you want to become a one trick pony, mission acomplished. I guess I'm just more enlightened. I like to think about things other than what immediately impact me in the here and now.

And for the record, not that I should need to defend my experience to you, but I have been exposed to children in my life. Besides obviously being a kid myself at one point, I have grown up with friends who were never told "no". Needless to say, growing up spoiled eventually becomes detrimental. I have also spent many summers umpiring for little league and have thus spent countless hours with children. Furthermore, I have taken several classes in pyscology, including honors seminars at college. While none of this makes me an "expert" in child-rearing, I think I'm at least capable of making a general statement about children. But I guess opinions are only acceptable after you have spent your entire life in one area. I sincerely hope the government will allow me to have children when I'm ready and not just say "sorry, you can't have kids because you have never had kids and thus aren't an expert in child rearing". Let's hope that day never comes.

Please, talk about self-control, when is the last time you limited yourself?..i.e. all day video game marathons (you too Tom).

Have you spent years studying my behavior? If not, then you have no right to talk about my self control (using your backwards logic). For the record though, I graduated near the top of my class in highschool, graduated with high honors from Rutgers (with about a 3.75 gpa), got into law school (with a huge scholarship), and will be graduating in the top third of my class. To say I have no self control simply b/c i occassionally enjoy to play video games is bordering on slander. I work hard at what I do and am mature enough to set boundaries in terms of my recreation. I am "successful" not only by society's standards, but, more importantly, by my own.

In short, I have self control. Do you know why i have self control? Because, among things, I learned the value of no.

Parents have to fight a lot of issues today... God forbid that I ever presume to understand another person's troubles so well that I can make such ignorant comments.

wow, that's so unlike you to make broad general statements that have nothing to do with the issue [sarcasm]. Yes, parents deal with issues. Ok. I am aware of this fact. And while i might not be experiencing them myself at this very moment, that doesn't mean that my comments are ignorant. Are you a parent? If not, then aren't you as equally ignorant for attepting to presume the same issues (and commenting on them)? Oh I forgot, you WORK with kids and that makes you an expert on all things children.

SO what if that lane does not candy, are you that lazy to not walk to a different lane to get candy? If you are, maybe parents should read your blog and comment on your laziness.

Do me a favor, point to the part in the post where I say my disdain for the line has ANYTHING to do with the fact that I wanted candy. Look at the title of the post, it's about raising kids! I would never buy candy loose like that (it's much cheaper to buy from Costco in bulk). And I don't think these random parents should be allowed to comment on my laziness. Lazy people like me are dealing with many issues and it would be pretentious of people to comment on my laziness without having experienced the concept of lazy for many years. right?

Are you really that pretentious that you complain about a candy free lane? Maybe having a candy free lane prevents a diabetic child from seeing the one thing that he or she cannot eat and not only does that prevent heartache for the parents that have to struggle with a lifelong disease but it also prevents the child from being reminded of a disease that will probably eventually kill them.

Your previous "point" about me just being too lazy to walk over to get candy actually looks intelligent compared to this jibberish. Do you honestly think the purpose of these candy free lanes was to help out diabetic children? What % of children are diabetic? I doubt the 20% that would be required to justify 2 out of 10 lanes being candy free. But let's take your "logic" to the next level. Should the people at shoprite cover up their dairy section because, heaven forbid, there might be a lactose intollerant person walking around. Now, I wouldn't be pretentious enough to know what it's like to be lactose intollerant, but I imagine they must cry themselves to sleep everytime they see a slice of cheese.

What about people who are allergic to yellow #5. Should all of that be removed from the shelves? For crying out loud, I'm fat and thus have had to "deal" with the "issue" of food my whole life. Maybe shoprite should just remove all food from their stores so I don't get emotionally disturbed upon seeing it.

A diabetic kid would have even MORE of a need to learn the meaning of "no" as it pertains to candy. Call me crazy, but a child will be exposed to a candy bar at some point in their lives. As a parent, I would like the opportunity to be able to tell my diseased child "no" to a candy bar and explain to them why they can't have it. That way, when the kid is at a friends house and has the opportunity to eat a candy bar (b/c i'm not there), he'll understand that he can't have one.

Ultimately, it doesn't REALLY matter if a non diabetic kid has a candy bar in a checkout lane at shoprite. It's about the bigger picture. Raising children (so i've heard. remember, i'm not an expert in the field) is teaching your children lessons that can be carried out in bigger situations. A kid who doesn't get what he wants immediately might grow up to be less self centered and consumed with immediate gratification. The easy parenting move, the path of least resistence, is of course spoiling. A kid starts begging for candy, you have two options: shut the kid up immediately by giving him what he wants, or *gasp* actually being a parent and telling the kid no. The point of my post (since it obviously escaped you), is that parents are avoiding this "job". They'd rather just avoid the issue entirely and go through the candy free lane. Again, I'm no expert, but i think it's important for parents to actually, you know, raise their kids. And part of parenting is telling children no.

Maybe you should think a little more about people's position in life before you rant about such things you could not understand. Try to understand someone else’s life before you comment about how something so little affects yours.

Typical jibberish that has no rational point. It's impossible for me to understand anything about children and/or parenting? why? I understand that parent's have a tough job. but it's an important job that needs to get done. And to say how they raise their children has virtually no affect on me is pretty insane. Kids become adults, and the morals of adults obviously affect the world I live in. As a society, we all pay for public schools regardless of whether we have children. The reason is simple: we all benefit from an educated society. Similarly, whether or not children grow up spoiled affects society. Bad parents raise bad kids (who become bad adults). I was pointing out a flaw in current parenting that will eventually affect society. It's my right to do so. It's not pretentious. I'm not an expert in the field nor do i need to be. And, for the record, this is my blog where i express my opinions. In the future, feel free to disagree, but don't you EVER dare to lecture me on having opinions. If my answers bother you, then you should cease asking scary questions. Or better yet, stop reading a website that's entire existence is predecated on the fact that they are MY OPINIONS.

that is all. go away.

i was rereading a previous post (in preparation for ranting on christina), and i noticed that i wrote the word "guessed" three times in the span of two sentences. I changed it now, but almost feel bad for altering my original thoughts. Clearly, I write this jibberish as a steam of consciousness and rarely go back to look at it. Trust me, i'm a much better writer than one would think upon reading these rants. I just don't have the time to sit down and make this coherent.

Just take my word for it that i'm a genius. Everything just goes more smoothly when people just agree with me.

Today is a sad day, as i've finally accepted the fact that I have surpassed my mentor, Rob Neyer. Neyer was a good guy, perhaps a bit egotistical, maybe a tad condecending. And let's not forget that embarassing lisp. But, if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have been exposed to the world of sabermetrics. He is the necessary middle man between the mainstream and the progressive thinker. Unfortunately, i no longer require his services; his articles are useless and quite frankly, "below me".

In his latest article

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1742271

Neyer tries to downplay the difference in ability between Soriano and Arod. He does it the same way that other marks have in the past week, by comparing their road stats. You see, everyone knows that arod plays in a hitters park (actually, probably the best hitters park in the AL) while Soriano played in a pitchers park. So, any slack jawed local would say "dang jethro, we can't look at their home stats then. we should just look at the road stats."

The problem is that while one "variable" is being eliminated, others are not. Within their road stats, one has to also realize that a) Arod played road games at pitcher friendly yankee stadium and Soriano did not. B) Soriano played road games at hitter friendly arlington, Arod did not.

Neyer thinks he's being so witty and "true" to the saber world by suggesting we look at road stats. However, he's being even more of a mark b/c he's using statistical analysis incorrectly. The above two factors aren't the only reason why you can't look at just road stats. Arod also had to face a dominate rotation at yankee stadium while soriano got to feast on infererior texas pitching. also, soriano played an unbalanced number of road games in hitter-friendly fenway and toronto (granted, tb is neutral and baltimore is slight pitcher-friendly). Meanwhile, Arod had to deal with an unbalanced number of games in pitcher-friendly Oakland (and let's remember what pitchers are benefiting in oakland, the big three). Seattle is also a huge pitcher-friendly park, one of the worst in the league. (I don't know about the Angel's stadium). One can also argue that soriano had better protection in the lineup, but that argument is hard to prove or disprove.

So, what we have here is neyer breaking down a stat to prove something. However, he is selectively choosing his stats to prove a conclusion that he already wants to believe. He's smart enough to realize that arod and soriano had different hitting environments, but didn't fully think it out. He also throws in a little thing about "the numbers would be even less distinguishable if you throw out soriano's medicore 2001. huh, why? Why not throw out arod's first half of 2003 when he was battling nagging injuries that hampered his power. Why not point to the fact that arod is younger and in his prime while soriano, at 28, is about to begin his decline. Why not point to the fact that a high strike out / low walk rate are a good indicator to future decline while arod's plate disipline indicates that his offensive performance will remain more stable.

Neyer doesn't just stop at screwing up the soriano vs arod argument. He also adds a comment about the yankee's payroll:

I attended a local SABR meeting this weekend, and Mike Rice noted that the Yankees' payroll, as a percentage of all MLB payroll, was essentially the same in 2003 as it was in 1977, and generally has remained stable since then.

Let me get this straight. The yankees were x% of the total payroll for all of baseball (say 10%). Then, after expansion has added several teams, the yankees are still at 10%. Does Neyer really not realize that 10% now is "more" than 10% with less teams. What if a million teams were added to MLB. Wouldn't spending 10% of the entire league's payroll mean you have a HUGE advantage over the other million teams?

Poor poor neyer...he's in way over his head.

Update: I just read the comments on baseball primer regarding the article and they all say the same thing i'm saying (but better). While i'm disapointed that i didn't have an original thought, i love the idea that there are people out there smarter than me and who "get it".

I was in shoprite the other day, and i couldn't figure out why two "lanes" were labeled as "not having candy for your convenience." I had a guess as to why it was like that, but deep down i suppose i'm just too big an optimist; i couldn't really accept the fact that mankind is this flawed. But, as you probably have figured out, these lanes are for parents who don't want to deal with their kids begging for candy. So, instead of actually, you know, being a parent, and telling these kids "no", they'd just rather avoid the situation all together. Fantastic. Why should a kid learn any type of self control? it's not important for a kid to learn that they can't just get whatever they want. No, it's much easier to avoid any situations of conflict. Hide the candy from the kid. Give the parent a break.

People should not be allowed to raise children. They obviously can't handle it. And no amount of support from shoprite is going to change that fact.

It's time to pack it in and admit defeat. The inmates are running the asylum.