A man who was recently dubbed the most accurate kicker in NFL history is now unemployeed. Sources have told FOXSports.com has learned that the Dallas Cowboys have cut kicker Mike Vanderjagt and will sign Martin Gramatica.

Vanderjagt has been very inconsistent this year and an inconsistent kicker and Bill Parcells are like oil and water.

With the Colts, Vanderjagt was near automatic but suffered interpersonal problems after he ripped P.M. on TV only to have Manning fire back and call him "liquored-up idiot kicker."

me: PM?!?!?!?

But what was more interesting was an exchange that wasn't published. BDD asked Hendry if the Cubs will try and initiate a philosophical change in trying to get guys on base since they were 28th in the league in runs scored and 29th in OBP or perhaps sign some free agents who have historically had higher on base percentages (maybe Carlos Lee or J.D. Drew?) or even bring in a new hitting coach to alter the mindset of the approach at the plate. Hendry responded with the following:

"Well we'd like to get guys who can get on base, but our trouble was knocking guys in. We finished 4th or 5th in the league in hitting so we did manage to get guys on base. You can get all the guys on base that you want, but you have to knock them in."

Q: Are you going to do something about the fact that you were last in oranges last year?
A: well, we had a decent amount of apples, so, we had a lot of oranges.

Seriously, this is willfull ignorance. On base percentage measures the percentage of time that your players get on base. To ignore that percentage and in fact refute it by giving one example of how you got on base is just mindblowing.

ARRGGHHH!

Ok, it wasn't THAT shocking, but I was reading an article in Spin about Americans using music to torture people in Guantanamo Bay, and I was already mentally preparing my email to Steve. I don't know why, but the fact that they use Rage Against The Machine as one of their torture songs particularly angered (and semi amused?) me. There was so many psychological tangents that were swirling in my head when I then read this sentence...

"Dr. Stephen X______ [their last name], a psychiatrist..." Now, i know it's steven, not stephen, but i honestly thought i was hallucinating when i first read it. It's like the article was speaking directly to me.

caught this on a tivo'd CR (and then had to google it to get the exact quote). I'm blown away. How could anyone continue to listen to him? This isn't even a political issue. If I'm listening to soemone b/c i respect their opinions, and then he tells me, flat out, that he doesn't believe what he says, why on earth would I continue to listen?

"I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.

...

Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it."

...........


I'm not trying to tell you that this is about me. I'm just answering questions that I've had from people about how I feel. There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs."

While I dabble in other fantasy sports (football, basketball, etc), nothing compares to fantasy baseball. competition based on skill is always more exciting than luck, and there is just too much luck involved in other fantasy sports. I take little to no pleasure in winning at fantasy football, but a victory in fantasy baseball is hard earned and well deserved.

I need to understand why Fantasy Football is so much more popular than fantasy baseball. It doesn't make sense. I can understand the argument that baseball is too time consuming. It is. But, some people actually think that football is more "exciting". This, I don't understand.

I've tried to get into the mindset of a fantasy football player, but something is lacking. Do these people go out to the bars every single sunday and watch all the games on the NFL ticket? If so, how can they possibly know how they are doing? Do they have their opponents lineup memorized? Can they calculate their fantasy points on the fly? I can get a general sense of how i'm doing (based on some key players, or if someone is in the midst of a huge game), but often times, i'm still unsure as to the ultimate outcome of my game.

I imagine that the average sunday is NOT spent at a bar. And the average person DOESN'T have the NFL ticket. So fantasy football basically comes down to watching the local team for three hours, and getting the occasional highlights. Then, at the end of halves and games (i.e. 2:30, 4:00, 5:30, etc) you go online and actually calculate your fantasy points. Yes, it all happens in one day, but the excitement is so short lived. I imagine that a good portion (25%?) of fantasy matchups are decided pretty quickly (or in the alternative, it's completely unknown b/c it all comes down to some random WR on a monday night game).

If you are just looking for excitment, why not just bet on the games? that has to be more exciting than fantasy football.

I caught the last 10 minutes of "matrix reloaded", and all my anger towards that horrible movie came flowing back. I debated searching for a comprehensive "this is everything that's wrong with the movie" type of rant, but i knew that i'd get lost in a sea of rants that only covered 85% of the problems. and i can't have that. so i'm not even going to search.

should anyone paste me a link here, however, i'd be very happy.

Ever have so many tasks that need to be accomplished in a certain time frame that it becomes completely overwhelming? Because I work six days a week, I have to pack in every single chore and leisure activity in the span of a day. It’s overwhelming. This morning was a no brainer; X-men: The Last Stand had to be viewed. But then I started to panic when I thought about how many clothes need to be ironed, how long it’s been since I’ve washed the floor, and how good a nap would be right now.

Left with too many choices, the human mind becomes overwhelmed. So I took the path of least resistence: a bowl of cereal. A man can do a lot of thinking while eating a bowl of cheerios, and here are my thoughts from the past 10 minutes…

I’ve been in the mood for sleater-kinney today, but I’m continuously faced with a dilemma when listening to them. In an interview, the lead singer [sidenote: how bizarre is it that I still don’t know the names of the members of my favorite band of all time? I like to think that it’s because I care more about the music than the people behind it, but in reality, I think it’s just because I’m bad with names] was discussing the fact that “The Woods” was a departure from their usual work. I don’t remember the exact quote, but her point was that it was not meant to appease the people who were “used” to their older albums. I specifically remember her saying that she didn’t want people listening to the album while vacuuming. Needless to say, this makes me very uncomfortable because I always put albums on that I’m familiar with while I’m vacuuming. Have I been unfaithful to the music that I love because I treat it as “background” music? Must all music be appreciated at its highest level? Must I only listen to music in the dark and with headphones on? “Can’t people have coffee anymore” [connect the dots to that Seinfeld reference].

Fine, I’ll eat my cheerios to Biggie. Biggie would have no qualms when or where I listened to his music, as long as I paid for the album. So I’m eating my cheerios, with Biggie in the background, and my mind starts wandering. Today I read an article about animals that was discussing whether or not they are conscious. Here’s a quote:

A key ingredient of consciousness is having a sense of self, a feeling that there's a "you" inside your brain. One sign of that is being able to imagine yourself in a different time and place.

I tried very hard to try and think like a dog. How smart can the smartest dog be? Is it aware that there is a species that is much smarter than it? Does it understand the master/slave relationship? Can an animal dislike my personality?

What’s more unsettling? Knowing that lesser species are still capable of a consciousness, or having two species of equal intelligence in the same planet? How different would homo sapiens existence be if there was another species that shared our level of intellect? I assume that there would such animosity between the two species, just as each ethnicity conflicts with each other as a self preservation mechanism. If early settlers were upset with the Irish coming in and taking all their jobs, can you imagine how much we’d hate another species? It would both be a uniting and dividing phenomenon to have another species to compete with.

This then segued into my ever continuing quest to try and understand the mindset of a slave owner. Did white people REALLY believe that they were better than black people? How does that start? I can understand being born into a culture of racism, and just going along for the ride, but there had to be a premiere generation that started it all, right? I just can’t imagine seeing something that had two arms, two legs, a head, and could (or eventually would learn) how to speak English and think that was more “property” than “man”. Seriously, can you imagine treating a human being like a garden tool? And yet, we can’t just dismiss the entire society as “evil”. There had to be theoretically “good” people who were slave owners. That, had they been born in a different era, would have been completely ok with racial equality.

Is all morality relative? Is there something that we are doing right now that will be looked upon as bad as slavery? Maybe the fact that we don’t fix the homeless problem in our country. I barely acknowledge homeless people when they ask me for money. Am I 21^st century slave owner? Great now I’m not going to be able to sleep tonight. I hate people who can fall asleep easily. Why aren’t they worrying whether or not future societies will deem them to be slave owners?

Cereal is done. Time to vacuum.

the a's getting swept, or eckstein's homer?

Obviously, I knew the WWE was bad, but I didn't realize how bad until last night. Somewhere in ECW's last year or two of existence, i basically gave up on professional wrestling. The downward spiral was pretty steady, so it's hard to pinpoint when i stopped watching. Towards the end, i remember watching JUST so i could fully appreciate Netcop's scathing recaps.

In the past couple of months, I've attempted to rekindle my interest, but the exercise had been futile. Raw is now on the level of "SNL bad" in that it's so proactively annoying that i can't even have it on the TV in the background. Just the very sound of the show makes me cringe with annoyance.

Despite my distaste for professional wrestling, I looked forward to the trip this weekend to see the wXw tourny in Allentown PA. If nothing else, it was going to be a good nostalgia trip and an excuse to eat Chik Fila. However, I never expected the show to spark a revival in my enjoyment of professional wrestling. Basically, when the show ended, I was already planning my next trip to an indy show.

Booking a quality show seems pretty simple. There were no Russo swerves or Sportz Entertaiment during the card. Just the simple "good vs. evil" battle between heels and faces that have been entertaining crowds for decades. The wrestlers were a bit on the unseasoned in their execution at times, but that was completely overshadowed by their youthful exerbance and dedication. Several of the wrestlers were definitely well rounded enough to "make it".

Ugh, it's a lot harder to write a "rave" compared to a "rant". Let's just leave it as i had an absolutely great time at the show, and i look forward to the next road trip in the near future.

Baseball is not a team sport. Few people really understand this. Yes, 25 people (more when you include coaches, replacements, trainers, etc) have to interact with each other for eight months every year, but that doesn’t make it a “team” sport. Not only is baseball not a team sport, but it’s not even a sport of continuous action but rather distinct, isolated events. If soccer is an example of an analog sport, baseball is its digital equivalent.

In basketball, a defense is only as strong as its weakest player. When a player gets beat, it’s up to his teammates to rotate over and help him out. A pointguard needs to be completely in tune with the players he’s trying to get the ball to. They need to think with one collective conscious. In football, if a receiver and quarterback sense a blitz, they will both independently (yet collectively) change the receiver’s route. Taking a great receiver and placing him with an equally great quarterback will not automatically lead to great results. It is only through “teamwork” and cohesiveness that they will become a strong unit together.

Baseball is not like that. When a player comes up to bat, he is alone. There isn’t a zone defense, or westcoast offense, but rather only a pitcher, a defense, and a ball. And perhaps an equally isolated teammate on a basepath or two. The only players who exhibit any type of “teamwork” in the traditional sense are the pitcher and catcher, and perhaps the two middle infielders in terms of turning double plays.

Say what you will about “team chemistry”, but it’s hard to believe that it really exists in a sport where the idea of “team” is as fragile as it is in baseball. A baseball team is a glorified company and the rules of chemistry are no different than if they worked in an office instead of a diamond.

The believers in team chemistry (and you know who you are) will argue that a work environment that lacks “chemistry” will suffer just as a team would. This is an overly simplistic analysis. If I worked at a job that actually had a team oriented goal and where I actually had to work with other people, perhaps I could buy that. But how many people actually have such jobs? Being annoyed by the person in the cubicle next to you is not an example of suffering from poor chemistry. I have worked in environments where I absolutely cannot stand my coworkers. However, once I turn my head and attention towards the work in front of me, it becomes only about the work. I might despise my peers, or be annoyed by the incompetence of people who work above me [not direct supervisors per se, but rather the people I have to deal with in order to get my job done], but at the end of the day, my work is my own. And, maybe I’m just more professional than other people (or perhaps I just lack certain human emotions), but I just don’t comprehend how a lack of “chemistry” could alter my ability to perform an isolated event.

It’s unfortunate that simple minds need nice simple “stories” to explain random events. The Yankees went 1-3 this week, and we need some type of “story” to explain why. Perhaps the fact that their offense consists of “paid mercenaries” explains the fact that Abreu’s line drive in game 2 wound up hitting the top of the wall for a single instead of going over for a home run. Perhaps Arod’s surliness is the reason that Captain Intangibles wasn’t able to inject him full of mystique and aura. Or maybe when two very good teams play each other four times, the better team can lose three times.

at imdb.com, everytime you click on a message board page (or even to nest a thread), you get an advertisement page inbetween. it's now unusable.

thanks alot.

on my last day on the job, i had absolutely nothing to watch. i mean NOTHING. so i borrowed "fat girlz" starring monique. it was as bad as you would assume. but, they let us go early, so i don't know how it ends. why do i want to know? i shouldn't care, but i do.

sad.

That was actually one of the first lines of a dvd audio commentary. Obviously, i turned it right off. How arrogant is hollywood that they think the audience will spend two hours listening to actors or directors mindlessly banter about w/o any structure? I prefer a commentary that is informative over entertaining (though backstage stories can be interesting).

The best audio commentary ever is Resevoir Dogs. They took clips from multiple sources, including actors, QT, critics, and other people who worked on the film. It worked very well.

Hollywood, take note.

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/

it even beats my theoretical one where you just move your fingers and the keyboard "knows" what you meant.

they each play on a team that happens to be playing the team that the other is on.

They are now releasing Star Wars DVDs that come as 2 discs each. one disc is the original version of the movie, w/o all the added affects (and perhaps w/o greedo shooting first) . Of course, if he had originally released these versions, nobody would have bought the "other" version. But, by selling the crap first, he gets to double dip.

why do people complain about the price of gas per gallon, when it's less than basically every other liquid that is sold to mankind? because their minds aren't capable of grasping the concept that the reason we spend so much money on gas is because we are using it in great quantities. If the automobile industry put in a little effort, they could probably create a process that extracted more energy from the burning of gasoline. If "filling up" for the week only required 5-10 gallons, then 3 bucks per gallon would seem like a steal.

I never saw a purple cow

But if I were to see one

Would the probability ravens are black

Have a better chance to be one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

this doesn't seem appropriate at all

News: Manny Ramirez returned to the starting lineup on Saturday and went 0-for-3 with an intentional walk.
Impact: Ramirez's sore knee caused a problem in the eighth, when he was wrongly called out at third by umpire Ron Kulpa. Ramirez was going from first to third on Mike Lowell's tiebreaking single with two outs and was tagged after choosing not to slide. The tag, though, knocked the ball out Adrian Beltre's glove, which meant it wasn't truly a tag at all. Kulpa called him out anyway, apparently because Beltre was able to grab the ball before it hit the ground (as if it mattered), and none of other umpires could be bothered to get the call right. It was an especially big play after the Red Sox lost 4-3.

When i first saw that comment i thought "well, it's really really stupid, but there's gotta be something more offensive, right?" I tried to get inside Dusty's head to see if there is any defensible excuse for making such a comment. There isn't.

I guess the type of player that Dusty is talking about is a Giambi w/o power. Imagine someone as slow as Giambi who has as good an eye as Giambi, but who doesn't hit that many homers.

So Giambi* (*that's what we'll call him) leads off with a walk. He's now "clogging the bases" for the guy after him. I'm picturing someone that Dusty really likes, like say Tony Womack.

What are the options for Tony Womack?

Giambi doesn't "clog the base paths" if Womack homers, strikes out, flies out, pops up, walks, or hits a regular single.

If Womack hits a ground ball and Giambi is forced out, then at least Womack, the speedster gets on base for free and is the antithesis of "clogging".

If womack hits into a double play, then Giambi doesn't get a chance to "clog".

If womack hits a long single that could have been a double, then yes Giambi has clogged the paths by not being able to get all the way to third. So instead of womack on 2nd, you get Giambi on second and Womack on first. The latter is much more valuable, unless you are playing for just one run and the next guy singles.

If womack hits a potential triple, but only gets to 2nd b/c of Giambi clogging, then you have 2nd and 3rd instead of just 3rd. Again, having two guys on is much more valuable.

I can't really think of any other examples of this alleged "clogging". So yes, i guess it is the dumbest thing ever. Dusty is just assuming that his speedsters are hitting triples and inside the park home runs, but are forced to just settle for singles b/c of the runners ahead of them.