movie forecast: balls of fury

editor's note: for a detailed explanation of a movie forecast, click here

let it be known that i am an amazing ping pong player, which is slightly why i am drawn to a movie in that features ping pong played at cutthroat levels. in addition to that, i'm a sucker for movies that don't take themselves seriously, and by the looks of things, balls of fury fits under that category. i've never seen the lead actor of this movie before, but he doesn't look like someone who might suck the life out of this movie. the rest of the cast is filled with seasoned veterans, among them the old fobby chinese guy, cheeseburger eddie and christopher walken. most people i've talked want to see this movie because they think christopher walken will be funny, which is interesting because these same people do not realize that he actually had a prolific career before the 'more cowbell' sketch.

i think that balls of fury will know how to balance realism and the absurd so it doesn't get too ludicrous. they have been some movies where too much absurdity detracts from the movie, but i don't think balls of fury will be like that. i am certain that balls of fury will do the same thing for ping pong that blades of glory did for figure skating; that is, expose the humor in an otherwise insignificant sport.

prognosis: 8/10

untitled

i know that i am in the smallest of minorities when i say that i do not favor a playoff system in college football. this may come as a shock to many, but i enjoy the current bcs format. i admit that this has not always been the case, especially with so many controversial match-ups in the championship game. but unlike previous years, i think that the bcs did a good job in selecting what the consensus thought were the two best teams to play for the national championship last season. when it looked like ohio state and michigan were to play each other again for the title, the bcs and its voters decided to move michigan lower in the polls and usc higher. and when usc lost, instead of moving michigan back to the number 2 spot, they moved florida into that position. in years past, with the much more flawed bcs system, ohio state and michigan would most likely met in the final game. but the bcs seems to be smarter, and more aware of what it's doing. it seems as though it knows who should be playing and somehow fudges the numbers so that the match-ups come out the way it should.

another reason as to why i don't favor a playoff system is the significance of each and every college football game. no other league [professional or otherwise] can make this claim in the same way that college football can. the very first game in august or september is just as important as a game in november. if there were a playoff, many of the college games would lose a big part of their significance. i say keep it the way it is and keep each and every game to be as important as any other game on the schedule.

i realize that a system akin to the bcs would not be something that i would want for the nfl. i know that may seem contradictory to everything that i have mentioned, but the nfl has a drastically lower amount of teams, whereas the ncaa has many and each team no matter how small has a chance to play in their own "super bowl." the various amount of smaller bowls that most fans pay little attention is oftentimes a school's sports highlight of the year. such bowls are created for small but dedicated fan bases who deserve to see their team play in a game at a national level. i know that we can have these bowls and a playoff, but that would seem to tarnish what little significance that is attached to them.

editor's note: links and most likely a wide-scale revision coming soon.

separated at birth?

anyone who doubts the familial relationship of khalil greene and jeff spicoli should look no further than similar lives the two have led. both have ties to san diego, and both enjoy are interested in getting hits [khalil enjoys the baseball variety, and jeff enjoys the not-so-legal variety]. both look stoned all the time, which would explain why khalil cannot hit above .250 [i am thinking that padres fans hope that this is the reason why]. currently, khalil continues to struggle at the plate, while jeff continues to struggle with fractions.

it's lotto money

the california lottery is up to $250 million for tomorrow's drawing. i myself do not play the lottery, but i know some people who do. in fact, i was asked to buy some lotto tickets for them not because they were unavailable to buy tickets themselves, but because i live close to bluebird liquor. apparently, bluebird liquor is the second highest selling lottery ticket venue in california largely due to the fact that hundreds of winning tickets have been purchased there. it has become so famous, the liquor store now sells over 5 million lottery tickets annually. even with that in mind, when i arrived at the store i was still surprised to see about fifty people standing in a line with the sole purpose of buying a lottery ticket. this line even went out the door and onto the sidewalk for 50 feet or so. after finding the end of the queue, i was told that if you were to buy anything [like a $0.50 candy bar], you could go to the front of the line. i couldn't believe that these people not only were going there to just buy lottery tickets, but that they wouldn't even spare a couple of quarters to get out of the heat and save themselves 20 minutes of standing in line. these people put fiscal musings to shame. so after getting inside [uh...], i asked a few people why they would come here to buy tickets. an old man simply pointed upwards, where i saw endless records of winnings taped to the ceiling. my guess is that were at least 500 pieces of paper with winning totals on them [by the way, most of them weren't million dollar jackpots, but still significant amounts of money].

enough is enough

the hollywood reporter reports that fox searchlight will be making johnson family vacation 2, with cedric the entertainer expected to reprise his role.

i don't know how something like this happens anymore. johnson family vacation is by far the WORST movie that i have seen in a theatre, which is saying something because i saw bride of chucky in the theatres. yes, a movie with two dolls getting married was better than that movie. i'm certain that children aren't even entertained by that movie. johnson family vacation is a direct insult to anyone with half a brain. the entire film was forced, and none of the actors or characters brought anything to the movie.

so what does fox searchlight do? instead of burying this movie from the collective minds of people everywhere, they intend to make a sequel to destroy what little will of those who saw the first film may still have. banking on cedric the entertainer to make money at the box office would be similar to asking chris berman to keep a long story short: it just won't happen. [and what exactly does cedric the entertainer entertain? the thought of taking a dump? seriously, he needs to be stripped of his nickname.]

i am amazed at how many poor decisions are made at movie studios. do they not realize that people do not want to see garbage thrown in their faces? if i wanted that, i'd go to the zoo and have monkeys sling their feces at me. yet, that's exactly what the studios do. it's patronizing to think that the studios knowing that they can get away with such behavior [which is largely due to people continuing to see such movies]. i suppose all i can hope for is the next johnson family vacation resulting in a permanent one.

movie forecast: mr. bean's holiday

editor's note: for a detailed explanation of a movie forecast, click here

i have no desire to see mr. bean's holiday, nor have i seen anything mr. bean related. i have seen some movies with roman atkinson [johnny english, the first half of rat race] and they were decent movies. on the other hand, i'm not sure what to make of this mr. bean character. for some reason, i don't know if he can talk or not. i always thought he was a mute, but i could be very wrong. personally, i don't see the appeal of mr. bean, maybe i'm not british enough. i think the main reason why it i'm not drawn to his character is because he doesn't seem to have much personality other than being a bumbling idiot.

at any rate, from the trailers that i've seen of mr. bean's holiday, it looks terrible. in one scene, mr. bean spills ice cream and licks the laptop. i wish i were kidding. seriously, would a person with an iq over 70 do that? i would hope not. apparently mr. bean's holiday is only the second mr. bean movie, even though it feels like there are at least eight other ones [i am aware that it was a tv show]. with all that has been said, i concede that it's possible that this movie might exceed my expectations, but i think it is rather unlikely.

prognosis: 4/10

separated at birth?

although cleveland cavaliers head coach mike brown and predator star bill duke sometimes get confused for one another at family reunions [they found each other after bill overheard coach brown say, 'i'm gonna cut your name right into him!' during a time out], both say the person that other people get them confused with the most is either their cousin or their father.

this is truly the total package

other than having a nickname that reminds everyone of a penis, lex luger is well-known in the wrestling community for many things: being the only wrestler to bodyslam yokozuna in an competition in which that was the goal, having a steel plate implanted in his forearm and having a finishing move called the 'torture rack,' among other things. but none of those can compare to his infamous battle with a t-shirt. there are so many great parts to this clip, i really can't decide which one is my favorite. let's review:

0:07 luger shows frustration by placing two hands on his face. and who says wrestlers are bad actors.

0:18 oh. i guess that's why people say they're bad actors.

0:20 luger has trouble saying 'despicable.'

0:30 not sure of the name of the upcoming show, luger refers to it as 'super brawl,' then 'super saturday.' the interviewer then has to quietly correct luger as he fears for his life.

0:39 little did luger know that when he says, 'i don't know!' it would become the gayest moment of his life.

0:43 luger has great difficulty taking off a shirt. after defeating the shirt, he quips, 'and these shirts are too tight!'

0:55 correction: luger saying 'i'm pissed now!' might actually be the gayest moment of his life.

1:00 luger apparently has a problem exiting, as he is heard off-screen saying, 'and the door is locked too!' unable to keep a straight face, the interviewer cracks a smile and realizes that this might be the funniest event of his life.

separated at birth?

upon meeting each other for the first time since their separation at birth, will ferrell is quoted as saying, 'it's like looking into a mirror, only not.' these two giants have grown close and now they are indivisible. will ferrell has even adopted that stupid fist-tap-to-the-head thing that adam does with ken griffey jr. as for adam, well, he continues to strike out a bunch.

biting the hands that feeds

the nfl regular season hasn't even started, and i'm already dreading the endless terrell owens updates [you know they're coming]. i didn't really care when the dude was late for practice and i didn't care when he was doing sit-ups in his driveway. i also didn't care when he was riding an exercise bike, nor did i care when he got in shouting matches with his coaches. furthermore, the media [i'm looking at you, espn] 'reported' on owens so much that i really didn't want to hear about his [allegedly] suicide attempt. don't get me wrong, i do not wish him dead, nor any ill will. but after it became clear the following afternoon that it was accidental, i had no further interest in with the story. espn on the other hand, took the story and ran with it for several weeks even though there wasn't any new information. they basically just rehashed the facts and force-fed it down our throats, and when we gagged from all the 'analysis,' they just found another hole to shove it down. all i can say is that espn is a joke.

i'm assuming espn is run by smart business [not sports] people, so there must be some rhyme to their reason. the first thing that comes to mind as to why they air endless 'coverage' of certain players/topics is perhaps people actually want to see this stuff. well, after surveying several of my colleagues, none of them are really interested in their 'in-depth investigations.' even with the small sample size fallacy in mind, i decided that this was not a viable motive. so i wondered why they would choose to talk about something most people are tired of watching. after some deliberation, my best answer would be because espn has decided that there is nothing else noteworthy enough to talk about. it seems that they believe talking about terrell owens shooting lay-ups is more interesting than sports highlights and actual game analysis.

as much as everyone at espn criticizes and demonizes figures like owens, they all know that they need people like him so that they can maintain their job. where would pedro gomez be without barry bonds? i'll tell you, homeless. where would sean salisbury be without terrell owens? i'll tell you, living in a tent on skid row in downtown los angeles. the media needs players like owens as much as he craves attention from them, which makes it intriguing as to why the media reacts the way it does to an owens or a bonds. these guys are paying their bills. only a conglomerate as pompous as the media would try to bite the hand that feeds them. what other business would even consider endlessly criticizing the people who keep them employed?

one of my favorite social phenomena centers around nfl live. espn thinks that since football has become a huge sport [or as they see it, a cash cow], they can air a 30 minute football analysis year round, even during the nfl's 6 month off-season. so what do trey wingo, mark schlereth and sean salisbury have to say during these months? well, the answer is quite simple; they make speculations to which they know they won't be held liable. basically they can say anything they want and make 'bold' predictions because they know most people won't remember that sean salisbury once said that michael vick will throw for 4,000 yards and run for 1,000 yards in the same season [note: he actually said this in the fall of '06].

as mentioned before, when the espn 'experts' aren't making outlandish claims, they are complaining about someone or discussing something that really isn't a big deal [see barbaro]. or they are showing us a puff piece, which i suppose does perform its purpose by blowing smoke up our butts. but i guess you can't please everyone, and espn knows that. i'm sure if they showed more highlights of regular season contests, some people would whine about having too much focus on a 'meaningless' game [by the way, these people are not true sports fans, they are more interested in e!spn]. i suppose the optimal event for everyone [eg fans, media, players] would be terrell owens punching mark schlereth in the face repeatably, which would give everyone at espn something to talk about for months. it's a win/win/win situation. this needs to happen, which is one thing that both espn and i can agree on.

movie forecast: superbad

editor's note: for a detailed explanation of a movie forecast, click here

the most appealing aspect of this movie is the prospect of michael cera playing his character much in the same way that he played his character, george michael, on the show arrested development. i'm sure he's not doing it on purpose exactly; it's more likely that he has limited range as an actor. whatever the case may be, his acting style comes across well in a comedy sense. the other dude in the movie, the fat kid with the afro, just seems crass and unappealing. that's okay though, because his character is one that i can easily ignore.

i'm not quite sure what the plot of this movie is, but i think it's centered around two losers and their friends trying to have a memorable senior year. not exactly new subject matter, but i don't think that matters much. what will matter is the movie's tongue-in-cheek humor and style that will be highly enjoyable and entertaining.

prognosis: 8/10

top 10 greatest guitar solos of all time

in the '60s and '70s, the guitar solo was at its apex. many of the finest guitarists of that era honed and perfected this aspect of their craft. they were oftentimes pushed by their peers to develop new and intricate sounds in order to receive their respect as a true musician. currently, the guitar solo is a dying as an art. at first it's difficult to understand why [since many people enjoy them], but then the realization comes that a good guitar solo requires much more skill than what most talentless mainstream musicians actually possess. with that being said, following guitar solos aren't necessarily the fastest, nor are they always the most melodic; what makes these solos the ten best is almost unexplainable. attempts can be made to describe why they're so great, but i think only by listening can we fully understand their true beauty.

10. crossroads [eric clapton, cream]
9. sultans of swing [mark knopfler, dire straits]
8. eruption [eddie van halen, van halen]
7. one [kirk hammett, metallica]
6. sweet child o' mine [slash, guns n' roses]
5. free bird [allen collins, lynard skynard]
4. hotel california [don felder/joe walsh, the eagles]
3. mr. crowley [randy rhoads, ozzy osbourne]
2. stairway to heaven [jimmy page, led zeppelin]
1. machine gun [jimi hendrix]

the rivalry lives on

on july 31, 2007, the boston celtics traded al jefferson, theo ratliff, ryan gomes, sebastian telfair, gerald green, the celtics' 2009 first round draft pick [top 3 protected], the celtics' 2009 first round pick [originally the wolves'] and cash considerations to the minnesota timberwolves for kevin garnett.

kevin garnett going to the celtics had as much to do with finding the right value as it does with mchale helping his old franchise [the celtics] and spiting his old rival [the lakers]. i will review the kevin garnett trade saga as far as we know it to prove my point.

the following are actual proposed deals prior to the 2007 nba draft, which took place on june 28. i deliberately left out players who were included in the trade only for salary matching purposes [save for theo ratliff, who really isn't even a person anymore as he is a major bargaining chip].

june 23, 2007

wolves get al jefferson, the no. 5 pick, theo ratliff, wally szczerbiak and sebastian telfair
celtics get kevin garnett and troy hudson

analysis : this trade is quite similar to the trade that actually did get done, except the wolves didn't get the no. 5 pick. instead they received a different collection of garbage players and two 2009 draft picks [which will most likely be in the mid-20s]. if i were kevin mchale, i'd rather have the 2007 no. 5 pick.

june 23, 2007

wolves get shawn marion and the suns' 2008 first round pick [via hawks]
suns get kevin garnett

analysis : this is your classic 60 cents on the dollar trade, although that hawks pick looks very tempting. i think steve kerr was trying to pull a fast one on mchale, which isn't really difficult.

june 23, 2007

wolves get al jefferson, the no. 5 pick and theo ratliff
suns get kevin garnett
celtics get shawn marion

analysis : the wolves would receive the same parts as an earlier trade proposal, only in this situation kg goes to the suns and the celtics receive marion. this deal had a good chance of completion, save for the fact that marion didn't want to go to boston [or minnesota for that matter]. the wolves still would've traded garnett for 60 cents on the dollar if this deal went through.

june 26, 2007

wolves get al jefferson, the no. 5 pick, theo ratliff and sebastian telfair
lakers get kevin garnett
celtics get jermaine o'neal
pacers get lamar odom and andrew bynum

analysis : this is the trade that should've happened. this deal was very close to completion, but the celtics balked at the last moment because they didn't want to give up al jefferson. the celtics offered a combination of other players instead [eg gerald green, ryan gomes, etc] but the wolves insisted on jefferson. i can see why mchale wanted jefferson, but even without jefferson the wolves would've got a better package than what they ultimately received. basically, they received jefferson and two mid-20 draft picks instead of the no. 5 pick. while jefferson has a promising future, the mid-20 picks will have little impact on a team, especially a team with a gm [mchale] who doesn't draft well. in a nfl draft, an argument can made that a no. 5 pick has the same worth as two late first rounders, but this is not the case in the nba. the talent level of potential draftees drop significantly after the first 10 picks in a nba draft. if you don't believe me, here are some of the recent no. 5 picks compared with recent mid-20 picks.

noteworthy no. 5 draft picks

1. charles barkley [1984]
2. dwyane wade [2003]
3. kevin garnett [1995]
4. scottie pippen [1987]
5. vince carter [1998]

noteworthy mid-20s draft picks

1. tony parker [2001]
2. [hm...]
3. [um...]
4. [well...]
5. mark madsen [2000]

so, the only decision mchale had to weigh was whether or not jefferson was equivalent to a no. 5 pick. it's a pretty close call, but i'd rather have the no. 5 pick in a deep 2007 draft.

june 26, 2007

wolves get lamar odom, andrew bynum and the 19th pick
lakers get kevin garnett

analysis : the lakers were desperate at this point, and the wolves would be foolish to trade garnett without getting a high draft pick.

june 27, 2007

wolves get the no. 3 pick, the no. 11 pick
suns get kevin garnett
hawks get amare stoudamire and an undisclosed player

analysis : this trade is intriguing because each team would benefit. the wolves would've had 3 top-11 picks in deep 2007 draft. apparently this deal didn't go through because the hawks' various owners couldn't agree on this trade. and that's why the hawks are the hawks.

june 27, 2007

wolves get the no. 3 pick and the no. 11 pick
lakers get kevin garnett
hawks get jermaine o'neal
pacers get lamar odom and andrew bynum

analysis : this deal didn't go through for the same reason as the above trade proposal. and people wonder why the hawks don't win more games with the talent they have.

june 28, 2007

wolves get the no. 8 pick and an undisclosed player
suns get kevin garnett
bobcats get amare stoudemire and marcus banks

analysis : everyone does well in this proposal, except for the wolves. unless that undisclosed player is early to mid-90s michael jordan.

june 28, 2007

wolves get the no. 8 pick
warriors get kevin garnett
bobcats get jason richardson

analysis : this is 30 cents on the dollar, if that. nobody is getting kevin garnett for a no. 8 pick or jason richardson. i can't believe this was proposed. nice try warriors, bobcats.

anyway, the wolves would have got a better deal if they traded garnett to the lakers, and i can [kind of] understand that they didn't want to trade garnett to a team in their own conference. with that being said, i have never believed in the concept of not trading within the same conference or division. if a team believes that a trade was good for them [and i don't think a gm would think that a trade they agreed upon was unfair], why does it matter that they would play the team they traded with more than a team from another conference? it's basically an admission that the other team came out better than them. not only that, if that other team is better, then they would play against other teams in the conference and hinder the remaining teams. it's called balance.

in conclusion, i honestly think that mchale received a better offer from the lakers than the trade that ultimately sent garnett to boston. i firmly believe that he never had the intention to trade garnett to the lakers because of the celtics-lakers rivalry, and for that same reason he accepted a [slightly] lesser offer from the celtics. and if you didn't know that, you were fooled. but you not a fool, are you?

taking one for the team

i know that this is from a few years ago [circa 2005], but it never gets old. i'm not sure if i'll ever see a funnier hit by the pitch. i'm still amazed by how far the ball bounces after hitting crotch. it must've went 15 feet in the air. and if you're wondering who the batter is, it's craig monroe of the detroit tigers. sad face time for him.

cuba likes his hanes this way

someone has to say something to put a stop to this. i mean, what the butt has happened to cuba gooding jr? at first he was [kind of] funny with the whole jerry maguire thing and his oscar speech, then he was decent [at best] with the men of honor and pearl harbor movies, then barely tolerable with the boat trip and radio movies. and now, he has become completely unbearable with the release of daddy day camp [the sequel to daddy day care, which eddie murphy wouldn't even touch, and that's saying something] and his new hanes ad campaign with michael jordan. but seriously, who makes these commercials? i didn't think jordan could do any worse, but this takes it to a whole other [lower] level. the first one they had wasn't that bad, but even then i thought, 'well, um, okay...' despite that, i gave cuba and mj the benefit of the doubt because jordan is fairly image conscious. here is the first of their commercials together.



so, is it me, or does cuba gooding jr come off as a little... gay? seriously, i haven't seen that same confused look on jordan's face since the 2001 nba draft. but like i said, i gave them the benefit of the doubt because cuba is just like every other man in the sense that he just wants to, uh, embrace another man and then proceed to rub his face in a guy's undershirt. and well, if that wasn't weird enough, the next commercial is just a little weirder.



this commercial brings up so many questions. first of all, who puts on underwear right when someone gives it them? wouldn't you wait until the next day to try it on, seeing how it would be a hassle to change your underwear if you already have a pair on? and why would michael give cuba some underwear as a present? i guess the relationship isn't as one-sided as i thought. maybe cuba's growing on michael or something. and when i thought it couldn't get any more awkward, well, it does.



one more commercial, many more questions. like why was cuba walking around in his bath robe? and why was cuba looking for michael in his dressing room wearing just his bath robe? this is pretty incriminating if you ask me. and when michael shows up and sees cuba, he doesn't really get mad, he is more like, 'not here, not now, cuba.' i'm just speechless as to what's going on in these commercials. they're just getting stranger and stranger. for all i know, the next one is going to have jordan telling cuba that he really doesn't like him and then cuba responding by busting open jordan's face with an oar just like matt damon did to jude law in the boat scene of the talented mr. ripley.

ultimately, i really don't know how effective these commercials are, but it needs to stop. no one wants to watch cuba gooding jr and michael jordan grab each other's butts [well, most people wouldn't]. trust me, it's just better to end their relationship right now before something crazy happens. cuba will still have an oscar, and michael, well, don't worry about him, he'll always have kevin bacon.

movie forecast: rush hour 3

before my forecast, a [not so] brief tangent : if there's a movie that i know i want to see for certain, i try to avoid all of its trailers, commercials, interviews, basically anything that might provide clips and/or plot summary [although trailers and commercials are sometimes hard to avoid]. because when i watch that movie, i want to see and hear everything for the first time. i want to be surprised and learn at the movie's pace. which is why i still wonder what the purpose of movie reviews are. most reviews will rehash the basic plot summary, and sometimes will provide detailed descriptions of certain scenes as well as reveal key moments in the plot. like, a review might something like, 'be prepared for a twist at the end' or something to that effect. so then i'll expect a twist and wonder if i can predict it, which causes me to out-think the movie as i watch it. like, i will try to anticitpate the twist, but then i'll think maybe they want me to see that particular twist coming so they'll twist it in some other way. so i end up focusing too much what the twist will be rather than just enjoying the movie. so, oftentimes what ends up happening when i read a review before seeing the actual movie [when i used to read them], i feel cheated because i already had a sense of what was going to happen. which leads me to my next inquiry, which is why do people read them? i suppose people who do read them are curious if the movie will be good or not, but i see no reason that it has to come at such an expense. i know rottentomatoes provides a percentage score so that it doesn't give much away, but the biggest flaw i see in their system is that there's no safeguard against people who vote even though they haven't actually seen the film.

anyway, rather than writing reviews, my solution is to provide a forecast for movies before i see them. this may seem pointless, but i think i've been fairly successful [by 'successful' i mean 75% of the time] in judging movies before viewing them. and even though i might reveal some facts about the movie, it'll be minimal and minor. so basically, my forecasts will be based on anything that i might've seen [by accident of course], word of mouf, and generally my gut feeling. i know, it sounds capricious, but trust me.


anyway, this week's movie is rush hour 3. this film reunites jackie chan and chris tucker in a what will be a weak plot in a foreign country [this one is set in france] filled with great action sequences and humor that appeals to a mass audience [myself included]. sounds pretty formulaic, but what sets this franchise apart from other movies of its kind is the chemistry between the two stars. from the looks of things, jackie and chris seem to have fun together, and it translates well onto the screen. for instance, the inclusion of bloopers at the end of the previous two installments gave the feeling that they like working with each other. plus, i personally think the bloopers are the best part of both movies, even though they technically aren't part of the movie.

i really haven't heard much whether or not the movie is good or not, but judging solely on the trailers and commercials, it looks like it'll have the same positives as the other ones. along with the return of jackie chan and chris tucker to the cast is brett ratner, the director of the first two films. although he did an atrocious job with x-men: the last stand, he actually does good work with the rush hour movies. with all of these factors going for it, i can't see how anyone who likes the first two movies not liking this one [and if you haven't seen any of them, well, this isn't a bad place to start].

prognosis: 7/10

baseball in the barroid era

let's get one thing straight: barry bonds took performance enhancing drugs. in a leaked grand jury testimony, barry bonds said that he did take steroids, but he did so unknowingly. he testified that when he took the designer steroids ‘the cream’ and ‘the clear,’ he was told that they were flaxseed oil, a supplement that aids in healing pain that is associated with arthritis. i'm no legal expert [yet], but i’m not sure how that type of argument holds up in a court of law. for example, let's say an someone is charged with smoking marijuana. when a court of law investigates the accusation, if the defendant’s only argument is that he thought he was told it was a regular cigarette and nothing else, he would still be found guilty of the crime whether or not the defendant genuinely believed that it was a cigarette. and guess what, the accused can't deny that they smoked marijuana, regardless of what they thought it was. the same thing can be said in barry bonds' case, that he took steroids even if he was unaware of it. obviously, the two situations aren’t entirely the same [with barry’s case being much more complex], but the situations are similar enough to juxtapose. so i’m sorry barry, but that’s a pretty weak defense.

i do believe barry bonds when he says that he was never told that what was taking he was taking were actually steroids, but i’m certain that he suspected that they were. for barry, it was a better situation for him to be out of the loop and leave others to be the fall guy [eg his personal trainer greg anderson] in the event that a scandal would arise. that way, he would be able to plead ignorance. for barry, the less he knew, the better.

so why did a mortal lock of being a first-ballot hall of famer place himself in a position where his legacy could be tainted? he had already won 3 mvp awards by 2001, which at the time was tied for the most mvp awards of any person [bonds currently has 7 mvp awards, no one else has more than 3]. without argument, he had already established himself as one of the all-time greatest players before the issue of steroids came under suspicion. in the book, game of shadows, mark fainaru-wada and lance williams propose that bonds was jealous of the admiration from fans and media that mcgwire and sosa were receiving for their accolades. he was not envious because of their accomplishments and the attention per say, but rather that their feats were helped by the use of steroids [or so he thought] and that no one suspected as much. so i assume barry took the 'if you can't beat them, join them' approach and the rest is baseball history.

although barry bonds has become the poster-boy for the steroid era, there are many other players who have admitted to taking steroids and/or have actually tested positive. for instance, jason giambi and rafael palmeiro have either admitted to steroid use or have tested positive for using steroids. jason giambi [who admitted to steroid use] won an mvp award, and rafael palmeiro [who tested positive] is one of four players in baseball history with 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. yet neither of these two players are hated to the extent that barry bonds is. gary sheffield has also said that he unknowingly took steroids, yet it seems as though that he gets a pass from fans and media alike. likewise, sammy sosa seems to have avoided the scrutiny that bonds has faced, even as he reached a noteworthy milestone by hitting his 600th home run earlier this year. so why does the majority of the baseball community hate barry bonds more than players in a similar situation?

for the greater part of the public, the answer to this question lies in what barry bonds has accomplished because of his steroid use, and not necessarily the steroid use itself. people are angry that he broke mcgwire's single season home run record [even though another alleged steroid user in mcgwire did the same thing himself when he broke the record set by roger maris, a person who didn't take steroids], and people are angry that he has now passed both babe ruth and hank aaron in setting the all-time home run record. [for some reason, the other records and historic marks aren't as important.] but if is this the issue at hand [and i believe it is], does that mean that it is more valid to hate a steroid user who breaks the single season and all-time home run records than the other players who acculmulate lesser statistics? because i thought the main concern is cheating in general in addition to the health of players who use them and the youth who might make the same mistake. but maybe i'm just naive.

with that in mind, what frustrates me the more than anything else about barry bonds taking steroids is not that he has broken hallowed records by using them, but the fact that he was already a transcendent player before he even touched any of it. he was gifted and talented far beyond almost all of his peers as well as those who played before him. he didn't need steroids to enhance his game to higher level; he was already playing at a level most players could only dream. i don't understand why he thought he needed to take steroids to convince people that he was better than mcgwire or sosa, because in the minds of those who truly follow baseball, among his contemporaries, there were none better.

in the end, i believe that barry bonds has been unfairly vilified. but don't misinterpret that as a statement that i condone what he has done. barry bonds deserves to be hated and booed, but not to this degree [or, all steroid users should be hated and booed to his degree]. there have been other high profile players who used steroids to help accomplish noteworthy achievements on the field but they are not treated as poorly. true, those players are treated badly for a while, but it fades away. and for baseball's sake, i hope the steroid use by players does as well.

top 10 greatest switch hitters of all time

ever since one of my friends [a diehard braves fan as well as the lead writer for the rogue league] said that chipper jones was THE greatest switch hitter of all time, it has been my lifelong goal to refute this claim. i will admit that i do have a dislike for the chipper [i have my reasons], but i know for a fact that he is not the best switch hitter who ever lived. even as my friend made that statement, three players came to mind who are head and shoulders better than the man they call chipper, to which he agreed [more on who they are later]. at any rate, this is a list of the top 10 greatest switch hitters in baseball history. mind you, it is of the greatest hitters, and not necessarily the greatest players. otherwise players such as ozzie smith, maury wills and willie wilson would [possibly] have made the list. also, current players who are still relatively young in their careers but who are not quite as established [eg mark teixeira, lance berkman] have been excluded.

10. ken singleton : i know what you're thinking: who? um, i'm not so sure myself, but his name is ken singleton and he played 15 seasons for the mets, expos and orioles. he is a three time all-star who had a career on-base percentage of .388 and played in two world series, with his team winning one in 1983. he had a career high 35 home runs and 111 rbi's in 1979, which helped him finish 2nd in mvp voting that year. [trust me, he's the 10th best switch hitter ever. if you know of anyone not on this list who is better, please, do tell.]

9. reggie smith : do you hear that sound? no? well, it's the sound of me scraping the bottom of the barrel. after no. 8, it was fairly difficult to choose the last 2 players to round out the rest of this list. not because there were so many choices to choose from, but because there really aren't that many quality switch hitters. anyway, reggie smith deserves the no. 9 spot over ken singleton merely because i like his name better. that, and he was a 7 time all-star who slugged 314 home runs [not in a season, that would be a record or something] and batted over .300 seven times in 17 seasons. he also played in 4 world series, hitting 3 hrs in one game during the '77 fall classic. other than that, he sounds like a guy who would have your back in a street brawl.

8. tim raines : i like to call him 'the rain man,' only because i thought he was somewhat autistic when i was younger [jokes jokes]. tim appeared in 7 straight all-star games and has a career batting average of .294 over the course of 23 seasons. while he did not have the power numbers as some of the other players on this list, he did maintain a high on-base percentage throughout his career and scored runs like it was going out of style. ultimately, his biggest flaw though was providing the y chromosome for tim raines jr, thus subjecting baseball fans everywhere to atrocious baseball.

7. roberto alomar : the second thing i think of when i hear roberto alomar's name is his postseason play in the '92 and '93 seasons, which helped his team, the toronto blue jays, win two consecutive world series. if i remember correctly, during those two postseasons, he delivered clutch hit after clutch hit to help his team's cause. when most people [and by 'people,' i mean the 2% of the population who actually watch baseball] think of the '93 world series, they think of joe carter hitting the series-ending home run, which resulted in his teammates trying to crawl up his butt [fyi, around the 0:52 mark, you can actually see a ballboy try to crawl in a player's butt]. anyway, other than the joe carter being violated, when i think of the '93 world series, i think about how the phillies could never seem to get alomar out. he was just a tough batter. at any rate, alomar batted over .300 in six straight seasons and in 9 out of 10 seasons. after his stay with the blue jays, he went to play with many other teams, including the orioles, which brings me to the first thing i think of when i hear his name: don't stand close to the man when he thinks a called strike is a ball.

6. bernie williams : no, i'm not putting bernie williams at no. 6 because he is an amazing jazz musician, but because he has truly put up some great numbers. at first, i was reluctant to include bernie in this list [mostly because i think yankee players tend to be over-hyped], but after reviewing his numbers and career accomplishments, i had to give the man some props. he is a 5 time all-star, but i think it's partially due to the fact that joe torre was always picking the all-star team [and his nose. um, his own nose, not bernie's. still, i wouldn't put it past torre.] anyway, bernie hit over .300 in eight straight seasons and was a mainstay in the powerful yankees lineup. he also holds postseason records with 22 home runs and 80 rbi's [although i think that these numbers were helped immensely by the new playoff format that was introduced in 1995, which led to more playoff games per season and therefore more chances to culminate statistics].

5. chipper jones : going along with my dislike of chipper, one of my favorite memories of chipper jones is the time towards the end of his rookie season when a ground ball or something hit him in the face, causing him to have a split lip for the playoffs and everyone seeing him like that on national tv. good times... seriously though, i tried hard to get chipper out of the top 5 of the greatest switch hitters of all time, but the boy just puts up good numbers. and as much as i don't like chipper jones, i respect that he is a good ballplayer who was a central part of a successful team. not only that, he has hit over 20 home runs in each of his 12 full seasons [not counting the current 2007 season, in which he has 18 as of today, so he will most likely get to 20 this year if he can avoid one of his trademark nagging injuries]. during this stretch, chipper had at least 100 rbi's in 8 straight seasons and sports a career .306 batting average to go with a career on-base percentage over .400. he's also had some other great accomplishments [including finishing 2nd in rookie of the year voting to dodger sensation hideo nomo], but enough is enough. let's just move on.

4. frankie frisch : i had to dig deep to find someone to supplant chipper jones from no. 4, and i think i found that someone in frankie frisch [if you have heard of this guy before today, congratulations on turning 125 years old within the next year]. frankie played in 8 world series, with his team winning 4 of them. not only is he a career .316 hitter and the 1931 national league mvp, he was inducted into the hall of fame in 1947. oftentimes he is compared to rogers hornsby, a player who he was once traded for. in terms of being a better overall player, some have argued that frisch was better than hornsby [i know that's not what this list is about, but i'm just sayin']. so take that larry.

3. eddie murray : when i think of eddie murray, i think of the detroit lions kicker from tecmo super bowl. man, that guy was accurate. i also think of one of the best hitters of our generation who is only one of three men [plus one confirmed steroid user] to have at least 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. he was a consistently great hitter throughout most of his career and performed well in the clutch. he also played in three world series, with his team winning one in 1983. out of the 21 seasons that he played, he had 16 seasons of 20 home runs or more, including 13 out of the first 14 seasons of his career. his ability to hit is only surpassed by his character on and off the field. and his facial hair.

2. mickey mantle : mickey mantle's feats were so amazing that people oftentimes forget that his actual first name is 'mickey.' seriously, anyone with that name this day and age would get jumped after school everyday after class. anyway, the 'mick' hit some of longest home runs in baseball history, with several of his home runs claiming to be over 600 ft [that's over 2 football fields peoples]. he hit over .300 in 10 of his 18 seasons, and almost averaged 30 home runs per year for his career. he also played in 12 world series, with his team winning 7 of them. he holds world series career records of home runs [18], runs [42] and rbi's [40]. he has also won 3 mvp awards and is the last person to win the major league triple crown when he did it in 1956 with a .353 average, 52 home runs and 130 rbi's. and i'm pretty sure he slayed a dragon with his bare hands.

1. pete rose : thanks to the espn movie hustle, whenever i picture pete rose in my mind, i think of tom sizemore and the ridiculous haircut he had in that movie. then i remember, pete rose looks like this. and this. so, i guess it's justified. off-field issues aside, pete rose is one of the greatest hitters who ever lived, switch hitter or not. he had 10 seasons where he had 200 or more hits and 3 other seasons where he had 192 hits or more. his team won 3 world series out of the 6 that he played in [even bringing a title to the city of philadelphia, which is notable because that city is cursed]. even though pete only had 160 home runs [but if steroids were more popular back then, that number could be double], he finished his career with over 4,000[!] hits. eventually, as we all know, pete rose's reputation would slowly deteriorate with gambling problems and being banned from baseball and whatnot, but without that, it probably would not have led to this glorious moment in time.

separated at birth?

i dare anyone to say that these two are not related. fred savage is pretty lucky because when he grows up, he will know exactly what he will look like just by eyeballing a current photo of the clutch-hitting smooth-fielding all-star dodger catcher, russell martin.

we are all witnesses, but are we watching?

here's lebron with the ball on a 2-on-1, passes it to his right, gets it back, he goes up and--oh! LEBRON JAMES! with the facial! and the foul!

we have seen and heard this playcall [or one like it] of lebron james finishing a fast break with an authoritative slam dunk countless times before. in fact, we have seen this sequence unfold in the exact same way each and every time. it happens in exactly the same way in the sense that lebron has only three dunks in his repertoire: a two-handed overhead tomahawk dunk, a one-handed overhead tomahawk dunk and their cousin, a bring-the-ball-as-high-as-possible statue of liberty dunk [all of which can arguably be grouped together as being the same dunk with only a slight variation, which would be mean that he employs just one dunk]. if you don't believe me, watch any of lebron's highlight videos.

don't get me wrong, lebron james is a magnificent player, and long after his career is over, he will [most likely] be considered one of the all-time greats. but given his superhuman natural ability, he is the most uncreative player in the league. not only should he throw down some of the most creative dunks of all time, it is his duty to do what others cannot. i know that there are some who disagree and say that lebron is one of the most amazing dunkers today, to which i cannot disagree. but what makes his dunks so riveting really isn't his creativity, it's the fact that they are over players of all sizes and shapes [see tim duncan, rasheed wallace, damon jones, etc].

in each of his 4 nba seasons, lebron james has declined to participate in the slam dunk contest. in a 2006 commercial, lebron [as 'business lebron'] stated that dunk contests are "bourgeois." he would like us to believe that such a competition is above his level, that for someone of his caliber entering the dunk contest would be trite. i, on the other hand, have a different theory as to why lebron does not enter such a contest.

at this point in his young career, lebron has already garnered the distinction of being a top-tier dunker. with that in mind, he knows that if he entered the dunk contest, he would have very little to gain and everything to lose as far as reputations go. if lebron were to enter the dunk contest next year, he would go in as the favorite regardless of who the other entrants are. and if he wins, it would only confirm the uneducated and flawed opinion in most people's minds that he is an unparalleled dunker. anything less than a victory would be considered a failure. and if he were to lose [and it is my belief that not only would he lose, he would lose by a fairly large margin], he would also be exposed to the masses as the boring dunker that he is. it is this fear as to why he will never enter another dunk contest.

there still may be some who will say that the reason lebron chooses to not do creative dunks in a game is the thought that he doesn't want to risk missing an easy 2 points for his team. this may be true, but further proof of lebron being an uninnovative dunker can be found in footage of a slam dunk contest that he entered while he was in high school.



the evidence above speaks for itself. it's not as though lebron was lacking immaculate athletic ability at that age [it is fairly obvious to the contrary]. simply put, lebron james is unimaginative as a pure dunker. true, lebron may be the next jordan, but he's no vince carter.

the mother of top 10 lists

life is to be categorized and pondered as much as it is to be lived. without any reflection of what we are doing and experiencing, life is merely a series of fleeting events in time with no value except at that singular moment.

naturally, the best and only method to place any semblance of order in life is by way of top 10 lists. only a top 10 list can provide deep insights into a person's soul in so few words; their magnificence is only matched by their brevity. with that in mind, this space is not strictly limited to top 10 lists, but other nuggets [no, not butt nuggets] of wisdom as well.

the following inaugural list's topic has caused a riotous stir for numerous generations. i'm pretty sure nations have gone to war over this subject. and even though there has been a healthy amount of endless debates and casualties, it is with good reason: it is without a doubt the most important topic ever.

without further ado, these are the top 10 songs of all time.

1. everlong [foo fighters]
2. stairway to heaven [led zeppelin]
3. riders on the storm [the doors]
4. motorcycle drive by [third eye blind]
5. like a rolling stone [bob dylan]
6. paint it black [the rolling stones]
7. comfortably numb [pink floyd]
8. bohemian rhapsody [queen]
9. hotel california [the eagles]
10. a letter to elise [the cure]

if you have any disagreements with my list, feel free to post your own [inferior] top 10 list [or any comments in general], although i don't really know how anyone could possibly choose any differently after breathing in this list.