With the end of the decade, a lot of people were doing "Top Ten" lists about the top ten whatevers of the past decade. Well, here at Pat is Crazy, we do things a little differently* We're going to do a Top Ten list of the top ten things we're looking forward to in the next decade.
*This claim is totally unsubstantiated.
Of course, predicting the future is hard. Luckily, other people have already done it for us! With that, here is my list for the top ten news stories of the coming decade:
10. Robots
The question isn't when robots will be commonplace in society. The question is when they'll turn against us.
9. Flying cars, hover boards, etc.
If there is one movie that I trust to accurately predict the future it is Back to the Future (part II). And there are a lot of awesome new technologies that should come about in the next 5 years (you'll remember, of course, that Doc and Marty traveled to the year 2015). Although, I'm not too crazy about the direction that fashion is heading.
8. Clones
If it weren't already confusing enough with all these robots and flying cars running around, things should really get messy when people start cloning themselves. Which one is the original Oakland? Does it even matter, since they're both assholes anyway?
7. The combination of the Justice system and reality TV
One of my favorite movies*, The Running Man, predicts this glorious marriage between the U.S. legal system and prime time programming. Hey, it will still be better than any of the shit they have on NBC right now.
*I am required, as a resident of California, to refer to all Arnold Schwarzenegger** movies as "one of my favorite movies."
**I did not know how to spell "Schwarzenegger," but for some reason it was already in the dictionary tool thing in the blogger. Weird.
6. Aliens come to Earth
While there have been films predicting that aliens will come to Earth almost every decade, I've got a good feeling that it will actually happen in the 2010s. Or maybe it has already happened and the damn government is just covering it up.
5. Huge advances in space travel
If aliens won't come to us, dagnabbit we'll go to them!
4. Vampires take over the world
Oh wait, this already happened. Damned Twilight.
3. Kevin Costner justs walks around for, like, 12 hours
Dear god, let's hope this doesn't actually happen.
2. The Oakland A's will win the World Series 10 times in a row
Ok, so maybe this won't happen. But they will at least get a new stadium. Well, actually, winning the World Series 10 times in a row might be more likely.
1. The end of the world
The end of the world in 2012 really makes most of this list pointless*. Damn Mayans. Oh well. Pat is crazy.
*Actually, the fact that nobody reads this blog makes this list pointless. Which explains why I didn't put a lot of effort into it.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
A Quick Joke
Here's a quick joke for all those people here in Minnesota who are feeling a little down right now:
Man 1: [gasping for air and grabbing at his throat]
Man 2: Oh my god, are you ok?
Man 1: Yeah, I'm fine. I was just doing my Minnesota Vikings impression!
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha! Pat is Crazy.
Man 1: [gasping for air and grabbing at his throat]
Man 2: Oh my god, are you ok?
Man 1: Yeah, I'm fine. I was just doing my Minnesota Vikings impression!
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha! Pat is Crazy.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Worst. Post. Ever.
So, a blog post was brought to my attention today, and it is so absolutely crazy that I am forced to conclude that our own Crazy Pat is behind it. The post is about 10 ways that baseball can be made better. Better, not to the casual or non-fan, but to actual baseball fans.
Here are his 10 reasons, a short summary of why he thinks the change should be made, and then my response:
1. Phase in replay and robots.
He says that replays and robots should be brought in to make sure that every call is correct, and that no mistakes are made. He says that umpires should still be on the field to make certain decisions, though I'm not sure exactly what those decisions would be. He also claims that this can be done without slowing down the game.
My first reaction to this is: no. I'm not against replay in certain situations. Here are the situations that replay can be used: home run/not home run, out/safe, fair/foul. However, I think under no circumstances that "robots" should be used to determine strikes/balls. Allow me to elaborate: Home run/not home run: they have already started doing this, as far as I know. There is no argument against it for this reason: A home run ends the play. Therefore, if a home run is hit, nothing else can happen. If they implement this, the umpire can always allow play to continue if a ball is in question (i.e. may have hit top of wall, or slightly above top of wall) and then review the play afterward. These situations are rare, and important, and therefore would not interrupt the game often enough to complain about. Out/safe: some "baseball purists" may disagree with this one. I myself am a little worried that implementing a replay on all close out safe calls may slow the game down too much. In fact, I change my mind. I think it would ruin baseball. It would interrupt the game and cause situations similar to those that football has where I'm always afraid to celebrate fumbles/catches near the sideline when they happen because I know a review is coming. It really takes you out of the moment. And during the course of the game there are a ton of close calls, so it would have a big impact on slowing down an already slow game. Fair/foul: I think this one would work because, again, these situations are pretty rare. Umpires could always err on the side of calling a ball fair, because a foul ball results in a no-play, much like a home run does. Balls/strikes: I think having a "robot" do this would slow the game down tremendously, and I do not think there is the technology currently available to quickly (as in, as quick as umpires) and accurately call strikes and balls. If you could prove to me otherwise, then I would be willing to change my mind.
2. Quicken pitcher pace on the mound.
His main argument, shockingly, is NOT that pitchers take too much time between pitches. It is that they throw over to first too much and that coaches come out to visit too often. Lunacy.
This one is just plain stupid. He suggests that pitchers be penalized for throwing over to first more than once, pitchers should be timed, and visits to the mound should be limited. Penalizing the pitcher for keeping a runner close would effectively destroy any possibility of stopping a stolen base and make nearly every walk, single, and double into a triple. I think this is the stupidest idea of the whole bunch. If he wanted all offensive records demolished, then, yeah, this would be a great way to do it. As for timing pitchers and limiting visits to the mound, well, they already do this, so it's not really a change, is it?
3. Limit or penalize mid-inning pitching changes.
He argues that changing pitchers in the middle of an inning slows the game down too much.
I don't agree with this. What's five more minutes (and that's a high estimate of the time it takes to change pitchers) in a game that takes 2-4 hours to play? Plus, there is rarely more than 2 pitching changes in a half-inning. I just don't see it as a problem.
4. Penalize intentional walks.
He claims that everybody hates intentional walks and that the fans want to see guys like Pujols and Bonds hit. He proposes that an intentional/4-pitch walk be awarded 2 bases instead of one.
Another stupid idea. There is already a penalty for the intentional walk: it puts a man on first base! Plus, I don't think it would eliminate the problem. Pitchers would still find a way to walk tough batters without the intentional walk.
5. Even out the American League and the National League
The AL has 14 teams and the NL has 16 teams. He proposes to move one of the NL teams to the AL so both leagues have 15. He claims this is necessary because it's more likely that as AL team will make the playoffs than an NL team.
Well, I've got news. It may be more likely, but it is not easier to make it to the playoffs in the AL (right now) because the teams are better. Last year, the AL wild card had 95 wins (most of which came against the tougher AL) while the NL wild card only had 92 wins. Is that fair? No. But just deal with it. The reason for the discrepancy is that the teams in each league need to be of an even number so that scheduling works (an odd number mandates that teams would need to have "byes" which would not be feasible in baseball). He suggests in the comment section that this could be avoided by having one interleague series going all the time. I don't like this idea at all. I don't even like interleague play to begin with, and the thought of it always happening is even worse. The only solution that I would be ok with is to expand the AL by two teams or contract the NL by two teams. I do think that both leagues should have the same number of teams, but I also think that they should have an even number of teams. It would also be nice if that number was divisible by three so that there would be an even number of teams in each of the divisions. Or maybe change the number of divisions to 4 or 2. This is, I think, a legitimate problem with baseball. I think that all the recent expansion never should have happened and that both leagues should still only have 14 teams. Seriously, did we really need the Dbacks and the Rays? They really fucked things up. 14 teams in each league, 2 divisions each. That's how it should be.
6. Resolve the payroll problem
This one is pretty obvious. He proposes there be either a salary cap OR FLOOR.
I get the want for a salary cap, but a floor? Force teams into bankruptcy? How does that help them get better? A floor doesn't stop the Yankees from out-spending everyone. A cap does make sense, though. Strangely, however, I am against it. Even though it would benefit the small-market A's that I love so dearly, I kind of like the whole David-vs-Goliath thing that not having a cap creates. I don't know. I'm probably in a very small minority of small-market fans in that one.
7. Condense the playoff schedule
He argues that the playoffs should be condensed to more accurately reflect the regular season. In the playoffs, because there are so many off days, teams only need to use their top 3 starting pitchers, whereas in the regular season they use 5.
For once, I completely agree. The playoffs should be condensed. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because the reason they are spread out is the tv schedule. Money rules all.
8. Resolve the PED problem
He suggests that PEDs should be allowed, because this is the only way to resolve the problem. He also compares having laser eye surgery to taking steroids. Seriously.
I kind of agree with this one. Only, not really. I don't think that steroids should be allowed and I think every effort should be made to prevent them from being used. I think it may be a losing battle, but then again, maybe not. I think part of the problem in the "steroid era" was that it was thought of as acceptable in baseball culture to use steroids. I think the best way to prevent further PED abuse is to change the culture of baseball to a point where people who are caught, even by there teammates/managers and not the media, using will be ostracized. As for the comparison to laser eye surgery, I'll just say this: on the surface, it's a good comparison. Both PEDs and laser eye surgery improve a player's natural ability to play baseball. The difference, to me, though is that some people naturally have very good vision. Even better than 20/20. Nobody naturally has the muscle/healing powers that steroids give you. Except maybe Wolverine.
9. Take measures to reduce take-out slides and home plate collisions.
He says that take-out slides and home plate collisions are dangerous. He suggests making the take-out slide illegal (and enforced with an automatic ejection) that plays at the plate which are not forces should require the player to slide.
Wow. This guy probably thinks that football should be two-hand touch, as well. How many players can you name that were seriously injured by a take-out slide or a home plate collision? It certainly doesn't seem like a problem to me. The real problem I have with this one is that he claims the players on the receiving end are not prepared to take the hit because they don't know it's coming. Are you kidding? They definitely know it is coming.
10. Penalize the HBP
See number 4.
Again. Already penalized because it puts a man on base. Intentional beanballs are already illegal and the pitcher is thrown out of the game. I just don't see what more can be done. Balls to the head do warrant a suspension, and I think probably people have been suspended for throwing at a guy's head, but I'm too lazy to check.
So, as you can see, it was a terrible blog post. This guy is not a real baseball fan. He is a moron. 2-to-1 says he is a basketball fan.
Pat is crazy.
Here are his 10 reasons, a short summary of why he thinks the change should be made, and then my response:
1. Phase in replay and robots.
He says that replays and robots should be brought in to make sure that every call is correct, and that no mistakes are made. He says that umpires should still be on the field to make certain decisions, though I'm not sure exactly what those decisions would be. He also claims that this can be done without slowing down the game.
My first reaction to this is: no. I'm not against replay in certain situations. Here are the situations that replay can be used: home run/not home run, out/safe, fair/foul. However, I think under no circumstances that "robots" should be used to determine strikes/balls. Allow me to elaborate: Home run/not home run: they have already started doing this, as far as I know. There is no argument against it for this reason: A home run ends the play. Therefore, if a home run is hit, nothing else can happen. If they implement this, the umpire can always allow play to continue if a ball is in question (i.e. may have hit top of wall, or slightly above top of wall) and then review the play afterward. These situations are rare, and important, and therefore would not interrupt the game often enough to complain about. Out/safe: some "baseball purists" may disagree with this one. I myself am a little worried that implementing a replay on all close out safe calls may slow the game down too much. In fact, I change my mind. I think it would ruin baseball. It would interrupt the game and cause situations similar to those that football has where I'm always afraid to celebrate fumbles/catches near the sideline when they happen because I know a review is coming. It really takes you out of the moment. And during the course of the game there are a ton of close calls, so it would have a big impact on slowing down an already slow game. Fair/foul: I think this one would work because, again, these situations are pretty rare. Umpires could always err on the side of calling a ball fair, because a foul ball results in a no-play, much like a home run does. Balls/strikes: I think having a "robot" do this would slow the game down tremendously, and I do not think there is the technology currently available to quickly (as in, as quick as umpires) and accurately call strikes and balls. If you could prove to me otherwise, then I would be willing to change my mind.
2. Quicken pitcher pace on the mound.
His main argument, shockingly, is NOT that pitchers take too much time between pitches. It is that they throw over to first too much and that coaches come out to visit too often. Lunacy.
This one is just plain stupid. He suggests that pitchers be penalized for throwing over to first more than once, pitchers should be timed, and visits to the mound should be limited. Penalizing the pitcher for keeping a runner close would effectively destroy any possibility of stopping a stolen base and make nearly every walk, single, and double into a triple. I think this is the stupidest idea of the whole bunch. If he wanted all offensive records demolished, then, yeah, this would be a great way to do it. As for timing pitchers and limiting visits to the mound, well, they already do this, so it's not really a change, is it?
3. Limit or penalize mid-inning pitching changes.
He argues that changing pitchers in the middle of an inning slows the game down too much.
I don't agree with this. What's five more minutes (and that's a high estimate of the time it takes to change pitchers) in a game that takes 2-4 hours to play? Plus, there is rarely more than 2 pitching changes in a half-inning. I just don't see it as a problem.
4. Penalize intentional walks.
He claims that everybody hates intentional walks and that the fans want to see guys like Pujols and Bonds hit. He proposes that an intentional/4-pitch walk be awarded 2 bases instead of one.
Another stupid idea. There is already a penalty for the intentional walk: it puts a man on first base! Plus, I don't think it would eliminate the problem. Pitchers would still find a way to walk tough batters without the intentional walk.
5. Even out the American League and the National League
The AL has 14 teams and the NL has 16 teams. He proposes to move one of the NL teams to the AL so both leagues have 15. He claims this is necessary because it's more likely that as AL team will make the playoffs than an NL team.
Well, I've got news. It may be more likely, but it is not easier to make it to the playoffs in the AL (right now) because the teams are better. Last year, the AL wild card had 95 wins (most of which came against the tougher AL) while the NL wild card only had 92 wins. Is that fair? No. But just deal with it. The reason for the discrepancy is that the teams in each league need to be of an even number so that scheduling works (an odd number mandates that teams would need to have "byes" which would not be feasible in baseball). He suggests in the comment section that this could be avoided by having one interleague series going all the time. I don't like this idea at all. I don't even like interleague play to begin with, and the thought of it always happening is even worse. The only solution that I would be ok with is to expand the AL by two teams or contract the NL by two teams. I do think that both leagues should have the same number of teams, but I also think that they should have an even number of teams. It would also be nice if that number was divisible by three so that there would be an even number of teams in each of the divisions. Or maybe change the number of divisions to 4 or 2. This is, I think, a legitimate problem with baseball. I think that all the recent expansion never should have happened and that both leagues should still only have 14 teams. Seriously, did we really need the Dbacks and the Rays? They really fucked things up. 14 teams in each league, 2 divisions each. That's how it should be.
6. Resolve the payroll problem
This one is pretty obvious. He proposes there be either a salary cap OR FLOOR.
I get the want for a salary cap, but a floor? Force teams into bankruptcy? How does that help them get better? A floor doesn't stop the Yankees from out-spending everyone. A cap does make sense, though. Strangely, however, I am against it. Even though it would benefit the small-market A's that I love so dearly, I kind of like the whole David-vs-Goliath thing that not having a cap creates. I don't know. I'm probably in a very small minority of small-market fans in that one.
7. Condense the playoff schedule
He argues that the playoffs should be condensed to more accurately reflect the regular season. In the playoffs, because there are so many off days, teams only need to use their top 3 starting pitchers, whereas in the regular season they use 5.
For once, I completely agree. The playoffs should be condensed. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because the reason they are spread out is the tv schedule. Money rules all.
8. Resolve the PED problem
He suggests that PEDs should be allowed, because this is the only way to resolve the problem. He also compares having laser eye surgery to taking steroids. Seriously.
I kind of agree with this one. Only, not really. I don't think that steroids should be allowed and I think every effort should be made to prevent them from being used. I think it may be a losing battle, but then again, maybe not. I think part of the problem in the "steroid era" was that it was thought of as acceptable in baseball culture to use steroids. I think the best way to prevent further PED abuse is to change the culture of baseball to a point where people who are caught, even by there teammates/managers and not the media, using will be ostracized. As for the comparison to laser eye surgery, I'll just say this: on the surface, it's a good comparison. Both PEDs and laser eye surgery improve a player's natural ability to play baseball. The difference, to me, though is that some people naturally have very good vision. Even better than 20/20. Nobody naturally has the muscle/healing powers that steroids give you. Except maybe Wolverine.
9. Take measures to reduce take-out slides and home plate collisions.
He says that take-out slides and home plate collisions are dangerous. He suggests making the take-out slide illegal (and enforced with an automatic ejection) that plays at the plate which are not forces should require the player to slide.
Wow. This guy probably thinks that football should be two-hand touch, as well. How many players can you name that were seriously injured by a take-out slide or a home plate collision? It certainly doesn't seem like a problem to me. The real problem I have with this one is that he claims the players on the receiving end are not prepared to take the hit because they don't know it's coming. Are you kidding? They definitely know it is coming.
10. Penalize the HBP
See number 4.
Again. Already penalized because it puts a man on base. Intentional beanballs are already illegal and the pitcher is thrown out of the game. I just don't see what more can be done. Balls to the head do warrant a suspension, and I think probably people have been suspended for throwing at a guy's head, but I'm too lazy to check.
So, as you can see, it was a terrible blog post. This guy is not a real baseball fan. He is a moron. 2-to-1 says he is a basketball fan.
Pat is crazy.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Company Ink
I was at work today, and an old saying came into my mind: "Don't dip your pen in the company ink." And I thought, that makes no sense. Now, before you barrage me with a bunch of comments* telling me I'm an idiot, and explaining the saying to me, I get it. It means you shouldn't have sex with your co-workers. Pen = Steven Joe Pat (that's the name of my penis. Don't ask). Company ink = co-worker's vagina. But my question is this: how did the saying start in the first place?
*Man, I really wish people read/left comments on this blog.
I mean, forget about the metaphor and just look at it as a literal statement. Don't dip your pen in the company ink? What kind of company is this that makes you bring your own ink? I could understand maybe an ink company not wanting you to use the company ink, but even they should provide some ink for their employees to use. I mean, seriously. It's going to be pretty hard to run a company when none of your employees have any ink to write with.
*Man, I really wish people read/left comments on this blog.
I mean, forget about the metaphor and just look at it as a literal statement. Don't dip your pen in the company ink? What kind of company is this that makes you bring your own ink? I could understand maybe an ink company not wanting you to use the company ink, but even they should provide some ink for their employees to use. I mean, seriously. It's going to be pretty hard to run a company when none of your employees have any ink to write with.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The End of the Decade?
While at work today, I overheard an mind-numbingly boring conversation. Here's a quick summary:
Obviously, they were discussing the fact that, technically, the new decade does not start until 2011, since there was no year 0. Well, in my extreme boredom, I had a thought: Who gives a shit? I ask you, reader*, do you consider the year 1980 to be part of the 80's? 1960 to be part of the 60's? What's that? You do? Because everybody does? Yeah, that's what I thought. So who gives a shit if there was no year 0. It's a new decade, and anyone who says it isn't is a prick.
*I realize there are no readers of this blog.**
**If there were readers, they would probably recognize that I stole this whole asterisk-aside thing from Joe Posnanski. What can I say? Ya got me.
Obviously, they were discussing the fact that, technically, the new decade does not start until 2011, since there was no year 0. Well, in my extreme boredom, I had a thought: Who gives a shit? I ask you, reader*, do you consider the year 1980 to be part of the 80's? 1960 to be part of the 60's? What's that? You do? Because everybody does? Yeah, that's what I thought. So who gives a shit if there was no year 0. It's a new decade, and anyone who says it isn't is a prick.
*I realize there are no readers of this blog.**
**If there were readers, they would probably recognize that I stole this whole asterisk-aside thing from Joe Posnanski. What can I say? Ya got me.
Monday, January 4, 2010
East Coast Bias
With the A's recent re-signing of super stud Justin Duchscherer...er..er..er... it got me thinking about baseball. So I was looking at last season's standings and something struck me: the AL West was the best division in baseball. Now, I know what you're thinking: You're crazier than Pat, Oakland! The AL East is easily the best division in baseball! They have the Yankees AND the Red Sox! I watch Sports-center all day and I'm barely aware that other teams exist!
Well, I'm not crazy. The numbers back me up. When compared head-to-head, the AL West beat up on the other divisions. The only teams not in the AL West to have a winning record against the AL West are: the Yankees, the Tigers, and the Blue Jays. Yeah, I don't know how the Blue Jays did it either. Now, on the other hand the only teams to have a winning record against the AL East (that are not in the AL East) are: the Angels, the Rangers, and the Mariners. All AL West teams. Even the lowly A's were 21-23 against the East. (And pretty much everyone beat up on the AL Central). The AL West was a combined .549 against the other two divisions, the highest of any of the three.
So what about the NL divisions? What about them? The NL sucks!
Now, looking at the standings for so long, another thing hit me: why the hell does the AL West only have 4 teams? And how does that affect things? Well, the affect is this: The AL West teams play only 57 divisional games, while the other two divisions play 72 games against their division. That means that AL West teams have to play 15 additional games against non-division opponents. This has two affects: First, it means that they have to play teams they are less familiar with more often than the teams in the other division. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it's different, that's for sure. Second, it means more travel. Now, this is doubly unfair because teams out west already have more traveling to do than Eastern teams. Traveling more DEFINITELY makes it harder to win consistently.
I understand the reasons for scheduling it like this, but it still pisses me off. Go A's. Pat is crazy.
Well, I'm not crazy. The numbers back me up. When compared head-to-head, the AL West beat up on the other divisions. The only teams not in the AL West to have a winning record against the AL West are: the Yankees, the Tigers, and the Blue Jays. Yeah, I don't know how the Blue Jays did it either. Now, on the other hand the only teams to have a winning record against the AL East (that are not in the AL East) are: the Angels, the Rangers, and the Mariners. All AL West teams. Even the lowly A's were 21-23 against the East. (And pretty much everyone beat up on the AL Central). The AL West was a combined .549 against the other two divisions, the highest of any of the three.
So what about the NL divisions? What about them? The NL sucks!
Now, looking at the standings for so long, another thing hit me: why the hell does the AL West only have 4 teams? And how does that affect things? Well, the affect is this: The AL West teams play only 57 divisional games, while the other two divisions play 72 games against their division. That means that AL West teams have to play 15 additional games against non-division opponents. This has two affects: First, it means that they have to play teams they are less familiar with more often than the teams in the other division. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it's different, that's for sure. Second, it means more travel. Now, this is doubly unfair because teams out west already have more traveling to do than Eastern teams. Traveling more DEFINITELY makes it harder to win consistently.
I understand the reasons for scheduling it like this, but it still pisses me off. Go A's. Pat is crazy.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Jumbo Joe's Second Career?
Joe Thornton is already thinking about what he's going to do after hockey. It's a good thing he still has time to work on his act.
Here's Joe's second attempt: I think he's gotten a little better.
Sorry I couldn't figure out how to embed the video. I blame Pat. Pat is crazy.
Here's Joe's second attempt: I think he's gotten a little better.
Sorry I couldn't figure out how to embed the video. I blame Pat. Pat is crazy.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Happy Dew Year
New year's resolutions:
Stop being so damn lazy.
Stop being so damn cheap.
Revive patiscrazy.blogspot.com?
Pat will be even crazier this decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)