Choke City

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

2009-05-05T18:01:00.003-05:00

Rockets take Game 1 from the Lakers. The media line on this seems to be that, basically, Houston overperformed while the Lakers were just rusty.

Couple of problems with this:

1) This ignores the problems the Rockets had. Von Wafer was awful in the few minutes he played. Luis Scola didn't shoot well, and neither did Battier, Lowry, or Landry. They made sloppy turnovers and.... well, Dave goes through this a lot better.

2) This ignores the impact of the Rockets' defense. It's fine to say that some of the Lakers' struggles have to do with "rust" or just being off. But how much of the Lakers' inefficiency and - frankly - gutless play had to do with those excuses, and how much had to do with coming into contact with the best defense in the Western conference? And, given the next point, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority have more to do with the Rockets' ability to follow the Celtics' prescription from last year: pack the paint, stop Kobe from getting to the basket, and force his teammates to take the important shots in the first half. And when it becomes clear that Ariza and Vujacic and Fisher simply aren't going to get the job done, Kobe will get frustrated and try to take the game over himself.

And maybe he'll get hot and do it. But he probably won't, and that's a recipe for failure for LA.

3) This is excatly what was said about Game 1 of the Portland series: the Rockets got hot, the Blazers crumpled under pressure, and they surely won't be able to do that again.

When are the pundits going to realize that this is what the Rockets do in big games? They catch the other team with their pants down - the Lakers underestimated the Rockets, as did the Blazers, and so did the Cavaliers. And what happened? The Rockets showed up ready to play, armed with information about their opponents' tendencies, and they exploited those tendencies over and over again.

We'll see what happens tomorrow night, but the Rockets have sent a very clear message to the Lakers: you aren't going to win anything if you think the title will be handed to you. The Rockets aren't the Jazz: they won't roll over just because everyone thinks they're outmatched. And neither will the Nuggets, and nor will the Cavaliers, Celtics, or Magic. Even if the Lakers make it past the Rockets, they won't win if they keep playing like this.

Correction: THAT was Christmas in April

2009-05-01T23:58:00.002-05:00

Even though I missed the first half (fuck you, TNT), it was awesome seeing the Rockets blow out the Blazers in Houston last night (though I really didn't believe it - didn't trust the Rockets to hold a lead - until there were about 45 seconds left in the game, at which point I tried to strike up the Yao Ming chant to no avail). It was fantastic, it was beautiful, and it was better than seeing Paul Pierce foul out on a vicious Joakim "the People's Princess" Noah slam dunk.

But there was something even more beautiful, and that was the success of the Rockets sans-T-Mac.

Now, y'all know me. You know I'm a McGrady fan, and I want to see him come back strong next year, but there is something beautiful in tragedy. And, as Free Darko pointed out, there is very little that could happen to McGrady right now that would be more tragic.

In any case, this will make his comeback next season all the more poignant.

Rockets in 6. Shock the world, baby.

It's Christmas in April; Best Astros Season Ever?

2009-04-06T00:09:00.008-05:00

We're all zero games back on opening day. Well, except for the Nats, Marlins, Phillies, and Mets, I suppose. They're all half a game back, except for the Phils, who are a full game back after their shellacking last night, courtesy of Derek Lowe. BPro makes a pretty convincing case that the Braves are real contenders this year, and after seeing Lowe pitch with that kind of stuff, I'm inclined to agree. The Braves are back, and they're going to give the other Wild Card contenders (D-Backs, Cards, Phillies, maybe the Reds or Giants, I guess) a pretty tough fight.

I'm much less confident in the Astros, of course. But who knows what will happen? Maybe Ortiz and Hampton find Mutombo's fountain of youth (or maybe Clemens hooks them up with his stash). Maybe Pence explodes into stardom. Maybe everyone has a great season. We'll see, I suppose.

Anyways, I got a copy of "Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Lineups" a while back, and I've been thinking about how the Astros' section might look now, six years after it was published. There are some obvious changes to be made, as Berkman and Oswalt have put themselves on HoF career paths and the Astros finally won a pennant (was it really almost four years ago?). But one of the sections for each team is on its players' best single seasons. For instance, the Cardinals' single-season second baseman is Rogers Hornsby in 1922, when he hit for a .402 average and led the NL in just about every offensive category.

The Astros' single-season starting pitcher is Mike Scott in 1986. That makes sense, even today. Scott was ridiculously good in 1986: he struck out 306 batters and led the league in ERA, K's, shutouts, and innings pitched (an underrated category, I think). What's more, he led the league in the K/BB, ERA+, hits per nine, K's per nine, and WHIP. He won the Cy Young that year, and he absolutely deserved it. It was the high point of Mike Scott's career and (arguably) the Astros franchise until either 1998 or 2005, depending on how you weight postseason glory.

In the years since RNBBBBL was published, however, Roger Clemens put in two spectacular seasons in 2004 and 2005, winning the CY in '04. In both years, Clemens summoned something (yeah, I know; I made that joke a few paragraphs up) to lead the Astros' pitching staff to their first postseason victories ever. Is Scott's '86 season still the best the Astros have ever seen?

Well, first we have to figure out which was the better season for Clemens. His age 42 and 43 seasons were among the best of his career - not the best, but certainly up there. In both seasons he pitched over 200 innings of sub-3.00 ERA baseball. He gave up fewer than 200 hits and walked fewer than 80, posting WHIPs of less than 1.2. He was one of the most dominate pitchers in the National League in those seasons, and he was unquestionably the Astros' ace.

But while Clemens won the Cy Young in 2004, 2005 is pretty obviously his better season. He posted roughly the same number of innings (three fewer in '05, though he added a complete game). In that time, he gave up significantly fewer hits, about thirty fewer earned runs, and walked almost twenty fewer. He led the league in hits/9IP, as well as in ERA. While his strikeout numbers decreased in 2005, Clemens was simply better that year than in 2004, and he probably should have won a 7th CY (fuck Carpenter). And if you want to get technical, he was worth about three WARP more that year, too. Clemens had his best season since he was in Toronto in 1998.

For convenience, here's a simple chart of some important categories:

Scott has clear advantages in innings pitched, WHIP, strikouts (by, like, a lot), K/9, H/9, K/BB, and BB/9. He displayed great control, great deception, and was all-around fantastic. Clemens' only advantages are in ERA, ERA+, and raw walks.

But I think we need to view these numbers in context. Scott gave up so few hits in the mid-1980s in the Astrodome. Clemens did it in the era of omnipresent sluggers in Minute Maid Park. Keeping that ERA so low is comparitively easy when the outfield extends roughly into South Park and Mike Schmidt led the National League in homers with a mere 31. In 2005, Andruw Jones (remember when he was great?) had 51. 31 home runs would have been good for 14th on the list, tied with Aramis Ramirez. Morgan Ensberg (who, by the way, easily takes over the Astros' single-season third baseman spot from Caminiti's 1992 season) had 36 home runs in 2005. Berkman, playing in only 132 games, had 24. Carlos Lee - still in Milwaukee - had 32, and the Pride of New Caney posted the first of four consecutive 40 home run seasons. Simply put, there was a lot more offensive production in 2005 than in 1986, and there's a reason why Clemens' ERA meant a lot more in ERA+ than you might expect. I don't really think a case can be made that Scott's '86 season was better.

The one area Clemens was truly weaker was in the postseason. Scott was absolutely transcendent in the NLCS. It's long been said by Astros fans (shit, I just told a Mets fan friend of mine it a few days ago) that, if only the boys in orange had gotten the ball to Scott in a Game 7, the Astros would have surely won (and they had every opportunity to do it, too. Nolan Ryan's performance in Game 5 was spectacular, and it's amazing that the Astros couldn't score more than one run in 12 innings that game). Scott was so good that the Mets accused him of cheating (except for Keith Hernandez, who just recognized Scott's split-finger fastball for what it was). Scott was so good that he gave up only one run and eight hits in 18 innings. He struck out 19 and walked only 1 in two complete games. Scott would've won a Game 7 handily and may have even delivered the Astros their first championship. This was - unquestionably - the best postseason pitching performance the Astros ever fielded (Johnson's 1998 NLDS performance was very similar, though not quite as good), and only the Jackal's efforts in 2004 could rival it for best performance by any player.

Clemens in 2005 was just nowhere near as good. Okay, we all remember him coming out of the bullpen in Game 5 of the NLDS against the Braves, and he was brilliant in those three innings, but it's just nowhere close. Maybe I'm just biased - Scott's performance was before I was born, so I only know it by a few clips and accounts, while Clemens coming out of Game 1 of the World Series, spent and injured and old, is one of the more profound memories I have of that series (along with Bagwell grounding out and me realizing he was very, very old and that this was probably his last game as an Astro) - but Clemens was just not that good in the 2005 postseason. Scott was unbelievable; Clemens was mediocre.

Maybe that means something. Maybe that outweighs everything Clemens did in the regular season, but I don't think so. I think Clemens' superior regular season pitching kept the Astros in the Wild Card race while Bagwell and Berkman were injured. He was the ace of one of the finest rotations ever put on the field, and I think that means more, especially when he did during one of the most offense-heavy eras in baseball history. WARP3 has Clemens' 2005 as worth one full win above Scott's 1986, even with the worse WHIP and fewer IP.

Clemens' season was the best single season by an Astros pitcher ever. Not by much, and with worse results in the clutch, but definitely the best. It's sad that Clemens' off-the-field escapades have come out in the years since, and that he's become such a distraction. He was set up to be remembered as something of a spaz and an asshole, but it was likely that he was going to be remembered as one of the greatest Astros ever, even after his bullshit in 2007. Now all of that is doubtful. Even if he gets into the Hall of Fame (and I think he deserves it and probably will, after a while), no team is going to retire his jersey or remember him particularly fondly - Drayton won't risk the PR hit, the Red Sox have hated him for two decades, and the Yankees are too uptight. He may very well have been the second-greatest pitcher of all time, but he won't be loved. He is, in so many ways, a quintessential Astro - spectacular but so obviously flawed.

Introducing the 2009 Ham Fighters

2009-03-28T22:22:00.002-05:00

Haven't posted in a while - primarily because of a dearth of subject matter and an excess of vacation time. I've got a few ideas floating around, but right now I'll violate a basic rule of sports fandom: no one cares about your fantasy team.

We drafted the TCB American League tonight, and I feel pretty good about what I came away with. I used the BPro fantasy projections, and (after snagging the first pick) got three of my top five players: Grady Sizemore (ranked #1 overall), Jacoby Ellsbury (ranked #2), and Brian Roberts (#5). So my starting lineup goes something like this:

C: Kelly Shoppach
1B: Jason Giambi
2B: Brian Roberts
SS: Derek Jeter
3B: Adrian Beltre
LF: Pat Burrell
CF: Grady Sizemore
RF: Jacoby Ellsbury
DH: Jim Thome

The bench is made up of David DeJesus, Ty Wigginton, Ryan Sweeney, Brett Gardner, and Elvis Andrus. Personally, I'll probably move either Sweeney or DeJesus sometime. I'm weak on the left side of the infield, but I think Jeter's status as a leadoff man should provide some extra runs. Hopefully Beltre pans out. I really like Shoppach, and all those experts were very right when they said that the catcher position is very deep.

The pitching corps is:
SP: AJ Burnett
SP: Zack Greinke
RP: Joakim Soria
RP: Troy Percival
P: Andy Sonnanstine
P: Gil Meche
P: Dan Wheeler

The Ham Fighters' weakness is clearly pitching, but I still feel pretty good about it. Burnett's health (and willingness to play like he's paid) is always a question, but Soria should provide a good number of saves. In any case, I've got three pitchers projected for over 150 k's.

Still can't get over the fact I got the possible AL MVP, 2008 stolen base champion, and possibly the best leadoff man in the AL in the first three rounds. Badass. The Ham Fighters are going to rock

Worst Case Scenarios: Astros Edition

2009-03-08T13:49:00.003-05:00

I consider myself a fairly savvy baseball fan. I know that spring training results don't mean anything, so losing 18-0 to the Mets doesn't really disturb me.

But I also recognize that the Astros aren't performing well on an indiidual basis. That the Astros are currently struggling at the plate and on the mound is not a comforting thing. It's not that the Astros are losing by 18 runs - it's that JR Towles isn't hitting for shit, and the only guys who are are Reggie Ambercrombie and John Gall. That's problematic.

Maybe that BPro prediction of a 67 win season isn't too far off. Frankly, it seems entirely possible that Drayton and Ed Wade will be forced to do some things that they never really considered before.

So here are some predictions for what will happen to the Astros by the end of July if they're significantly below .500 and out of any hope for the Wild Card spot:

The economy is going to make most teams unwilling to take on all but the best contracts. Fortunately, the Astros have four fantastic assets - Pence, Berkman, Oswalt, and Valverde. Wade would probably love to move Tejada, but (unless he hits like gangbusters) he's not going to garner much interest. Lee isn't a great value, but there are a lot of teams that need corner outfielders/DH types.

1) Valverde is traded. This is the most likely thing to happen, in my opinion. Teams love great relievers, and Papa Grande is in his final cheap season. Valverde could be worth a lot to a team making a playoff run. He good go pretty much anywhere, but I'd say the Giants or Angels would be the most likely.

2) Oswalt gets traded. This is the next most likely thing to happen, should the shit hit the fan. Of the three Astros with no-trade clauses, Roy is the most likely to waive it. ESPN almost always starts speculating about possible Oswalt trades around June/July, but I think they could be serious this year. The Mets would love him, as always, and so would the Dodgers, but he could go to anyone in contention halfway through the season.

3) Pence is traded. Pence means a lot to the Astros' future, but it's become clear that he'll never be a superstar. That's not bad, but he could get a lot in return. This would be a lot more difficult to predict, however. Again, the Giants are a good option (I've been saying Giants a lot, and they really seem like a team that could make a few moves at the dealine to put themselves over the Dodgers in the division. A few quality bats make them a real contender. He's likely to improve since last year, making him a good replacement for Winn in right or - with a slight downgrade in defense - Rowand in center) This would be an odd move, however.

4) Carlos Lee. Everyone needs a fat outfielder, right? The problem is that Lee is unlikely to accept a trade to anyone but Texas. But, were he to waive that clause, I'd say that - again - the Giants are a great option, as are the Mets. Christ, it would be great to get him off the books, too.

5) Berkman. It pains me to say it, but it might really be in the club's best interest to find somewhere for the Puma to go. The problem, however, is twofold: first, he's got that same no-trade clause and a stated desire to play for only the Astros or Rangers (who don't really need more offense). Second, he's the most popular player on the team. Berkman is a Texan, a Rice product, and Bagwell's successor. We all like Oswalt, and he's obviously the best Astros pitcher since JR Richard had that stroke, but Berkman is the face of the Astros franchise. Attendance would obviously suffer with Berkman gone, but that would probably happen, anyways. However, I consider this really unlikely, given his importance to the franchise. Any number of clubs could use him, but I can't think of any contenders without that 1B/DH/LF position set.

Maybe this will work as a reverse jinx.

Oh God this is just too hilarious

2009-03-06T10:08:00.002-06:00

Location: Highway gas station; just outside of Nashville.
Terrell Owens: (open door, finds gas station to be dark) Hello? Anyone here?
Kerry Collins: (appears from behind front counter; visibly drunk) Well, well, well! A visitor!
TO: I'm looking for Bud Adams. Can you tell me how to get to LP Field?
KC: That's easy. (Pulls out shotgun, chambers it) It's right back the way you came, [redacted].

Fuck 'em

2009-03-04T23:17:00.005-06:00

I gotta bone to pick cause I'm sick
Of you motherfuckers talkin shit
We pick you up, you put us down and I'm mad
Time to talk about your dog ass

EDIT: I suppose I should actually write about something, instead of simply putting up a shooped picture making fun of Jazz fans and Mormons.

That was a ridiculous game. Had it been officiated in any way CLOSE to properly, the Rockets would have won handily. Instead, Yao got into foul trouble about 4 minutes into the first quarter, and he fouled out late in the 4th on a bullshit charge.

This is my problem with the Jazz: they don't play like men. It's not that they swing elbows and commit fouls at every opportunity - it's that they do that and they flop whenever another team does it to them. If you attempt to play them at their own game, they just pull the acting jobs out and play the refs. I'd have some respect for them if they took whatever they gave, but they prefer to play dirty at one moment and then whine to the refs the next. More than anything else - more than the idiotic fans, more than their favorable scheduling from the league, more than the non-sequiter name - this is what pisses me off most about the Utah Jazz.

And it's also why Sloan will never win Coach of the Year. All the writers hate his style of play, as do all the opposing coaches. He and the Utah Jazz are the bitches of the league, and they know it. And instead of simply cleaning up their play, they just push for more and more, knowing that the refs won't call it.

Why won't the refs do anything? Mostly, it's because if they officiated Jazz games properly, they'd take close to five hours to finish. Hack-a-Shaq would be more interesting to watch. So they let the Jazz get away with a lot. They've done this for twenty years, and they're not about to stop.

The league needs to do something about this bullshit, and they needed to do it many years ago. Personally, I'd just stop calling fouls on Jazz opponents until Utah cleans up its act. I think another alternative is to allow NHL-style enforcers. Let Joey Dorsey wade in and crack some heads until the Jazz figure it out.

On Justice

2009-03-01T11:13:00.002-06:00

An article on the Obama administration's abandonment of human rights rhetoric.

Basically, his point isn't all that different from that made by Nick Cohen a few years ago. Because Bush adopted the language of the left to articulate a hawkish foreign policy (which really wasn't that different from that articulated by numerous leftists in America and Britain throughout the Cold War and into the 90s), the contemporary left went berserk, throwing away any pretense of the universality of human rights. The war in Iraq, which many leftists had been calling for in one way or another prior to the Gulf War in 1991, was thus opposed primarily because it was coming from Bush, rather than an old labor government in Britain or some shit.

Now, I had imagined that, when Obama got into office, he would articulate essentially the same thing (albeit probably in a less hawkish way, and with an attention to the rights of prisoners), his supporters would suddenly switch their position on the United States' calls for human rights, and we would all be struck by the irony of the situation but it wouldn't matter because justice was being fought for. The left these days might be spineless and compromising, but at least it would be doing what's right.

Instead, the Obama administration has decided to simply carry on the position of the left during the previous eight years, preferring to compromise universal rights for possible gains in international politics. I am not naive. I understand that governments do not always pursue justice as it should be pursued. But, as Barone points out, the administration has abandoned even the most minor push for human rights in China.

In truth, it seems to me that there is no such thing as a liberal anymore - at least not politically. Tony Blair arguably was, but he left office in disgrace. What we have left are two different types of relativists - those who believe that human rights only apply to those of us priveleged to live in the West, and those who believe the same but also think we should enact price controls. There are various organizations and writers who believe in something like universal human rights, but they have no power in government.

The cause of human rights - that of global justice - is going into a truly dark period if even the United States is unwilling to put pressure upon those who violate those rights. European powers have long showed they don't care. We're all there is left, and it doesn't seem that our government will do anything to advance that cause.

Regicide

2009-02-28T15:06:00.003-06:00

In the grandest tradition of the republican cause, the Houston Rockets destroyed "King" James and his Cavaliers on Thursday. Despite the pre-game predictions of Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley, Shane Battier and Ron Artest were able to hold Lebron James to a mere 21 points on 21 attempts, 1 rebound, and (for the first time in his brief career) no assists. It was the first time he was held to a single rebound since 2007.

ESPN has a good analysis of how Shane and Artest stopped the best player in the NBA. Put simply, they allowed LeBron to take as many jump shots as he wanted, yielding everything outside of the paint. This makes sense, mathematically. James shoots something like 75% around the rim, making him an efficient scorer once he gets inside. But, as has been documented so many times, he lacks a great outside shot, even though he seems to believe that he's Kobe Bryant.

The danger, of course, is that you're also yielding three-point territory. But James' outside shot is inconsistent enough to take that risk, and you can adjust if he's able to score outside on that night.

To me, the game demonstrated the major flaw in the Cavaliers' design: while the Cavaliers have a group of solid role-players who can play great defense, they don't have any other real scoring threats, while their offense emphasizes Lebron's offense. There's nothing wrong with that, but, when faced with a Rockets team that can pack the lane and defends well on the perimeter, the Cavs had no answer. The Cavaliers, to be the unstoppable force so many beleive that they can be, need another offensive threat down low. Maybe Varajao will develop that sort of offensive game in the future, but I doubt it.

The only thing I don't like about the analysis given by ESPN is that it seems to miss a critical part of defending superstars. When LeBron was on the floor, the Cavs were -13. A similar stat was given for the Lakers when both Kobe and Shane are on the floor in that Michael Lewis article from a few weeks back.

Lebron, no matter what, is going to get his points. The Cavs' offense is run through him, and nobody is going to tell him to stop taking shots. But, when faced with the sort of defense he encountered on Thursday, he becomes less efficient and less aware, making his whole team worse. The same thing happens when any star player is ineffective. We see it when Yao has a bad night or when McGrady is injured. The things that they do that make their role-players better cease to happen, and so the whole team is worse.

On another note, listen to the TNT pre-game show from Thursday. The idiotic "analysis" from Smith and Barkley astounds me. Barkley says that great players can't possibly be stopped. Smith claims that "good offense always beats great defense" (which is why the Phoenix Suns have won the last three NBA Championships) . The best part, however, is when both claim that the Rockets "packed it in" when they traded Rafer "What the fuck are you doing" Alston. Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Texans traded Rosenfels to the Vikings for a 4th round pick. It's a good move, but I'm sorry to see the author of the most glorious moment in Texans history leave.

They also hired Bruce Matthews as an assistant offensive coach. Some are saying this means they might draft his nephews, but I doubt it. Clay Matthews is seen as a late 1st round or early 2nd round pick, and will probably be a great LB, but I don't think the Texans will trade down (or up) to get him, nor is there any connection between hiring the guy's uncle and drafting him.

Dunta is reportedly pissed about being franchised. Demeco doesn't like what the front office is doing with his contract negotiations. I sympathize but think they both need to get over themselves.

The Astros won their first Spring Training game, lost the next two. Chris Johnson is exciting a lot of people, and (as much as I'd like to buy into that) I have my doubts about his hitting ability. He's got a lot of power, (reportedly) a good glove, and has garnered a lot of support, but I don't see how a guy hitting .275 in AA and walking about 4% of the time has much chance. Maybe that's just me being pessimistic, though. We'll see how he does in AAA this year. Stranger things have happened. But it looks to me like Chris Johnson is a mediocre prospect who's getting a lot of attention because he plays in the upper divisions of a depeleted farm system. He was rated a three-star prospect and received some nice comments from BPro, but the criticisms against him - free swinger - aren't easy ones to overcome. Again, we'll see what happens.

Jazz Fans sure are stupid.

2009-02-24T16:20:00.013-06:00

Inspired by this post over at SBN's Jazz site (and by the fact that I'm a horribly lame individual who doesn't find Mardi Gras all that fucking interesting after the third or fourth time), I decided to compare the best point guards in the league. I chose the two best PGs in the Western Conference (and the two who started this conversation), Deron Williams and Chris Paul, and the two best in the East, Jameer Nelson and Devin Harris. So let's take a look, shall we?

Let's start with the basics:Paul has a massive advantage in assists, steals, and rebounds. Nelson is hurting for a lot of stats, but that's mostly because of his injury. Devin Harris has a slight advantage in scoring over Paul, however. Paul has also turned the ball over more than any other PG. But that's obviously not telling us much, right? We need to look at per-game stats.

Pretty much the same thing. Except that suddenly Williams' turnovers are the worst in the group. And he's the worst rebounder. Still, he's second-best in assists, even if he doesn't generate many turnovers himself. But Paul and the other guards play more minutes than Williams, so we need to normalize for that.

The assist gap between Paul and Williams closes, but the turnover gap widens. Harris' lead in points increases. But any good student of the game knows that it's not per-minute stats that matter, but per-possession stats. Maybe Williams looks better than Paul there.

Oh shit. That didn't help Williams' case at all. In fact, it looks like Chris Paul is obviously the best PG in the league. Look at the massive lead he has in Wins, PER, Assists, steals, rebounding (an underrated part of his game). And Williams is turning the ball over a lot. And, when we look at PER and Wins, it looks like (even with Nelson's injury), Williams might be the worst of the group. Let's look at why that might be.

Paul is the best field goal shooter, but Nelson leads in free throws and threes. Harris isn't quite the shooter that Williams is.

True shooting takes everything into account - threes, field goals, and free throws. Nelson is the best shooter of the four, followed by Paul.

Offensive and Defensive Ratings give us the number of points scored and allowed in 100 possessions. Personally, I'm surprised by how close Paul and Nelson are. But why are Harris and Williams so close together, given Harris' much poorer scoring? The answer lies in free throw attempts. Per game, Harris goes to the line about four more times than Williams. Despite his poorer accuracy, Harris gets enough foul calls to make up the difference.

There is absolutely no contest in who is the best point guard in the game. Chris Paul is head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the game. He was the best player in virtually every single category. Only Nelson did anything better than him. He should have won the MVP last year, and he has a good case this year.

The contest is between Harris, Nelson, and Williams for second place. And, looking at these numbers, I think that Nelson makes a good case for the title of 2nd best PG in the NBA. It's a shame that he's out with a labrum tear. But Harris might even come out ahead of Williams, which surprised me. It's important to remember how useful getting to the foul line is. Not only is it the most efficient method of scoring (doesn't take any time off the clock), it also generates more free-throw attempts after the opposing team gets in the penalty, and it can quickly remove opponents from the game.

The funniest part of the linked SLCD thread above was this: Jazz fans wanted to say that Chris Paul was worse because he was smaller. Never mind that Paul is the superior defender and scorer, somehow three inches meant that Williams was the better player. That's not the way it works. But let's take a look at our group's vital statistics. Maybe that will show something Deron Williams is best at:

Shit. Chris Paul is only 6 feet tall, and he's the lightest player in the group. But Williams is tied for tallest, and he has a big advantage over everyone in weight. Good for him.

That last statistic is one of my own design: BQ. Blackness Quotient. It's a measure, similar to IQ, that measures a player's blackness in comparison to other prominent NBA players. 100 is neither Black nor White, lying roughly at the average. Some examples of different scores:

35: Brian Scalabrine - let me break it down for you: so very, very white.
50: Shane Battier - extremely white, but he gets points for being multi-racial.
75: Dirk Nowitzki - pretty white, but he gets points for foreigness.
90: Brent Barry - a white guy, but he also won the dunk contest, the high-point of the (according to Michael Wilbon) "black superbowl."
100: Tim Duncan - black guy, white game.
110: Tracy McGrady - black guy with a black game, but he's also very white-person-friendly. Gives hugs to big Asians.
125: Kevin Garnett - black guy who made all those references to shooting people.
150: Rasheed Wallace - it's the beard
165: Ron Artest - he's got a very white game, but he also terrifies people. Also a (moderately skilled) rapper.
190: Allen Iverson - drove many a Philly fan to start watching Duke.

Deron Williams has a big advantage in BQ, while Chris Paul, with his smiling, endorsement-ready mannerisms, is roughly as black as T-Mac. Hooray for Williams! He finally won something!

Shock the world

2009-02-21T16:25:00.002-06:00

I had some half-written post about one of Jerome Solomon's recent columns comparing the T-Mac-Yao tandem with Kobe-Shaq, but I've grown disinterested with it. Suffice it to say that, while Yao is not quite the player Shaq was at 28, he is at roughly the same level Shaq was at 26. Yao has developed into the best center in the Western Conference, as well as the best-rounded center in the league. He is dominant, possibly as dominant as Shaq was in his early Laker years. Up until this season, when Kobe suddenly decided to start pssing and defending well and T-Mac's knee finally gave out, it could be argued that McGrady was better than his rival. Despite the lack of postseason success, Yao and McGrady formed one of the best guard/center combinations in NBA history.

No, what interests me right now are the comments of several other pundits in the Houston and national media. While BDL had correctly evaluated the Lowry/Alston deal as a good one for the Rockets, it also seems that some of its contributers feel this was a surrender signal from Daryl Morey and that, combined with the loss of McGrady, the Rockets are out of contention for the West and may even slip out of the playoffs.

Bullshit.

The Rockets have proven that they can win without McGrady. Moreover, they proved they could win against good teams (Boston, Denver) without McGrady. I like McGrady, I love his game, and I think that the Rockets are a worse team without (the healthy version of) him. But he is not irreplacable. Von Wafer is not as good as the injured McGrady, but he fits within the offense and understands his role. Artest is starting to do the same. At the end of the day, this puts added pressure on Yao, but it also means he becomes even more of a focus on the offensive side. And even Rafer-lovers must admit that Skip is definitely not the lynch-pin of this Houston team.

I'm going to be honest: I get a real 1994 Olajuwon vibe from Yao. That year, Hakeem was surrounded with good roleplayers and a quality team, but he was the only legitimate superstar on that team. And he carried the Rockets to a championship.

And I get a real 1995 Rockets vibe from the media - they've been written off in favor of the Lakers, Spurs, and Nuggets, but the only team I think they are noticeably worse than in that group are the Lakers.

Lowry was a great defensive addition to the backcourt. Making a decision about McGrady means a lot for the team's chemistry. And, despite what a few uninformed writers think, I really believe that the Rockets still have a good chance of winning it all this year.

Daryl Morey is a Golden God (pt 2)

2009-02-19T19:23:00.003-06:00

The idiots at ClutchFans don't seem to understand how fantastic of a move this is. Daryl Morey has dropped several million dollars in payroll. He has gained a young point guard with a lot of potential. He found a point guard who is roughly the equal of Rafer, offensively, and probably better than him defensively. And he did so by just giving away Rafer. That's incredible. Daryl Morey continues to play the other NBA GMs for chumps. And Houston's idiotic fans don't even fucking realize it. So welcome to Houston, Kyle Lowry. Don't fuck it up.

More fun with photoshop (I was going for a Chinese propaganda look; not sure how it comes off. I like how the first one turned out better than the second).

"Long live the Rockets! Long live Yao's fans!" (I intended for that second bit to translate as "Long Live Yao Ming," but my roommate informs me that it translates as "Yao's fans" instead. Still makes sense.)

"Yao is the people's hammer; Yao will lead us to greatness"

Fun with captions and memes.

2009-02-16T09:32:00.002-06:00

Hmmm....It's almost as if reason and statistical analysis is better than faux-moralistic grandstanding and nonsense!

2009-02-12T13:14:00.003-06:00

Who knew?

Of course, this reasonable argument would never be expressed in the mainstream sports media. That would make too much fucking sense.

Sometimes, I think Plato was right - the philosophers should rule. Just replace "philosophers" with "philosophers and economists." The ideal and the pragmatic, meeting as one. It's only coincidence that both are my areas of study, I promise.

Shit!

2009-02-12T08:13:00.002-06:00

So Tejada got all teary-eyed yesterday. And, judging from internet reactions, people seem to have forgiven him. And I agree with that - he shouldn't have lied, and there are consequences for doing so.

However, very few in the media have pointed out what utter horsehit these charges amount to. Tejada was not charged with lying about taking steroids. He lied about knowing teammates who had taken steroids. So Adam Piatt tells him during spring training one year that he had used steroids, Tejada tells investigators years later that he doesn't know of anyone else using steroids (it's something of a ridiculous lie; both the Giambis were on steroids, as were several others in the Oakland clubhouse; I'm sure Tejada knew; on the other hand, Tejada doesn't seem too bright, so you never know), the investigators find out that Piatt had sold Tejada drugs later.

This seems, to me, to be an extraordinarily chickenshit charge. I'm so glad that the government has decided to devote its time, money, and personnel to investigating and prosecuting this bullshit. Sure, finding suppliers of illegal (well, mostly illegal) substances is important, but this seemed to be so overblown by the government and media.

In any case, I'm glad Tejada won't be going to jail.

In even shittier news, McGrady might be seriously injured. And he might need microfracture surgery. And that might end his career. Holy fuck, that's not good.

Steroids

2009-02-09T17:44:00.005-06:00

Gotta say, the news that Alex Rodriguez used steroids is some of the least surprising "surprising news" I've heard. Personally, I don't give a shit. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why augmenting the body through steroids is any different from augmenting the body otherwise. I think it's exactly the same, and - as such - it should be allowed. Nevertheless, the media is having a field day over this, despite their facilitation of the entire era.

I wish I could find Ken Caminiti's interview from about a year before his death. I remember one of his basic points was that, when the difference between being cut and having a job, or between getting $2 million in arbitration and getting $5 million is a few home runs a year, you're going to do whatever you can to make sure you have a job or get that extra money. When ownership is demanding more homers, your manager needs you to play every day, reporters grant you more exposure which gets you more money, and (this is the important part) all turn a blind eye to it, steroid use makes sense. Ownership, management, and the media all played a major part in this.

In the past few days, both Oswalt and Berkman have made very clear statements against steroid users. Now, as I've said, I don't think there would be anything wrong* with them taking steroids/HGH.

* I think we need to distinguish between the wrongness of cheating and the wrongness of breaking the rules. I think that steroids probably didn't help much, or (if they did) they did so in the same way as any other physical training or augmentation. Thus, steroid users certainly broke the rules, but they didn't really gain an advantage over their competitors. They broke the rules, but they didn't really cheat. (And, yes, I copied this paranthetical format from Joe Posnanski)

I would be legitimately surprised if it turned out that either the Puma or Wizard were steroid users. Very, very surprised. So what about other players? I think that the vast majority of steroid users were, in all likelihood, scrubs trying to get whatever advantage they could, but some other stars obviously were using, as well. Just a few:

I Would Be Entirely Surprised if They Were Not Using Steroids:

Albert Pujols (this isn't simply Astros homerism. That guy is on the 'roids. I'm sure of it. Just like I'm sure he's several years older than he claims)
Carlos Zambrano

Not a Big Surprise (A-Rod fits this category)

Mike Piazza
Ken Griffey Jr (a lot of people think he's definitely clean, and I'd like to believe that, but I find it doubtful)
Jeff Bagwell (same as the above. It would suck if he were on steroids, but I wouldn't be shocked. Slightly surprised, but not shocked)
Chipper Jones
Jeff Kent

Totally Surprised:

Frank Thomas
Biggio (this would blow me away)
Schilling (fat bastard makes too much noise)
Oswalt
Berkman

EDIT:

Joe Posnanski, as it turns out, has written a very good piece on the A-Rod/Steroids story. Check it out. However, it quickly diverges into talking about the Serena Roberts vs. Alex Rodriguez thing.

Every article I've read on the subject inevitably comes down on Roberts' side in this, and that's probably a product of journalists seeking to protect their own. That's unfortunate, because Roberts is a hack.

She continued to hammer on the fake Duke rape allegations years ago. She seems to simply have it in for Rodriguez. She broke this story, which was a revelation of confidential information. She has, by breaking this story, probably helped commit a federal crime. As far as I'm concerned, she's an awful journalist and an awful person.

But journalists have a strange view of themselves. They think (wrongly) that they have a special "journalistic privilege" to not reveal sources. They seem to believe that reporting anything - no matter how private that information should be, or how wrongly it was obtained - is their duty and right.

So, inevitably, everyone from Posnanski to Justice is going to defend Roberts' actions. That's wrong.

Remarkable

2009-02-02T17:48:00.002-06:00

It intrigues me that, whenever Bud has attempted to fuck over the city of Houston, karma somehow gets to him (I'll consider the massive opportunity cost associated with moving the Oilers from Houston to Possum Hollar a karmic response, too). When he attempted to move the team to Jacksonville (which led the city to give into Bud's demands and tear down the Dome's scoreboard for more seating), Bud's son died in an apparent suicide (My mom tells a story about that one. While the vast majority of her family was from Humble, my great-grandparents bought some land out in Waller back in the 50s. According to mom, the farm in Waller was located near a ranch Bud Adams owned. It was there that his son killed himself).

And now, after the NFL announced that the Sister-Fuckers will play two games next year in the Oilers colors, Bud's wife passes away.

Now, the obvious problem with believing that this is the universe getting back at Bud is twofold: First, you have to believe that it cares about football (it probably does, though). Second, you have to believe that the universe is asshole-ish enough to visit punishment upon Bud's family, rather than Bud himself.

Still, rest in peace, Ms. Adams and Bud III. You had nothing to do with Bud's crap. And the injustice of seeing a sports team move is nothing compared to the injustice of seeing one's loved ones die. So, if you're reading this Bud, my condolences (and go fuck yourself.)

What the hell is this shit?

2009-02-02T09:06:00.002-06:00

That Star Trek trailer looks awful. I mean, I loved DS9, and I think the franchise should generally move in that direction, but the new movie just seems like it will two hours of shit blowing up. They've totally fucked up the whole Star Trek premise. And this whole "25 year-old Kirk" thing just doesn't work. The only major characters in the original series who should be even close to that age are Chekov, Uhura, and Sulu. Everyone else is in their mid-30s to 40s. Young McCoy doesn't make any fucking sense. God, they've probably totally fucked that movie up. JJ Abrams was NOT the way to take that franchise out of its current malaise.

Oh, and there was some football game last night, right? Yeah, and it was pretty fucking awesome, too. I was rooting for the Cardinals, and I really believed that they could pull off the upset, but I began to have my doubts when they were down 20-7. But they fought back and let their fans down the right way - not with a boring beatdown for three hours on national television (2002 Texans), but with a spectacular, heartbreaking loss in the closing moments of the game (2008 Texans).

The comparisons between the Cardinals and Texans will invariably be drawn, and this isn't entirely accurate. Yes, the Texans have the ability to make the playoffs next year, and they might even go deep into them, but they have to face a significantly tougher division and conference. Just to make the playoffs, the Texans will have to take on a renewed AFC South. Jacksonville will have a lot of its offensive line back, the Colts will have a healthy Manning for the whole season, and the sister-fuckers might get Haynesworth back (doubtful, but entirely possible). The division will be exceedingly difficult.

Then, should they make the playoffs, they will have to go through the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, and probably Chargers (they'll have Merriman back, so there's that), as well as the other WC team (Ravens?).

To even have a fighting chance, the Texans' defense has to improve significantly in the coming months. The Cardinals' defense turned it on in the playoffs, but they certainly didn't get it done last night. Still, the Texans have one major advantage over the Cardinals: the running game.

But the comparison seems to make sense because they're both historically awful teams whom nobody expects to ever do anything, and they're both equipped with prolific passing attacks and one of the best recievers in football (Johnson is better than Fitzgerald, dumbasses).

But make no mistake: if the Texans ever get to the Cardinals' posisition, they will have been much more heavily tested, and they will be in a much better posistion.

Modernism and Sac Bunts

2009-02-01T15:23:00.003-06:00

The Marlins have put up a bunch of renderings of their proposed ballpark on their website. I gotta say, it looks pretty cool. I like the modernist feel to it (oddly enough, it reminds me of Dodger stadium in LA, so it - ironically - has something of a "retro" look). Honestly, I think the Astros should have gone with something more like this. I can't stand the train theme at MMP (yeah, I know. Union Station used to stand there. But trains just don't go with Astros).

I'm watching the Cavaliers-Pistons game, and JVG was talking about some comment from Rick Barry concerning Lebron James. Mark Jackson said, "You don't tell Albert Pujols to sac bunt," and Van Gundy responds with something like, "I wish LaRussa had told him to sac bunt against the Astros." Yeah, me too. I miss Van Gundy and his defense.

Roll Wave, Kill Whitey

2009-02-01T10:35:00.004-06:00

So, Thurday I was watching SportsCenter, and what do I see? Yes, my friends, the mighty Green Wave got a mention on national television, as the Yankee fucks in Bristol recapped Chris Simms' game-winning layup against Rice. Not only that, the play (and the resulting "incident" between the Rice coach and Dickerson) was mentioned on Deadspin. Holy shit! The Tulane basketball program is really moving on up now. They scored a few minor victories on the recruiting front this year, the media (both traditional and non-) gives them a mention, and now visiting professor James Carville (he teaches some political science course this semester; and he and his wife give a lot of money to the school) shows up at home games and gives the refs hell. Awesome.

Actually, Conference USA has suddenly made numerous appearances in the media, mostly because of Houston's Aubrey Coleman's face-kicking/tripping-over Arizona's Chase Budinger.

Now, the strangest part of this saga has been the racial angle that has cropped up. Seemingly every story written about this garners some pissed-off white man to scream about black "hate crimes" against whites.

I don't know whether or not Coleman did that intentionally. He might very well have simply attempted to step over Coleman and tripped. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's important is that this seems to have struck a very weird chord with white basketball fans.

I think, to many white basketball fans, the college game is a sort of refuge. While plenty of schools in plenty of conferences have, over the years, adopted the high-flying, athletic, "black" style of play (Houston under Guy Lewis was probably the most famous for this, and I'd say Memphis is a great example now, but even traditional ACC schools present this - Georgetown and Wake Forest being the best examples), fewer have kept to the old, less-athletic, "white" style of play. Duke is the prime example of this style. Programs like Duke provide a white alternative to the NBA, and I think plenty of closet racists choose college basketball for this reason.

So these people see a black guard on a historically black team kicking a white kid while he's down, and suddenly all the racist bullshit that these people brought with them comes out. Somehow, Coleman is a personification of every perceived injustice from "reverse-racism," affirmative-action, or black crime. Claims like "Coleman should be charged with a hate crime" are justified with "A white man would be charged with a hate crime." Think about that. That's not justice - it's injustice "justified" by the injustices of the past. This has become (for some very sick people) an opportunity to let out their rage against the black guy who stole their girlfriend or got that promotion over them. Coleman suddenly has become a symbol for the black race, while Budinger becomes a symbol for white men everywhere.

That's screwed up. If Coleman intentionally did that, he did it because he's an asshole, and not because he particular hates white people. Don't let this become anything beyond that.

I'm watching (like the rest of America) the Superbowl today. I hope the Cardinals win, of course (If you root for the favored team, and you don't really have a rooting interest, you're an asshole). Prediction: Cardinals 21-17.

Oh, Christ. Berman just mentioned Dire Straits (specifically "Industrial Disease" and the line "Two men say they're Jesus/One of them must be wrong"). WHY DO YOU RUIN THE THINGS I LOVE, YOU FUCK!

On the Science of General Managing

2009-01-26T13:26:00.004-06:00

I was talking to a friend during lunch, and the topic of baseball management came up (actually, this is a fairly common topic, so I wouldn't say it just "came up"). He said that, were he a GM, he would only sign pitchers to two or three year deals. This lead to a discussion on what the best strategy, generally, for a franchise would be.

So I've been thinking about this for the past few hours, and here's what I'd do.

1) If given the option to build a new stadium, or to renovate my current one, I would prefer a pitcher-favored design. The Astrodome was the perfect example of this. This does two things: first, it allows me to hire and develop pitchers who may not be very good in a more hitter-friendly environment, but whose fly-ball pitching excels in a pitcher-friendly park. This means that I can exploit something of a market inefficiency by favoring a special kind of (otherwise poor) pitcher. Second, it kills power numbers. I neutralize my power-hitting rivals' main advantage. Of course, this also hurts me. But that brings me to point two:

2) In the draft, as well as in free agency, I would favor non-power hitters. In general, I want hitters who get on base by walking and hitting singles and doubles. I want Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Craig Biggio types. My opponents might not hit very well in my park, but my hitters will. Power hitters are great (and I'm not saying one should neglect power hitting totally), but batting average and on-base-percentage is even better. The goal here is not speed (speed's great, but only a plus) but an ability to punch the ball into the outfield and get on base. It's a sadly dying breed of hitting, and I think there would certainly be a value in selecting for those players who can do that.

3) I would construct a defense-oriented team. There was an interesting article at THT a few weeks ago, and one of its claims (backed up by statistical analysis) was that the price for a marginal Run Saved is nearly half that of a marginal Run Scored.

Now, you might point out (as I did) that this doesn't make any sense because a run scored and a run saved do the same thing. But - and here's the extra-interesting part - a run scored is worth less than a run saved (this, of course, makes intuitive sense, but it's something that I've found many people don't realize).

So I think that a primary focus of the club should be defense. I'm not saying that I'd want eight Adam Everetts out there, but good defense would be a major goal. This would help to bail out my cheaper pitching staff.

Anyways, that's my view of good baseball organizational goals. They exploit major market inefficiences and create comparative advantages for the club, and I think any team would be wise to adopt such a position.

We've got a new president, everybody!

2009-01-20T10:58:00.003-06:00

So the CBS commentators (why do we need commentators for the inauguration?) drew this parrallel between Obama/Biden and Kennedy/Johnson. I find the whole idea idiotic, myself. The only analogy one can draw there is between Obama and LBJ. I also liked how they talked about Johnson being a "political" choice (those of us in the South don't cotton to Yankees, you see), which is true, but it fails to point out that one of the many reasons Kennedy didn't want Johnson as VP was because of the Texan's rabid support for civil rights legislation. LBJ was awesome and Kennedy was a spoiled fuck.

Anyways, I can't really get into this whole Obama-hysteria that swept the American "left" over the past two years. Obama will probably be a good president, but that will depend upon his responses to the coming problems in the world (hopefully he can do it better than his recital of the oath of office).

Obama is going to be faced with an increasingly belligerant (and well-armed) Iran, numerous human-rights crises throughout Africa and the Middle East, and an imperialistic Russia willing to use its oil supplies to secure its interests in Europe. Ultimately, Obama must be judged (as all presidents should be judged) by his ability to spread America's causes (human rights, democracy, human welfare) overseas.

It strikes me as odd that Obama talks about how it is his goal to see the ideal of "all are created equal" accomplished. It seems to me that the left has, over the past few decades, totally abandoned this cause. The cause of universal human rights seems to be lost to both the American and international left. Human rights are advanced within the first-world, but the cause is abandoned whenever it impacts a pet cause. This was displayed fragrantly throughout the Iraq affair (human rights are great for prisoners in Guantanomo, but the Kurds and Shia in Iraq can go to hell).

Maybe it was the association with Bush that did Iraq's human rights cause in. Maybe an association with Obama will make liberal internationalism a renewed cause. But I doubt it.

I don't think Obama's talk of a "new political age" is true at all. The political rules ("Whatever the other side does is automatically wrong") that governed the past two-hundred years still hold.

I suppose that is what is most concerning about Obama's coming term. I worry that he talks about liberal causes, but that he's not willing to back it up with force. I worry that he'll abandon the Kurds to the Turks or the Afghanis to the religious fanatics. Still, I hope that he's willing to fight for those causes, rather than simply talk about it.

Eat shit, you inbred, moonshine-drinking, cousin-touching, franchise-stealing fucks.

2009-01-10T21:05:00.004-06:00

Choke on a dick, Bud.

I'm rooting for the Chargers tomorrow. Two reasons: first, the Steelers and their asshole fans make me want to kill myself. Second, I really want an epic "Battle of the Shits" between San Diego and Arizona. I want an 8-8 team to win the fucking championship. Epic.

Fun with bullshit

2009-01-10T05:29:00.002-06:00

So I'm leaving this afternoon for New Orleans. Good times.

Fanhouse has always been a source for hilarious commenters (not in the Deadspin sense - in the "Kids say the darndest things" sense), and it has gotten really great now that Mariotti has started "writing" for them (yeah, you left a "dying medium" for AOL. Great job there, Jay), so it's a great place to go if you have crippling self-esteem issues. Nothing cheers me up quite like a retard on the internet.

From the latest made-up crap on Andy Pettitte (we're not going to sign him, folks... Not for the money he wants. For that matter, I really doubt anybody but the Yankees can/will pay him the amount of money he wants.), we get "Rich LaCava":

As a big time Yankee fan, I say good riddance to Andy and don't let the locker room door hit you in the ass on the way out. You are a so so pitcher who has always had so so seasons on both the Yankees and Astros and probably will not even get into the Hall of Fame.

Yeah! That bum! He probably won't even get into Cooperstown!

How skewed must your worldview be if you think that, in order for someone to not qualify for "sucks" status, he has to be among the ten or so best players/plumbers/pandas of his generation?

Anyways, he has something of a point (stated in the most idiotic, asinine way possible). Andy Pettitte is an overrated pitcher. Now, I think that "overrated" tends to get tossed around quite a bit, and it's used generally as a way to say "sucks" without any evidence, but the man really is overvalued as a pitcher.

In the seasons during which he received Cy Young votes (1996, '97, 2000, '03, '05), only Pettitte's 2005 season is really "legendary" (and he only placed 5th that year! I've talked about this before, I think, but mostly about how Clemens had a good case for winning another CYA that season. Pettitte arguably had a better year in 2005 than either of his higher-placing teammates. Oswalt put up the highest ERA and WHIP of the Clemens-Pettitte-Oswalt tandem, but placed 4th in CY voting. Clemens, of course, led the league in ERA and was behind only Martinez in WHIP [though he was #1 in H/9IP], but he pitched 11 fewer innings that Andy. Anyways, the point is that, if you look at Pettitte's year, it was fucking fantastic). All his other seasons were either "merely" great (1997 was a great year: 155 ERA+) or pretty average-to-good.

But people place a large value on "wins," so Pettitte is rated fairly highly.

Pettitte will probably make the hall of fame, particularly if he pitches decently over the next few seasons, but it will mostly be on the strength of his championships, occasional greatness, and being a Yankee.

Still, it's total bullshit that a Yankees "fan" hates on the guy like that. He wants way too much money to be an average pitcher next year, but he'll get the job done. Fanhouse (with the exception of Texans blogger Stephaney Stradley) can go eat a dick.

Somebody figures it out

2009-01-06T15:14:00.002-06:00

Congratulations, Solomon, you are (once again) the Chronicle's resident non-retard. You're right about McGrady, Utah, and the Longhorns (USC, too).

Christ, people, get a grip...

2009-01-05T01:36:00.003-06:00

It's amazing to me that so many Rockets fans have apparently lost all hold on reality after the Toronto loss. McGrady quits on one possession and he suddenly becomes the team cancer. Rafer says that they need T-Mac and Artest to get healthy and Adelman has lost all control of the team. A few days after the loss, "nothing management has done has worked." Jesus.

Get over it, y'all. The Rockets will be alright. Sometimes it's best not to take it "one game at a time," and to remember that it's a long season. T-Mac sucks right now. He won't a month from now.

Comparative Advantage, Mike Leach, and Duane Brown

2009-01-03T23:08:00.004-06:00

Duane Brown is getting better. He's becoming more and more adept at the Texans' offensive-line system, and that is becoming more and more evident in his play.

At the time of the draft, many thought Brown was a bit of a stretch for the Texans. But, as was noted by at least one writer at the time, Alex Gibbs values a different type of lineman than do other teams. He wants more athletic linemen - those best suited to his zone-blocking scheme - rather than larger, more powerful players. So valuing Brown more highly than other teams allowed the Texans to trade down.

Tom Kirkendall has criticized Mike Leach for not being quite as awesome as the media seem to think he is. I think he makes an excellent point - Leach really hasn't accomplished much, and it seems stupid to say that Leach's offensive system is the magic everyone believes it to be.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding (amongst both the media and coaches) about what the spread offense can accomplish, as well as what it is designed to do.

I don't think that we can reasonably say the spread offense gives a substantial advantage over the best defenses in either the NCAA or NFL. Good defenses will do well against any offense, regardless of how many five receiver plays you bring out.

But what the spread offense does is level the playing field somewhat. It allows college recruiters to value speed and skill over size and power (particularly in running backs), while the even more unconventional spread option offenses of Rich Rodriguez and his ilk allows coaches to use glorified running backs under center. The top recruits are still going to go to schools like USC, OSU, UT, etc., but spread offenses allowed schools like Tulane to briefly compete.

The key was not that spread offenses offered a spectacular advantage on the field - they offered a spectacular advantage in recruiting, because one could select athletes who could run the "system," rather than the blue-chip recruits out of high school who were destined to go to one of the powerhouses.

Of course, now that spread offenses have been run by the largest schools in every conference (the SEC seems to be made up mostly of such offenses), there isn't such an advantage anymore. At least not for Tech.But look at how Tulsa and Rice dominated Conference USA this past year. Bob Toledo can't possibly hope to recruit the type of athletes he needs to run his standard, West-Coast offense and win (Matt Forte was a fluke created by LSU's recruiting priorities and family history). Those athletes are going to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, Rice, Tulsa, and Southern Miss will kick his ass again and again.

So this brings me back to Duane Brown. The Texans don't have to worry about recruiting. The NFL has the draft, so they get to select essentially whomever they want to play on their offensive line.

But the zone-blocking system (shared only by the Redskins, Panthers, Packers, and - of course - the Broncos) allows the Texans to select smaller linemen, exploiting the same type of market inefficiency that the spread offense was designed to exploit: find undersized but agile players and put them to work. That system turned the much-maligned Texans offensive line into a very good set of blockers, and made the tiny Steve Slaton into the league's leading rookie halfback.

This was what "Moneyball" supposedly did (and does). You look for players who can do something very well but who have been, for whatever reason, overlooked by other scouts and organizations. Billy Beane looked for players who could work the count. Mike Shanahan looked for running backs who could make a quick cut and get downfield.

The intersting thing to me is whether or not the spread offense would give any advantage in the NFL. As I said, I doubt it will be any better at picking apart defenses than the West-Coast or conventional offense. At the same time, however, I don't think (like so many pundits) that such a system would fall apart in the NFL from turnovers. Like any offensive system, it requires a quarterback that makes good decisions and can recognize what his coach and coordinator tells him to recognize from the defense.

So what if a team adopted the spread this offseason? I have no idea which teams would be best suited to such a system, but that's not really the point.

In the first round, they really should obey the same principles as everyone else: build your offensive and defensive lines first, then work outwards. The situation doesn't become interesting until about the third round, when you start to see guys like Pat White or Tebow present.

Now, I'm no NFL scout, so I have no idea if Tebow or White can really make decent NFL quarterbacks, even in a spread attack. But both are probably going to enter the draft as something other than QB (TE and WR, respectively). That means you can get them at a good price, and (provided they can work in the NFL) you have someone who can run the new system.

Maybe the same can apply to wide receivers. Tom Brady and the Patriots made use of much worse WRs than Welker and Moss for years, and I think the same types can be used in a full spread attack.

Again, the point isn't to destroy defenses - it can't do that. But the spread offense would confer the same type of advantage that it does for smaller NCAA programs: find guys nobody else wants and use them in your system.

Besides, if nothing else, the run-and-shoot was awesome back in the day. Shame nobody uses its succesor in the NFL.

Don't point the finger

2009-01-03T12:27:00.005-06:00

Okay, that's enough stewing over the issues. Let's get down to some (weak) analysis.

I hope that, when I get a real job, my entire tenure with an organization is not evaluated based upon one day's work. I hope that my coworkers, supervisors, and anybody who's looking can look at the body of work I've put together.

I think that (probably) T-Mac's superiors and teammates do that. Yao, Battier, Artest, and the rest all know that McGrady is one of the league's best. He's having a bad year, but he proved that he's a real competitor a long time ago. Morey and Adelman will look at all of his performances.

But Houston's shitty media isn't doing that. They are jumping on one bad night - and one particularly awful possession - and announcing that T-Mac is killing the Rockets.

Yeah, McGrady has had an awful season. There's no getting around that. But his failures this year have been brought on - largely, anyways - by poor health, not poor effort.

So we have the three amigos - Dick Justice, Jonathon Feigen (whom I can tolerate), and Fran Blinebury (whom I still believe is responsible for that tacky "T-Mac injury counter" featured prominently on the Chronicle's site) - all weighing in.

Blinebury is the most idiotic of the bunch, to tell the truth. He's had it in for T-Mac before, and this is the perfect opportunity to crucify the guy who carried the team last year. Let's fisk this shit:

The official play-by-play sheet simply says: Jamario Moon slam dunk.

Anybody who was watching at the Air Canada Centre or on TV knows it was the precise moment that Tracy McGrady quit on the Rockets.

Well, it was certainly a moment in which T-Mac just let Moon through. But, at this point, you're just asserting that McGrady "quit" (on the season and the Rockets as a whole). I doubt Blinebury has that sort of insight into T-Mac's head.

Yao Ming knows it. You could read it all over his scowling face as he sat on the bench through the final embarrassing minutes of horrid game.

Yao looked like he always does. He was a little extra frustrated, but he sucked last night, too. So maybe he was just generally pissed.

Rick Adelman knows it. You could read it between the lines of his post-game comments when he said he would not talk about any individual performances.

Adelman was pissed about everything and everyone. To quote from his comments last night about offensive execution: "there wasn't any." I doubt Adelman thought T-Mac's performance was any more shitty than anyone else.

Ron Artest knows it. You could tell that a week ago when Artest dragged his sore and ballooning right ankle onto the court to gut out an overtime win against the Jazz when McGrady made himself a late scratch during the post parade.

Okay. Here's the thing: Rockets fans and writers don't know what they fucking want from Tracy. We want him to rest his knee, but then we get all pissed off when he actually does so. What Artest did was great, and I hope he can shake McGrady out of his funk, but maybe Blinebury should MAKE UP HIS FUCKING MIND about what he wants McGrady to do before criticizing his every action regarding injury.

One could hope that Dikembe Mutombo was back in Houston watching and will arrive in Atlanta with his leadership in the form of a big stick.

Truth be told, it wouldn't make a difference, wouldn't matter. It would only elicit a few more whimpering excuses from McGrady and more disappointment down the line.

Jesus, Blinebury, tell us how you really feel. Look, if you're dissapointed with T-Mac's stay in Houston, you haven't been paying attention. Remember last year? When Yao went out? When, in the final game of the Jazz series, he scored 40 points but still couldn't get the Rockets past the first round? Fuck you, Blinebury. This is like complaining about how Bagwell couldn't play in most of 2005. Only nobody would do that, because Bags is white.

As I said, he's in a shooting slump and he's battling injury. But y'all complain when he scratches himself from the lineup and complain when he doesn't. Get over it.

Oh, it was so much more than just 2-for-9 shooting and 4 points in 27 minutes. It was aimless shuffling around the court on offense and defense. It was standing five feet behind the 3-point line, feet rooted to one spot, and simply playing pitch and catch with the ball.

That was ONE FREAKING POSSESSION! Fucking Christ, what the fuck?

Just say this: He is an extraordinary talent - T-Mac - who is capable of taking your breath away. Yet as a competitor - Tiny Tim-mac - he can be blown away in a gentle breeze.

Ack! Utah! 40 points! McGrady over Shawn Bradley! Winning streak! Goddammit you fucks, pay attention! He's a competitor, and anyone who says differently isn't watching.

This is not the first time that McGrady has revealed himself, having bailed out on the Raptors as an up-and-coming phenom and quit - flat-out admitting publicly that he didn't try - on the Magic to get himself traded out of Orlando.

Yeah, Orlando sucked. I'd want to get out of that team, too. And what are you saying, that he wants out of Houston? Because this is probably his best chance to win anything, and he knows it.

If McGrady wants to rehab his sore left knee or run off to a retreat and get his chakras back in balance, let him. If he wants to return to the club somewhere down the road in a few weeks or few months and contribute a few - or a few dozen - big buckets in a playoff game, well, they'll be appreciated. But they won't be expected.

And if he did that, you'd bitch about that, too. Fuck you.

I don't have time to go through all of this shit. Justice's post is more of the same (including the ridiculous idea that Luther Head plays better when T-Mac is out; even if that's true, he still sucks). However, he comes off as downright reasonable at the end - this isn't the end of the world, and McGrady can still get healthy.

Feigen's column at least has this tidbit:

He said later that he grew frustrated that he did not get enough shots to get in a rhythm. He said the spacing was bad. He said there was poor execution.

I think that this is probably closer to the truth. McGrady, frustrated by the fact that EVERYONE on the team was getting owned, gave up. That's not excusable, but it's understandable. It would be an example of the "If y'all aren't going to do your jobs, I'm not going to do mine" attitude, which can motivate if used correctly.

One last thing: a response from Feigen's post.

I really wish they had blown it up and started over around Yao.

The team is built around Yao already. T-Mac and Yao continue to have good chemistry, and no one else on the team is quite as good as McGrady at getting the ball to Yao in the post. Yao is the machine around which the Rockets are built; everything else is ancillary. Yao is the Rockets' most important possession - on the court, as well as in getting crucial deals in China. Everybody else is in place to either do things Yao can't do or to get the ball to him. T-Mac, when healthy, does both.

We'll see what happens in coming weeks. My bet: T-Mac gets better and comes back strong.

We're like a fucking Hyperbola

2009-01-03T11:23:00.003-06:00

Midway through the first quarter, when the Texans were down 10-0 and it looked like (once again) the Texans were headed for a losing season, I had to leave. That wasn't from disgust - I was going on a trip with some friends for a few days. I didn't find out that the Texans had won (and by a relatively large margin, too!) until that evening. Given the kind of shit talking done by the resident Cubs fans on Fark, I was very, very pleased. Chicago fans are some of the biggest dickbags around, and (despite the presence of Matt Forte) I'm glad the Texans were able to show them what for. Welcome to Clutch City, bitches.

An even greater present was Indy's shutout of the Titans. If the shitfuckers' second-string is that awful, they're going to have some major problems going into the playoffs. Here's to seeing them get blown the fuck out a week from now. But the crowning jewel of the games was the Cowboys' 44-6 asshanding from Philly. Goddamn that was beautiful.

But the greatest news of all wouldn't come for a few days. Richard Smith was finally put out of his misery, as were the Texans' defensive line and backs coaches. Fan-fucking-tastic, and it only came a full year after it was painfully obvious to every Texan fan with a fucking brain that Houston's defensive playcalling was absolutely putrid.

So things are looking up, I suppose. Dunta and Owen Daniels are up for free agency, and Slaton will likely hold out for a new contract (and rightly so). He's the NFL's leading rookie rusher, and he (get this) leads EVERYONE IN THE FREAKING NFL in yardage from scrimmage. He deserves a new contract.

The Rockets continue to bewilder me. I saw the awesome Jazz game, where Yao (this isn't news) got murdered by the refs and Ron Artest put the team on his back in overtime. Artest showed a lot of (gah I hate to say it) heart out there, and it was impressive to see someone give that much effort when the shots weren't falling and the refs had been killing his team. Heat of a champion stuff from Artest that night.

But then I watched the Toronto game (we were 21-12 going in; someone call Neil Peart) and saw T-Mac just GIVE THE FUCK UP in the 3rd quarter. He stood at midcourt, lazily passing the ball to someone else as soon as he touched it.

Now, we can't see into Tracy's head. Maybe that was him sending a message to everyone else, but everyone else on the court and on the team - Yao, Artest, and Scola, especially - seemed to be trying. The shots didn't fall, but they were still going for the rebound and the steal and attempting to get something started.

I don't like to criticize T-Mac. The dude is awesome most of the time. But that was a pitiful effort, and it was made to look all the worse when Von Wafer stepped into the game and played his heart out. That's probably because he knew that was his opportunity to get more playing time, replacing Luther Head as back-up, but it was still impressive. He was the Rockets' leading scorer for the game, despite only playing a quarter.

I'll probably have more thoughts on this later, but last night's performance was just too ridiculously awful to comprehend right away. On the bright side, Deke rejoins the Rockets tonight in Atlanta.

Well, so much for that...

2008-12-22T01:40:00.002-06:00

Oakland - a team that is absolutely awful and now one of the worst franchises in the league - kicked the Texans' asses today, in what was a truly spectacular display of ineptitude.

So the Texans' dreams of having their first winning season (and, incidentally, the first in Houston since 1993) are over. They can, however, beat the Bears next week and equal last year's record. That would really be great, considering that they started off the season 0-4, but nowhere near what everyone was hoping for this year.

So now we wait for the draft, where we hope for a really awesome DB or Brian Orakpo/Michael Johnson to fall to the Texans or that they are able to acquire Julius Peppers/Asomugha or something. Maybe. Orakpo/Johnson/Peppers opposite Mario would probably, I think, do the most to improve the defense, but any improvement on the defensive side would do a lot for the Texans right now.

Anyways, I've been playing Fallout 3 for the last week, and it's really awesome. Like every other Bethesda game I've played since Daggerfall, however, it's buggy as shit. I have no idea why they get away with that. It was excusable back in the 90s - we didn't have any expectations for video games - or with Morrowind , when a fully 3D RPG was entirely new. But Oblivion was exactly the same - terrible pathfinding, characters with scripts that lead them to jump off of buildings, awful clipping issues, and a game engine that can't properly animate running people. Still, the game is a lot of fun, even if it has all those problems. Kinda like the Texans, I suppose.

What'd I tell ya'll?

2008-12-14T15:44:00.002-06:00

Schaub: 23/39, 284 yds, 1 TD
Andre Johnson: 11 receptions, 208 yds, 1 TD
Slaton: 24 carries, 100 yds

And Haynesworth's knee was taken out by Duane Brown's butt. Awesome.

Houston Texans: 13
Bud Adams' Shitfuckers: 12

FUCK THE TITANS

2008-12-10T19:55:00.002-06:00

Just making that point clear - fuck them to hell. Fuck em. Goddamn I hate those motherfuckers. And their goddamn hick-ass fans. Fuck all of them. Fuck that thug Haynesworth. Fuck that drunk Kerry Collins. Fuck that miserable son of a bitch Bud Adams. Fuck every one of them. Even Jeff Fisher - fuck him, too.

The Texans rolled out over 500 yards of offense against the (admittedly awful) Green Bay defense. They've got a chance this weekend, and Las Vegas is setting the odds at -3 Titans.

As a reminder, if you are a Houstonian, and you are a Titans fan, you can go fuck yourself, too. You're worse than the Cowboys fans who hang around the city. Y'all can both go ream each other up your collective asses.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

2008-12-09T11:35:00.003-06:00

Final exams suck hard. Particularly in classes where this is your first and only exam. Because there is no midterm, there's no way to evaluate yourself during the course, nor is there any way to predict what the fuck the instructor wants on the exam. Christ, I hate this shit. Just give me a paper to write. Add that to the fact that we get no dead-time this year, and everything sucks to hell.

For my metaphysics class, I do have a term paper due Monday. We had presentations yesterday, allowing us to share our ideas with the class and professor, gaining valuable input. I like this idea, and I wish we did this sort of thing in our other smaller classes.

Anyways, I'm writing about personal identity and modal questions. My point is that we use modal questions to evaluate personal identity questions all the time ("What if I were disembodied?" for example), but we rarely connect personal identity with modal theories. And I think much of the conflict in modal theories comes from an inability to agree on what the essential characteristics of personhood are. Were we able to definitively answer personal identity questions, we'd likely be able to answer most modal questions about trans-world identity. So I hope that by combining modal and identity theories, I can come up with a better answer to both questions.

It's interesting stuff (to me, at least), but I have so much bullshit to plow through over the next few days - Russian exam, Stalin exam, Labor Econ exam. Fuck.

Heart and crap like that

2008-12-07T19:01:00.004-06:00

I've got a presentation and paper due tomorrow morning for metaphysics. Unfortunately, I have neither any work done, nor a firm grasp on what I want to discuss. I'm going to be doing something on personal identity, but I'm not sure what I'll be discussing with it. Maybe I'll just critique physicalist interpretations of the mind.

Anyways, I watched the Texans game. It cam right down to the wire, but Kris Brown pulled out the win. It was a good win that showcased how powerful the Texans' offense really is: they were -3 on turnovers, but they still won the fucking game. Awesome.

A few days ago, it occurred to me that for the first time in seven years, I really think of the Texans as "my" team - I care about their wins and losses in a way that I never did before. Previously, we all knew that they sucked and there was little that would change. Now there's clear evidence of improvement. Moreover, I just really like this team.

It comes down to heart. This team really has it in a way that no other Texan team has ever had. And I say that as a guy who routinely ridicules writers who throw around terms like "heart" and "clutch." But this team works well together, and it's clear that they are pushing one another to succeed. The biggest part of their recent success (by which I mean the past two seasons) has been improved personnel, but the fact that the Texans just aren't giving up on the field means a hell of a lot.

Vote for Chester, Jacoby and David, you stupid fucks

2008-12-04T22:54:00.003-06:00

The NFL is, once again, doing that "My Super Ad" thing, where fans vote on a player's story to be featured in an ad during the Super Bowl. You might remember Ephraim Salaam's winning ad from last year, the ballad of Chester Pitts.

Anyways, the AFC voting is up. And most of the videos aren't very good. Part of the problem is that several are from guys like Brady Quinn and Darren McFadden - high profile players. The cool thing about last year's ad was that it was about a guy who - if you're not a Texans fan - you haven't heard of. It's a neat story about the NFL's "working class" - the players who make up the vast majority of rosters in the NFL.

Three of the five AFC South videos are from Texans: Chester Pitts, Jacoby Jones, and David Anderson. Pitts tells a story about confusing Carson Palmer and his brother (it's not that great, actually, but it's a Texan's story, dammit). Jacoby talks about his mom and punt returns. David Anderson recalls his string dance. I'm rather fond of Anderson's story - mostly because that highlight cracks me up every time I see it. But probably the best one is from Joe Zelenka, long snapper for the Jaguars.

Actually, there are four long snappers with videos submitted. That's crazy. But they're good subjects for the concept - few fans know who is the long snapper on their own team (Pittman won't fight the suspension, by the way, which seems like a mistake. On the other hand, he probably could use the time off. His snaps have been awful lately.), so a story about a long snapper's rise to the NFL is going to be new. More to the point, I think we can better empathize with guys like Zelenka, Anderson, and Jones (hell, even Pitts. Offensive linemen are usually so low-key that there's not that much difference between them and the LS). They're like us. They just really want to play in the NFL (though, obviously the NFL minimum salary doesn't hurt, either).

Anyways, here's hoping that the Texans can get another ad in the Superbowl. It's probably the closest they'll come in a while.

New title card

2008-12-04T01:02:00.000-06:00

to reflect new-found optimism. Plus, I got tired of looking at a reminder of the Texans' spectacular failures. Let's look their best beatdown of another team.

Whatever

2008-12-02T21:32:00.002-06:00

Amazing. Truly amazing.

Wait... no it's not. This is the Stros we're talking about! Of course they make terrible personnel decisions - it's their raison d'etre.

I can understand not offering Brocail arbitration - if he declined arbitration, it would have been unlikely that anyone else would have paid for him, anyways. And Wade was apparently able to get Brocail to accept a $750,000 pay cut.

But Wolf seemed like such an obvious candidate for arbitration. He was unlikely to accept, and (even if he did accept) he wasn't going to get paid that much extra, anyways. So you could at least get an extra draft pick out of it.

Hampton was signed. Cool.

What the fuck ever happened to the study period?

2008-12-02T19:56:00.002-06:00

This is the last week of classes for the semester, and once again I wonder: what the fuck happened to all the time students used to get for studying? When my parents were in college, they got a week off to prepare. When my sister was in college, the same. Last year, we got three days. This year, we get no days (thanks, Gustav!). That's bullshit. I demand the same meaningless preparation time that my predecessors received.

Not to get overly optimistic or anything...

2008-12-02T12:29:00.002-06:00

...but what's the likelihood that the Texans could finish with a winning record for the 2008 season? I mean, granted, the Jags' defense is not nearly what it was last year, but I think there is some chance of it, at least. In fact, I'd say the chances of the Texans once again breaking even is fairly good, as well.

They play Sunday at Green Bay. The Packers have been awful lately, and they seem to be in the same category as the Texans - good offense, terrible defense. Unfortunately for the Texans, the game will be away from Houston and probably in harsh weather. Schaub will be back, though. It's definitely a winnable game.

The next week, they play the shitfuckers at home. Now, the Titans are obviously a far superior team to the Texans, but maybe they'll get lucky.

After that, it's smooth sailing: @Oakland (if the Texans can't beat the Raiders, they're fucked anyways) and vs Chicago. So it comes down to this: if the Texans can beat Green Bay, they have an off chance at a winning season. If they can pull off the upset against Tennessee, then I'd say it's a virtual lock.

That I'm even entertaining this idea would have been crazy two weeks ago. But - for whatever reason - the offense was clicking last night and the defense really stepped up.

Oh, and Chester Pitts' pre-game huddle pep-talk further cemented him as my favorite Texan. If I could pick athletes to actually hang out with, the list would look something like this:
1) Pitts - dude plays the Oboe. We could jam and shit.
2) Berkman - loves Jesus and football; seems like a nice guy.
3) Battier / T-Mac

It's (almost) Battle Fuckin' Red Day, Baby!

2008-11-30T23:22:00.002-06:00

For the first time since 1994 or something, there will be a Monday night game in Houston. And, unfortunately, I've got a paper to write. I'll still get to watch the game, though, so I'm not bitching.

You know, despite what the Chronicle, ESPN, the NFL, and Madden 2009 seem to think, the Jacksonville-Houston game is not a rivalry. You should hate a rival. I hate the Cowboys. I hate the sister-fuckers. I don't hate the Jags. It's just that we only face Dallas in the preseason (of course, we've faced them twice in the regular season: 29-10 you motherfuckers) and the Titans have historically kicked the Texans' asses. But Jacksonville and Houston are roughly on the same level, so that's apparently a rivalry.

Here's what I think happened: Bob McNair and the NFL were talking about who would be the Texans' rivals. Dallas was a natural, as was Tennessee. But we needed a rival whom we could consistently beat. You know how your first car isn't a Cadillac (unless it's thirty years old)? Well, just as suburban children throughout America get starter cars (mine was my mom's 1994 Honda Accord. I loved that thing.), the Texans got a starter rival - the Jags. The Jags aren't sexy - they're not going to help the Texans get dates with the cool girls - but they're reliable and don't cost much. And, eventually, the Texans will move up to bigger rivals. But, in the meantime, the Jaguars will get them to school and teach them the fundamentals of driving: keep your hands at 10-and-2, don't ride the brake, and establish the run.

Oh, and I missed the first half of the Spurs-Rockets game, but the second half was pretty sweet. Luther Head (Luther motherfucking Head!) carried the team. And BATTIER IS BACK! Oh, be still my heart! Rockets apparently lost to Denver tonight, but things are always good when Shane Battier is back in the lineup.

Maybe we should learn something from this.

2008-11-25T17:59:00.003-06:00

It was really quite astounding that the Texans won on Sunday. At least, I know I was astounded - stupefied, even. And, after the game, Kubiak gave the hypothetical game ball to the defense.

Now, the defense "forced" five turnovers. But, as I recall, none of the fumbles (there were three of them) were really caused by the Texans - they just happened because the Browns are shit and the Texans kind of stumbled into the situation. Well, maybe the one caused by Jacques Reeves (!) was really caused by the Texans. But, other than that one and the interceptions (capped off by a truly heads-up play from Weaver), the Texans defense wasn't really any better than in any other week. Mario was fantastic, as always; Dunta returned the starting lineup and was very good; DeMeco continued to be one of the finest MLBs in the league. But, overall, it just didn't seem like the Texans had really improved. They're still a bad team with a shitty defense.

Now, Joe Posnanski wrote about the even worse Chiefs defense. They have created only six (SIX!) sacks all season. Wow. But what's more, it appears that they have been pursuing the Texans' draft strategy over the past six years:

In 2002, with the sixth pick in the draft, the Chiefs took defensive tackle Ryan Sims. In 2004, with their first pick (a second-rounder), they took defensive tackle Junior Siavii. In 2005, with their first pick, they took linebacker Derrick Johnson — and were absolutely thrilled he was available. In 2006, with their first pick, they took defensive end Tamba Hali and talked constantly about his never-stopping motor. This year, with the fifth pick overall, they took defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey.

Of course, the Texans haven't made the same terrible organizational choices that the Chiefs have. The Texans would never have let Jared Allen (that asshole) go (of course, the Texans really haven't had the chance yet to lose a starter to free agency. But they've invested in Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans and Dunta and Andre Johnson, so it's clear the McNair would have been willing to invest in a player like Allen, had he been in that position).

But the point is this: the Texans have devoted four of their last five 1st round draft picks to the defense. Two of those have been unquestioned successes (Mario, Dunta). One is a good player, but still developing (Okoye), and one is largely a failure (T. Johnson). Obviously, the Texans haven't invested quite as much into their defensive line as the Chiefs have, but it's getting there. I know that the writers at DGDB&D want Brian Orakpo or Michael Johnson in 2009, and I'm inclined to agree (Christ, can you imagine Mario with a legit threat opposite him on the D-Line? That would scare the shit out of every QB in the league!). If Orakpo/Johnson develop into the DE's they seem to be, and if Amobi and Okam improve, that would be one truly fearsome line. Damn.

Anyways, be glad you're not a Chiefs/Rams/Lions/Raiders fan, Texans fan. Things could be a hell of a lot worse. The Texans suck big, old, hairy donkey nuts, but Bob McNair, Kubiak, and Rick Smith know what they're doing (but fire Richard Smith. That fucker needs to go immediately.).

Good times on the internet.

2008-11-20T13:25:00.002-06:00

MLBtraderumors.com is usually a great place to get your daily intake of bullshit. A few days ago, Justice wrote something about how Wigginton and Valverde were likely to be traded. From the comments section, tomahawk368 writes:

It must not be a whole lot of fun to be an Astros fan. Your GM keeps trading away all your good players. The most obvious problem with the Astros is the pen. So instead of trading one of your many great hitters for some 7th ant 8th inning help, you trade your closer. Good luck Astros fans.

What?

It must not be a whole lot of fun to be an Astros fan.

Nope. Haven't made the playoffs since 2005. Our farm system is the worst in the league. And Drayton isn't going to spend like the Yankees or Red Sox or Cubs to make us really competitive. So Ed Wade will have to cobble together something.

Your GM keeps trading away all your good players.

Ummm.... no. Ed Wade has, in his time here, mostly just traded away what little we had in the farm system for Tejada. His one trade involving a star player was Lidge. I wouldn't consider that "trading away all (our) good players."

The most obvious problem with the Astros is the pen. So instead of trading one of your many great hitters for some 7th ant 8th inning help, you trade your closer.

What? The Stros' bullpen was their strongest part. Ed Wade constructed an outstanding corps or relievers out of Valverde, Brocail, castoffs from other clubs, and the dregs of the Astros' minor league pitching system. For relatively little, the Astros had one of the best bullpens last season.

And since when did the Astros have "many great hitters"? This isn't 2001, you know. We don't have a strong farm system churning out great middle relievers and journeyman hitters. We've got a system that has shat out Hunter Pence and nothing else. Outside of Carlos Lee, Lance Berkman, and Ty Wigginton, the Astros didn't have a good offense last season.

Seriously, it's amazing that this dude hasn't killed himself yet. The world is an astoundingly dangerous place, and one would expect someone that stupid to have, by now, choked on a corkscrew or something.

T-Mac and Soccer

2008-11-19T22:46:00.002-06:00

Sometimes, you watch Tracy McGrady and you get a feeling for the sublime. The guy is just so awesome when he's on. Tonight, he was only on the court for thirty minutes, but his performance in the fourth quarter was beautiful. Of course, it would have been more beautiful had he made some more of those shots, but the feeling was there, know what I'm sayin'?

T-Mac is an injured old man. Of course, he's only nine years my senior, so it's odd to think of him as an old man, but he's been in the league longer than I've had arm hair. The resident Jazz fan over at the Dream Shake says McGrady has no heart. But T-Mac has heart. It takes heart to play through minor injuries. The problem is that T-Mac isn't 22 anymore. He's 29 with a bad shoulder, bad back, and bad knee. Time and a decade of professional play have worn down his abilities. Only time will tell us if he can get back on track this season. We would've won tonight's game had Yao been playing. But I'm glad that the trainers are treating Yao with a delicate touch. The same should be true of McGrady.

Oh, and Brent Barry just looks awful out there. He missed wide open shots all night, and I wonder (as did JVG) if he's playing hurt, too.

I watched about ten minutes of the USA-Guatamala soccer match on TV. I played plenty of soccer as a kid, but I don't think I ever really grasped the strategy of it (I still don't). I always played defense, and my primary thoughts on defense (much as my primary thoughts on defense in every other sport) always revolved around getting the ball back. I never really thought about scoring after that. Just give that to the more athletic dude.

Anyways, I was watching this, and I was struck by the strangeness of this sport. Maybe it's just because football and basketball tend to rely upon such tight ball control (heh ... ball control), but the sort of activity that soccer involves is kind of nervewracking. Watching this, you see much more isolated activity. Spacing is generally measured in yards (or, I suppose, meters) rather than feet, as with basketball. And individual players seem to have much less control over where and how the ball is advanced. It just seems, from my inexperienced vantage point, to be a more uncontrolled activity. I kept expecting, at any moment, for someone to come in and take the ball away. But any time a defender got close, the ball was virtually immediately passed. But these long, uncontrolled passes (again, because players are so spaced out) often result in turnovers. But turnovers were so common, and penetration to the goal so infrequent, that there was little cost to any individual turnover. Contrast this again to basketball, where turnovers can often be guaranteed points (of course, when scores are routinely in the triple digits, individual turnovers begin to lose a lot of meaning).

Now, imagine if you were to cut the field (or the pitch, as they put it) in half. You'd create a much more interesting game, I'd think. Passes would have to be more controlled, turnovers would be less frequent but more costly, and players would be much more closely spaced. Of course, you'd have to cut the number of players significantly to avoid injury, but I think the pace of the game would increase significantly.

But I guess that's why they have indoor soccer. And nobody watches that shit.

Wonderful

2008-11-16T17:41:00.005-06:00

I just got back from a debate tournament in Shreveport yesterday (I was just judging, unfortunately, but Tulane did fairly well for just our 2nd tournament in the last twenty years). Apparently, the Rockets got their asses kicked on Friday, but handed out some whoopass to the Hornets Saturday. Good deal. Why does everyone think the Hornets are so awesome, anyways?

On the other hand, the Texans gave out another lesson in choking to their fans today (I didn't see it, fortunately; I was in the car at the time).

You know, I got into a discussion (argument) with a Titans fan not long ago about the Adams-Oilers legacy. I was saving this for the next Shitfuckers-Texans game, but I'll go ahead and write it down. I hear two typical arguments from those toothless fucks up north:

1. Houston was just as responsible as Adams. (Traitorous Houstonians might even blame Bob Lanier or Drayton)

There are a few obvious problems with this. First, you're essentially transfering agency from Adams to Houston, and that's idiotic. Nobody can truly force us to do anything. We choose what we do. And Adams chose to move the team.

The city of Houston correctly surmised that Adams was full of shit. He had attempted to move the team to Jacksonville in 1986, and that was only stopped by remodeling the Dome. Taking out the massive scoreboard cost more (inflation adjusted) than building the whole Dome did in 1964. We're still paying for that today. Bottom line: Adams lied to all of us when he said that the Dome modifications would keep the team in Houston.

Now, Adams had a legit beef with his lease situation. He was essentially paying Drayton to play in the Astrodome. But his response was stupid. Instead of proposing a semi-reasonable stadium, he came up with the extravagant Bud Dome. As a refresher, the Bud Dome would have been a downtown stadium with an adjustable indoor roof. Bud intended the stadium to be used by the Rockets, who would lower the roof to create a more intimant atmosphere.

The problem was that Les Alexander didn't lend his support to the idea. And rightfully so - it was an awful one. But Bud continued to pressure the city to accept the proposal, even while he repeatedly moved the planned location around. In short, the Bud Dome was never more than a dream, and an expensive one at that.

So when Bob Lanier told Bud to shove it, he was just seeing through Bud's bullshit.

2. It's Bud's legacy and Bud's team, not Houston's.

Yeah, it's legally Bud's team. No one is arguing that. No one ever argued that.

But we have to view sports franchises as cultural monuments. There would be something wrong with moving the Liberty Bell from Philly. There would be something wrong with moving Greek frescoes to England (and, indeed, that's why there are so many lawsuits about it). Yes, these are private entities, but the name, records, uniforms, etc. are cultural elements that belong to the region in which they gained their meaning.

Frankly, I don't give a shit about the Titans. They're just another shitty franchise in a shitty city (just like Jacksonville or Carolina). But the pre-1997 Oilers were ours. And they should be here. It's unfortunate that, unlike Cleveland, Houstonians' efforts to preserve the Oiler name (the one good thing Tom DeLay ever did) never came through.

Anyways, that's beating a dead horse at this point.

After yesterday's loss to Indy, however, I think DC Richard Smith really will be losing his job. I've mentioned my support for the idea of hiring the (likely) soon-to-be-fired Wade Phillips as DC. The shift to a 3-4 scheme would take time, but I imagine that the Texans players can make the adjustment. Or, if they can't, I imagine that GM Rick Smith, Gary Kubiak, and whomever they interview for the job can tell. I think Amobi Okoye would fit better as a 3-4 DE, anyways.

T-Mac Wakes Up

2008-11-13T08:05:00.003-06:00

By the time the game was heading into the half last night, Tracy McGrady had begun to show some signs of life. But the fight that broke out between Rafer and Matt Barnes seemed to fire the guy up. He got 27 points last night on 11-18, finally breaking out of his slump.

Artest continues to struggle to find his place in the offense. Just from my (admittedly amateurish) look at it, it seems like he just isn't moving when he's off the ball. Given that he seemed to understand Adelman's offense when he was in Sacramento, it seems odd that he is struggling so hard. Artest needs to drive to the basket, not settle for long shots.

Yao imitated vintage Hakeem at one point. Down at the baseline, Yao fakes the spin and pump fakes, drawing Shaq away from him. Then he launches a beautiful hook shot into the basket for the three-point-play. It was the dream shake again, and it was magnificent. Of course, Yao does this relatively often. He doesn't have Hakeem's moves, but he is surprisingly agile for a center, particularly one who is 7'6".

If Yao was imitating Hakeem the Dream, then Aaron Brooks continued his impersonation of Kenny the Jet. Brooks is on fire - he's shooting beautifully, passing like a dream, and creating movement and shots for his teammates. I have the feeling that he'll stay with the second unit for the time being, because he is essentially instant offense coming off the bench. I remember reading that a coach said something just "clicked" for Brooks in practice one day, and it definitely seems like it.

See, now, what did I tell you? The Lakers game was to be expected. The Rockets looked awesome last night, so everyone needs to chill the fuck out.

Oh, and I'd like to point out that Steve Nash is a little bitch who needs to get used to getting killed on the hard screen. If he doesn't like it, he should stay off the court instead of getting his teammates to push Alston around. There will undoubtedly be suspensions handed out today, but I wouldn't doubt it if Nash is left alone. Reason: he's white.

Turns out that Shane Battier is Black

2008-11-11T09:31:00.005-06:00

Who knew? I always thought that he was the team's token white guy (granted, a token white guy who is probably the best perimeter defender in the NBA and is one of the league's best role-players, but token nonetheless).

Obama's candidacy (and subsequent election), as well as Shane Battier highlights how fucked up our views on race are. Both Obama and Battier are as white as they are black. Why are they "black," then, in the public's eye?

But issues like these should show us that not only does race not matter, it's entirely a social construction. Yes, there are people with dark skin and people with light skin, but these categories are not made up of real criteria. There is no such thing as a "pure" people - no people simply appeared on this earth, interacting with no one else. Every ethnicity has "interacted" (read: sexed up) with many other ethnicities, and each ethnicity emerged from others. It seems wrong to subscribe to this racial notion, particularly when all racial groups are "tainted" with one another. These categories, if they exist at all, do not exist in the fashion that racists believe them to, nor do they exist as publicly believed. They are simply creations of the mind, an attempt to categorize the world and order it for ourselves. And the quicker we do away with such notions, the easier it will be to move beyond humanity's shameful history on the subject.

EDIT:

Oh, and the comments on the linked article make me ashamed to be from Houston. That's just horrible. Whenever anyone mentions that Obama's election was, in fact, a big deal partially because the man is black (or at least identifies himself as black; see the above screed), people freak the fuck out. Idiotic.

And Shane Battier has a blog! And it's in Chinese (my roommate informs me that, in China, Battier has a massive shoe deal and appears in numerous commercials. This is amazing to me. The Chinese apparently love the dude - just as Houston does - and he is very popular over there. Cool). I frankly wouldn't doubt it if Battier could speak Chinese - he seems like a pretty smart dude.

Houston sports fans leave something to be desired

2008-11-09T21:48:00.004-06:00

I like to lurk over at ClutchFans.net during games (too many people there, though, so if I have anything interesting to say, I say it at the Dream Shake). I love the reactions people have during a poor stretch of play in a game:

"Fire Daryl Moron" (Are you kidding me? The dude is the best GM in the league. He's drafted incredibly well out of the 2nd round, gotten us good talent with poor draft positions, and acquired such players as Artest and Scola. Daryl Morey is not the problem, and he's smarter than you.)
"Trade T-Mac" (He's the heart of the offense. He's hurt right now and isn't playing well. He'll do better as the season moves along.)
"Trade Yao" (Yao - when in good form - is the best center in the Western Conference. He might be the best in the league.)
etc.

A line of truth from "larsv8":

Cluthfans.net: where personel decisions are made after every play.

Oh and Ron Artest just drew 3 fouls in about 8 seconds. First two came off of Kobe, and the next was (I think) off of Vujacic. It's hilarious watching him defend people WHILE PLAY IS STOPPED. The dude is just tenacious, and it's fun to watch him.

--------------------------------

I've turned the game off. It's a Lakers blowout and I really don't want to listen to the LA homers chuckle for the last three minutes.

But read the game thread at Clutch Fans. I can't believe the shit coming out of people's mouths. No, I can. I've lived in Houston for virtually my whole life, so I know how our fans act. Maybe it has been the decades of beatdowns issued our way, but we automatically assume that our teams are a bunch of bums. In a way, it's a good thing - might as well not reward shitty teams with our love. But it gets tiresome when it comes two weeks into the season.

Yes, I have my doubts about this team: injuries are an issue, T-Mac is not the scorer he once was, and Yao seems prone to freak accidents. But I have faith in Rick Adelman and Daryl Morey to put together and run the best team they can. They did that last year. Without a third star, they were able to win 55 games. Now they have a third star.

T-Mac looks spent out there. It doesn't help that he is being ferociously defended, but he just can't get into the lane. Yao seems tired (most of the time, anyways). Artest's offense is too reliant on his outside shot. But these problems will be corrected as the season moves on.

The first quarter of this game was all Houston's. But the Lakers beat them down the stretch. Basketball is a game of growth rates, and the Rockets just burned themselves out in the first quarter. That's probably because they've been on a very hectic schedule for the first few weeks, so I have faith that this will change.

And I have faith that those who are giving up on the Rockets now will change, too. The players will adjust to Adelman's system, just as they adjusted to every system that their high-school, college, and other professional coaches threw at them. And when that happens for a whole game (just as it happened for the first quarter tonight), it will be a thing of beauty. And the Rockets will reel off a few dozen wins, and everyone will be content. Stop letting every bad possession freak you out, Houston.

41-13

2008-11-09T15:08:00.002-06:00

Fuck it. This team sucks so fucking hard. If we get lucky, we MIGHT defeat Cleveland, Oakland, and Jacksonville, but I fucking doubt it. Tell Kris Brown to shank his kicks from now on - we need better picks. Or, better yet, just keep Richard Smith as DC. We'll get good draft picks every year.

I need a team to follow that doesn't kick me in the balls every week and whom I'll only have to root against every four years. Possible teams: Saints (I live here, so it's a lot easier to watch them than the Texans), Redskins (why not?), Giants (they hate the Cowboys, and I have friends who are Giants fans), Bears (two words: Matt Forte).

Really, I don't know what the Texans can do. They can grab a good safety in the draft (we HAVE good CBs in Dunta and Fred Benett, but Smith prefers Faggins and Jacques Reeves) and dramatically improve, but they could just as easily take a Travis Johnson as a Mario Williams.

You know who I would like to see in a Texans uniform? Graham Harrell. That would be sweet. And who knows? Maybe the Texans will get a chance to draft a decent QB in the 2nd round. The problem is that both Sage and Schaub are awful about the turnovers, and that is killing the offense (the offense has really come together this year, but it could be better). It would be cool to see a real starter run the offense.

Why Houston is better than your crappy city.

2008-11-08T13:04:00.004-06:00

Here's an interesting discussion of property rights and Houston. Personally, I don't agree with the author's belief that governments have no right to meddle with individual property decisions. Frankly, governments should have the right to make reasonable limitations on personal use of property - so long as those limitations correct for problems of externalities, injustice, etc.

But his point that land-zoning advocates are in this for primarily ideological reasons is spot on. It seems to me that what little debate there is on this subject tends to be less about what is economically advantageous, but about what satisfies our beliefs about what a city should be.

And Houston, as I have said before, flies in the face of what a city should be, or at least the modern conception of how a city should function. The problem is that zoning advocates don't see that Houston is still developing as an urban environment - we are roughly where New York was in the late 19th century. And it will be some time until the costs of further sprawl (transportation, infrastructure, and preferences) outweigh the benefits of more suburbs. Gradually, as the marginal cost of more low-density development increases, Houston will begin to "fill in." Once that process is complete - say, in another twenty-five years - the Bayou City will be truly monstrous in size.

The way I see it, zoning accomplishes the same project - high density urban development - in less time, but at a higher cost. To some cities, I imagine that this is an acceptable tradeoff, particularly for those that will not be able to grow as large or as fast as Houston. But Houston, because it is naturally a hub for immigration (has been since my great-grandfather's family came through Galveston from France), and is naturally (or unnaturally, depending on how you view the channel) a port, has greater potential for growth. More to the point, other cities might view that dynamism and decide to grow less - knowing that overall growth in the US is undetermined by their individual growth rates, and they will not be able to attract the jobs that Houston does - by instituting zoning regulations. Zoning isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it can be a rational choice. Now, we have to see that Houston's lack of zoning regulations has come at a price, but it's one that people are (on the whole) willing to bare.

Now, the author is wrong in assuming that bad things have not come from a lack of zoning. Of course, that depends on how you view the strip clubs, liquor joints, and sex shops that exist throughout the city. I think they contribute to the beautiful culture of Houston, so I don't think it's so bad. But others do think that our lack of regulation has allowed unsavory businesses to flourish. Of course, they flourish because there is a demand for booze, dildos, and naked women, so one can chalk that up to efficient land use.

Overall, I like the lack of zoning. And it's not as if land is freely used throughout the greater Houston area - numerous deed agreements exist throughout our city. But those agreements come from "natural" market interaction, not forced upon us by non-market agents.

Give Houston another few decades, and it will be the cultural equal of Los Angeles or Chicago (that is if it isn't their equal already; it just might be). It will just have liquor stores and strip clubs in more convenient locations. And that's pretty sweet.

Live by T-Mac, Die by T-Mac

2008-11-07T08:49:00.003-06:00

I watched the Rockets-Blazers game last night, and very little looked good. The defense wasn't great, Ron Artest (while coming through in the clutch for Houston with a final-second stripped ball from Brandon Roy) didn't shoot well, and (worst of all) Yao continues to seem tired out there. T-Mac, however, seemed to remember that he is not Ray Allen but Tracy McGrady, and so stopped settling for outside jump shots. He drove his way to the basket, scoring in the paint. That's what Ron Artest needs to do - the guy is so big and so strong that I wonder why he settles for the 3-point shot when he can easily get down low.

But while Yao struggled throughout the night, he came through in the final seconds of overtime, hitting a clutch fade-away jumper and getting the foul. He makes his freethrow, and the Rockets are up by 1. But there is still 0.8 seconds on the clock.

So Portland inbounds the ball. Brandon Roy (in such a simple play that I can't believe the Rockets fucked this up) runs back to 3-point territory, takes the inbound and fires, making the shot and winning the game. If you watch the replay, you can see T-Mac hesitating for just one freakin split moment, allowing Roy to get separation and fire before Tracy can get in his face. T-Mac just blew his coverage, plain and simple.

Interestingly, this game brings up that whole "don't let the ref decide the game" thing. I hear that a lot, but I've always doubted its truth. It seems to me that the foul call on Yao was legit. If that was a foul in the first four quarters, it was a foul in the closing moments of overtime, and I think referees should make that call. It's usually anti-climactic to end a game on a free throw, but fouls should be called consistently.

This is why we can't have nice things

2008-11-06T09:55:00.003-06:00

Environmental economics is one of my favorite subjects. It's a spectacularly relevant area these days, and it's frustrating that environmental groups seem to mistrust economists.

This article talks about some problems with wind power and salmon. Now, I tend to hear the sort of pseudo-environmentalist objection (Turbines kill birds! Dams kill fish!) coming out of a lot of mouths these days - not just from non-environmentalists attempting to execute a sort of fifth-column action but from misinformed environmentalists, as well (I don't really consider myself an "environmentalist" - the environment's only value is in its use to us, but that value must be carefully managed via governmental and economic decisions).

First, let's understand that modern wind turbines won't kill many birds (we'll start with birds because they're a more common objection). They move way too slow to do anything to a bird. Birds might, of course, set up their nests inside the tower, but various solutions to that have been found. Additionally, all wind-producing areas require farm proposals to avoid migration and nesting areas. Few birds are going to get trapped in these things.

But even if they did get trapped in wind turbines, we have to look at this on balance. A few birds killed by a wind farm is nothing compared to the sort of devastation that mining operations will do to its nesting ground. How do they mine for coal these days? They blow the tops off of fucking mountains! Imagine what that does to any birds (or deer, cute little bunny rabbits, squirrels, centipedes, mosquitoes, rare species of plants, fungi, caterpillars, butterflies, and everything else) in proximity to the blast. Seriously, it would take some pretty violent wind farms to destroy as many birds as coal mining operations do.

I imagine the same is true of fish. First, as the article implies, the problem can be solved by infrastructural investment. Second, even if this problem cannot be solved (unlikely), then I'm willing to bet that wind power still won't kill as many salmon as the pollution from coal-fired power plants and runoff from any mining (not sure if they have coal in Oregon, but it's possible). Even if they don't have mining operations in Oregon, it would be wrong to privilege their environment over another.

We have to look at these issues economically, carefully weighing our options and taking the most profitable actions. Texas has been great about this - it has lead the way on wind policy, implementing a market system that encourages environmental protection. As time goes on, this thinking will only become more important, and it will be vitally necessary that voters understand such reasoning.

Fuckin Protestants

2008-11-05T14:31:00.004-06:00

Typical. They break with the Mother Church for what? To throw explosives at people? Yeah, well they'll be fucking surprised when they die and find themselves in purgatory. With the rest of us.

Oh, and God continues to throw shit at the City of Houston. As a Catholic, I have no problem with the concept of a god who curses us - it's what God does. Seriously though, if I were some dumb fuck from Chicago or Boston, I'd think my city is cursed in virtue of some previous karmic violation. But we in Houston know that it's just a bad break. Hopefully Xavier Adibi proves to be kickass.

Ahh... Award Season

2008-11-05T09:25:00.003-06:00

So the Astros' various beat writers are going to give out their awards. Who they got? Berkman wins an award for being awesome. Pence wins an award for being an alright dude. Valverde gets an award for Oswalt having a shit year. Wesley Wright gets an award for being the only rookie on the team. Jose Cruz gets an award for being Cheo. And Neil Hohlfield gets an award for being dead. Awesome!

Oh, and Rafer Alston gonna choke a bitch:

If it ain't one thing...

2008-11-05T08:25:00.004-06:00

For the first time since 1994, the United States will be an undivided government. The House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency will all be in Democratic control.

This is not a good thing. I say that as a Democrat - this is a terrible, risky thing. I don't believe in "bipartisanship" as a goal unto itself, but I realize that bipartisanship forces different regions to listen to one another. And that's an important part of the American system. With so much power vested in the hands of one party (even one so dysfunctional as the Democratic party), we risk losing critical voices within the political process. Given that parties seem incapable of self-critique, this loss hurts us a great deal.

The celebration surrounding last night's election results bothers me a great deal, as well. Granted, supporters always celebrate their candidate's victory, but this seems like actual devotion to Obama. That's dangerous. Nobody should be devoted to a politician - devote yourself to ideals, not people.

Obama can make a fine president. But I fear that the Democratic party has abandoned the sort of militant liberalism that Clinton - for all of his faults - pursued overseas. I worry that the Obama administration will be unwilling to engage in another Yugoslavia if the situation presented itself. How will he address Darfur? How will he deal with a militantly theocratic Iran? How will he help the Iraqi and Afghani peoples? If Obama (and, more specifically, the Democratic party) is unwilling to use military force, then we will face a long four years.

On another note, I was surprised to see that some 44% of Texans voted for Obama. Cool.

Remember what I said about maybe going 6-10?

2008-11-03T14:19:00.003-06:00

Yeah, well that probably won't happen. They might not win another game this season. Thanks, Jared Allen.

I listened to the radio broadcast yesterday (thanks, internet! I love it when you suck at streaming!), so I didn't see the hit. I looked at the highlights this morning, and I saw the hit, and I tell you what, Allen should be fucking suspended immediately. Schaub had long since completed his pass. Allen had already fallen, but got back up to complete the hit. And his shoulder comes into direct contact with Matt's knee. And now he has a torn MCL and will probably be out for the season. Fuck.

Disgusting. And I think the NFL often does too much to protect the QB. But they need to watch out for this crap.

So Rosenfail will be taking the snaps, now. Jesus. What a shit-tastic season this is turning out to be.

Well...at least we'll get a good draft pick

2008-11-02T23:05:00.002-06:00

Today was the game of the Texans' season. If they could win this one, then the last three games weren't a fluke.

So, of course, the Texans fucked it up. I don't know how they were only down by a TD when the game ended, because the whole game had the feeling of a blowout. Maybe it was that Adrian Peterson scored in the opening minutes of the game, or maybe it was that the QBs (Schaub was injured in the 1st half and was finally pulled after he made several terrible plays) kept committing turnovers, but the game felt like a 35-7 loss, not 28-21. So if they keep playing like this, what's their record going to be?

11/9 vs. Baltimore - LOSS. Their defense will kill us. What offense they have will play the Texans' defense like a well-tuned two-bit whore.

11/16 @ Indy - LOSS. They'll be going in with a two-game losing streak. The Colts suck this year, but not as much as the Texans. Plus, we're the Reds to their Oswalt.

11/23 @ Cleveland - WIN. Hey, they can handle this one. Maybe.

12/1 vs. Jacksonville - WIN. God, I hope so. It'll be Monday night, and I think God owes the people of Houston this much. Who am I kidding? He'll break all of our hearts in front of a national audience. LOSS.

12/7 @ Green Bay - LOSS. After the way the Packers dismantled the Colts? We're going to get killed.

12/14 vs Hicks - I'd give my left nut and whatever cash I have on me for the Texans to break up the sister-fuckers' perfect season. But it won't happen. LOSS.

12/21 @ Oakland - WIN. If not, well, shit.

12/28 vs Bears - LOSS. Gotta go out with a bang. And Forte and the Bears are just better than the Texans.

Final Record: 5-11. Fuckin wonderful.

College football sucks

2008-11-01T11:14:00.002-05:00

There, I said it. I used to think the NCAA provided something that the NFL did not, and they do, but it's not something that should be provided.

Tulane lines up for its now annual asskicking from the LSU Tigers tonight. The season started off fairly well - Alabama beat the Green Wave only via two punt/kick return touchdowns (I don't remember which). But the season has gone terribly for Tulane, losing to Army homecoming weekend and getting blown out by Rice (to be fair, Rice is very good this year, but still). LSU is essentially on the bubble for a BCS bowl game (unlikely, but possible). Neither has seen the season go as hoped.

And, frankly, no one outside of Tulane alumni and the student body gives a shit about the LSU-Tulane "rivalry." It's a rivalry that hasn't been relavent since the Truman administration. This used to be a playing-out of Louisiana's two cultural hearts - New Orleans and everywhere else. It used to have the same significance as UC vs. Stanford - a rivalry between the state's premier public and private institutions.

But in the intervening years, Tulane left the SEC, falling into the hellhole that is non-BCS football. They mustered two great seasons when Tommy Bowden coached, but sucked after he left for Clemson (Of course, it didn't help that Tulane passed over OC Rich Rodriguez for the HC position). And that summarizes why the worse schools can't compete or even get better - as soon as they get better, the head coach and AD will leave for greener pastures. Organizational stability and success allow for a school to build a winning program, and smaller schools are largely unable to create any of those things.

It remains to be seen whether Bob Toledo can build a winning program at Tulane. I doubt it. Alumni won't allow Tulane to go to Divison I-AA, and the NCAA isn't structured to allow for more competitive schools (the easiest way to facilitate this, of course, would be to further decrease the number of scholarships offered).

Oh, and FanHouse has a pretty sweet picture of a Texans fan's jersey:

Some Texans fans like Dallas as their NFC team.

Those people are called "traitors."

Some Texans fans loathe the Cowboys.

These people are called "the citizens of Houston."

Can't have it both ways folks - either like Dallas or like Houston. Can't do both.

Charles Barkley is a funny man

2008-10-31T09:02:00.002-05:00

Maybe it's because I love a good internet troll (incidently, this is why I usually understand that Justice is just being an asshole - doesn't mean I like his troll-fu, because it's terrible, but I understand the bastard), but this interview (you have to look for it) with Charles Barkley is freakin hilarious. And I don't think that the interviewers "get it" until about the time the Round Mound of Rebound insists that he was always in great shape during his Rockets years.

Great Parts:
(1) Calls Yao Ming a Communist
(2) Says Tracy McGrady probably wasn't able to get out of the first round of his softball tournament. He also would get hurt playing connect four.
(3) Calls out Rafer Alston for his streetball crap (this is a legitimate beef, actually, but Rafer doesn't do that too often anymore).
(4) Says the Rockets will finish 10th (but because it's the city of Houston, he'll bump them up to 9th).
(5) They're hurrible and turrible

Barkley's commentary last night was more serious: if the Rockets have T-Mac and Yao healthy, and if Artest doesn't fuck up, they'll be awesome. That's essentially the line that everyone has been parroting, but it's the truth. I honestly think that this crap with Artest is overblown - he clearly enjoys playing here (did you see how quickly he came to Yao's defense last night?) and the Rockets have given him a minder. He'll be fine. As I've said previously, injuries are unpredictable. They can sideline any team.

Hells Yeah! Eat Shit Dallas!

2008-10-30T23:59:00.003-05:00

Not really a pretty win for the Rockets, but I suspect they'll take it. Defense was not "Best in the NBA" quality, but Artest was in Tru Warier form, instead of Crazy Pills form. However, he was called on a COMPLETELY BULLSHIT technical foul. He runs into the crowd of players forming around the site of a controversial call, attempting to pull Yao to the free-throw line. But first he touches Howard on the arm, sending the Dallas shittards into a frenzy. So he gets called with a technical for no fuckin reason but the fact that he's Ron Artest.

Everyone shot incredibly well from the line. Artest is actually fairly good at capitalizing on free-throws, so that's not entirely surprising, but T-Mac was 10-11. Yao has yet to miss a free throw shot thus far. Pretty cool.

What this game really highlited was how ridiculously deep this team is. During the fourth-quarter Rockets surge, neither Tracy nor Yao played. It was Artest and and the rest. And even whilst being matched up against the Dallas starters, they pushed Houston ahead. This team is so chock-full of great role-players, it's heart-warming.

As has been noted elsewhere (rather humorously in Free Darko's season "preview":

While watching Golden State struggle to get rebounds, Joey Dorsey wonders aloud why the team that already has Luis Scola, Carl Landry, and Chuck Hayes was the one that drafted him.

and in Basketball Prospectus' season preview for the Southwest Divison), we've got a lot of highly-skilled power forwards that we acquired for cheap. And while it's cool to be able to have Scola, Hayes, Landry, and now Dorsey at the position, one wonders what Morey could turn Hayes or Landry or Dorsey into. A truly solid point guard? A new knee for McGrady?

Still, it really illustrates how awesome Morey has been. He's drafted incredibly well out of the second round. And he's used those picks to either solidify an already awesome bench or add to the team's other weapons. I mean, he can't turn Joey Dorsey into Chris Paul, but he might be able to get something better than what we have.

On the other hand, Alston and Brooks are doing alright. In that same BP preview, you can take a look at the expected WARP values for all the Rockets. What's intriguing is that none of them project to be anything less than average. That's incredible, especially given the reputations of Alston and Head.

Anyways, an exciting win that showcases the Rockets' new scoring threats. This is going to be a great season.

Sometimes I wonder why I pay attention to this crap

2008-10-30T16:11:00.004-05:00

So I'm watching that Around the Horn crap, and Bill "What the hell is he talkin 'bout" Plaschke says that Lidge's season was the best by any closer he's ever seen. Now, I'm willing to believe that, because I doubt that Plaschke has seen much. He seems to just talk out of his ass.

But this wasn't even Lidge's best season. That was his second season in the league - 2004. He posted a WHIP of 0.919 and an ERA of 1.90. Now, he wasn't the full-time closer that year, so maybe we shouldn't count it. But this season wasn't that much different from his 2005 season - it just ended differently.

Still, what was the best single season for a closer? I think we can narrow this one down to three seasons: Eric Gagne's 2003 season, Billy Wagner's 1997 season (maybe 2003, too), and Mariano Rivera's 2008 season (again, maybe 2005 or 2001).

So what do we find when we look at the statistics (I'll be looking at WARP on this one; it's not perfect but it's pretty good)? Well, as I said, this wasn't Lidge's best season: 2004 was (9.0 vs. 6.3).

Gas Can's 1999 season was his best (though not by much: 8.1 in 1999 vs 8.0 in 2003). Mariano Rivera's 2008 season was his best ever (an incredible 10.3 wins above replacement) while Eric Gagne's 2003 season was obviously his best (10.1 WARP).

Now, I don't think WARP tells the whole story, but it does a damn fine job of it. And Lidge's "perfect season" is an impressive accomplishment. But Lidge wasn't even the best closer this season! Rivera blew only one save this year, right? What's the difference between that and Lidge's extra save? Rivera (and as much as I loathe the Yankees, he deserves props for this) possibly had the best season for a closer ever (again, this would require a lot more statistical analysis), but he's been overshadowed by Francisco Rodriguez and Brad Lidge. That's too bad.

Going to watch the Rockets-Mavs game. Fuck Dallas, baby!

Anus-Clinchingly Awful

2008-10-29T19:54:00.003-05:00

Holy shit, that looks painful. One of UH's receivers (and apparently one of the better ones) SNAPS HIS LEG ON IMPACT with some band carts. Ouch. I don't know what kind of damage that does to his career. Obviously, he's out for the season, but who knows how he'll do down the line?

Hey everybody, turns out we're pretty good

2008-10-29T11:16:00.002-05:00

Daryl Morey is probably the best GM in the NBA. That's a bold statement for a guy who's still relatively new at this, but the man has shown he knows what he is doing. He inherited the Rockets' two big pieces - the Yao Ming - T-Mac tandem - and he has constructed a deep lineup of role-players around them. Shane Battier, Luis Scola, Carl Landry, and Brent Barry add secondary scoring threats and stellar defense to a team that already has two of the NBA's elite. The addition of Ron Artest has made (if everyone stays healthy come playoff time) the Rockets a true force in the Western Conference. Morey was instrumental in replacing Jeff Van Gundy (a great guy and a superb coach, but one whose defensive style added little to the Rockets) with the offensive-minded Rick Adelman. Adelman has constructed an efficient offense around our players, and his offensive philosophy will only further add to the Rockets' scoring threats.

Now, however, Morey is out of the picture. He can't really add anything to the team. Deke will probably be signed around the deadline for what will probably be one of his final seasons. But after that addition, there will be little that Morey can do.

It's up to Adelman to use the tools that Morey has given him. The Rockets are deep enough to exploit virtually any matchup their opponents throw at them, and Adelman's style will make sure that everyone gets time on the court. There won't be any dead weight on the bench. Like I said - efficient.

Of course, the Rockets have two major weaknesses. Both are really up to luck at this point - point guards and injuries.

They can't change anything at point guard. Steve Francis is here to stay. Rafer Alston is usually pretty bad, but he has moments of greatness. Aaron Brooks isn't terrible. But we don't know. Maybe Alston has a good season. Maybe Francis comes back from his injury and recaptures some of his youthful greatness. These are unknowns, and the Rockets can't do anything about them now.

Injuries can be protected against - making sure that Yao and T-Mac don't overextend themselves in the regular season. But it really comes down to luck. If we are unlucky, both injur themselves and are out for the season, leaving us with only Artest. If we are lucky, both stay healthy and are monsters in the playoffs. Again, there is nothing the Rockets can do about this - it's just luck of the draw.

But this should be a good season. This is their year to win it. I don't believe the Lakers are as good as everyone thinks they are. I think we can match up well against New Orleans. I think the Spurs don't have it in them, the Mavericks suck this year, and the Suns are a joke. The Jazz will falter. The Blazers will make the playoffs, but will fall victim to a much better team. My prediction for the Western Conference Championship - Hornets vs. Rockets. The Final will be between the Rockets and Celtics. The Rockets will win it all.

This team has the potential to exceed the greatness of the 1995 Rockets. And just like the Dream-Glide Rockets of more than a decade ago, the Yao-T-Mac-Tru Wariar Rockets of 2009 are doubted by the media. It's their year to win it.

2008-10-27T22:43:00.001-05:00

Ugh. I'm sick as hell. Indigestion or something. Thrown up three times. Awful.

Anyways, I watched the Indy-Sister Fuckers game. I'm always surprised by how the MNF announcers fellate certain teams. Typically, the Colts are on the receiving end of that fellatio, but tonight Tennessee took their place.

They couldn't shut the fuck up about how much shit the Titans had to go through after the move from Houston. Yep, they didn't have a stadium ready. Yep, they didn't have practice facilities. I wonder where they could have had those things? Fuck Bud Adams. Fuck hick country. Bunch of inbred assholes.

Texans get their first 3-game win streak ever.

2008-10-26T18:13:00.002-05:00

And they get their largest margin of victory ever (29 pts), highest QB rating (145.0), highest completion percentage (86%), Dunta broke the franchise record for career interceptions (12), and Andre Johnson made 11 receptions for 143 yards. Jacoby Jones got his 2nd punt-return TD of the season (another franchise record). Damn. The Bengals made the Texans look good.

Granted, AJ was playing against the worst team in the AFC, but he continues to show that he's the best receiver in the conference, if not the NFL. I've read many commentators who have said he's a young Terrell Owens. I'd agree (he drops more passes than TO - though that's just my impression, so it's probably not true), plus he doesn't have Owens' psychological issues. But because he's not a prima-donna, AJ doesn't get the same national exposure. It's too bad.

Anyways, it was a good win. The defense looked good. The offense was awesome. Special teams were excellent. But it was just the Bengals. Next week, they go up against the hapless Vikings. It will be a real test, even if the Vikings are awful. Their awfulness is largely confined to their special teams and QB situation, however, so we'll see how bad they are against the Texans.

It sucks being a Texans fan

2008-10-26T15:07:00.002-05:00

Not only do we root for a shitty team, we get fucked by the NFL. NOLA's CBS (and Fox, too) feels that bull riding brings better ratings than the Texans, so the only Texans game I've seen on TV is the tragic Indy loss.

And, this week (and for most of last week's) I can't find a stream on the internet. Fuckin sucks when two shitty teams play each other - nobody on the internet bothers to stream it.

So I've got to listen to Mark Vandemeer. Which could be worse, but it still sucks.

Maybe we won't lose this one (the Bengals have a good passing game, and our pass defense is awful, however). But the Bengals just went 3-and-out on the opening drive, and Jacoby Jones took the punt return in for the touchdown. Sweet.

Vidjagames and Such

2008-10-24T22:40:00.003-05:00

I'm faced with something of a dillema: I want to get Fable 2 (I enjoyed the first Fable, despite the fact that it was nothing like what it was promised to be), but Fallout 3 is coming out in a week. Add to that the fact that NBA 2K9 is out, and I have three major games on the to-play list. NBA 2K9 can wait a while, but the other two are kind of a toss-up. I can buy both, of course, but then I'm liable to get absolutely nothing done between now and finals. Difficult choice.

Both Fable 2 and Fallout 3 are supposed to be really awesome RPGs. They don't make many of those any more - Black Isle is dead, BioWare is making RPGs that are more like adventure games, anyways, and only Bethesda is still making real, American-style role playing games.

I still think, eight years after the fact, that Baldur's Gate 2 was the greatest CRPG ever made. I still play the fucking thing. It's awesome. Never gets old, especially with all the mods available for it these days.

What's a shame is that no companies are making this type of game anymore. BioWare makes party-based games, but you have little control over your party and less over the story (don't get me wrong, Mass Effect is great, but I'd like to be able to, you know, pick whether or not I'm going to let the weird aliens tag along with me. I'd especially like to be able to take them with me when I'm on a mission. This "party of three" thing they pull with all of their games these days really pisses me off.) Their Dragon Age game might be cool, but it still seems like it will pull that same bullshit.

If I were making a new RPG, here's what I'd do:
1) Real time, but pausable. Baldur's Gate innovated this, so why do companies keep half-assing it a decade later?
2) Party-based. Lots of party-able NPC's available, and I get to take 5-6 of them with me. Again, this has been around since the 1980s, so why does everyone fuck this up?
3) LET ME FUCKING CONTROL MY PARTY MEMBERS! - Christ, I'm tired of seeing my party members run into my line of fire (I'm looking at you Fallouts 1 and 2). Just let me control the dumb bastards. Makes it more tactical, to boot.
3) Non-epic story. Games don't always have to be "save the world." I'd like to see storylines pursue slightly more down-to-earth goals, like save the country or whatever. This makes it easier to add sequels, too, since you didn't just wreak havic on your fantasy world.
4) Non-linear, lots of side-quests. I like to take my time. Let me. I paid $50+ for your fucking game, after all.
5) If you're going to pursue the moral angle, give me more than "good and bad." I'd like to see a legitimate difference between a Utilitarian world view and a nihlist one - all too often, games try to pigeonhole the player into pursuing only two paths. That sucks.
6) Elves with guns. Arcanum was cool.

See? It's simple. They should pay me to do this shit. I'd be pretty good.

Astros sign some dude from Taiwan

2008-10-24T15:47:00.002-05:00

Apparently, the Astros' Asian scouting division is getting something done, and the Good Guys now include Chia-Jen Lo. He's 22 years old, and this would be his first professional gig. He tops out at 95 mph on his fastball and throws a curveball, according to BR Bullpen. So it seems like he's a reliever. I can't find anything else, stats-wise, about him. We also only paid $250,000 for him, beating out Boston's offer of $200,000. Cool.

Allison Footer - atypically chipper this week - douses fans' hopes for a Peavy trade:

Now it's time to step back into my glass-half-empty mode. Would that be enough for the Padres to deal Peavy to Houston? Maybe. But to deal those aforementioned pitchers sacrifices the future and overall health of the organization. Insiders are really excited about the '08 Draft class, and I believe that the team is on its way to rebuilding what has been lost over the last five years. But they need depth. They need to develop their own players. And getting rid of them -- all of them -- for Peavy, who has a ton of money coming to him over the next four years, may not be the best route to take.

This is the point I've been trying to make for the last week about this potential trade. Any trade will invariably hurt the Astros organization more than it helps the big-league club - particularly if it involves trading Spaz or Bogusevic or what little young pitching we have. As I posted over at the Crawfish Boxes (yes, I'm enough of an asshole to quote myself):

But from everything I’ve read, Wade blends both “traditional” evaluation and statistical evaluation, which should mean that given enough time, the Astros will improve. I know we Astros fans are eager to see immediate change (it’s why so many of us want to see Ben Sheets in an Astros uniform), but it’s going to take some time.

I've said it before: give the Astros a few seasons, and we will once again be a powerhouse. Just give it time, folks.

Hey, remember Drew Sutton?

2008-10-23T18:13:00.003-05:00

I mentioned him about two months ago, when I was attempting to show how Ed Wade could cut payroll significantly and blow up the roster. Well, turns out he's tearing up the Arizona Fall League: he's batting .636/1.125/1.761 in 10 games. Granted, that's a small sample size, but if he has a strong showing, the Astros' 2B situation is going to be very interesting. If Sutton hits well coming out of spring training, I'd hate to see Ed Wade treat Sutton like Purpura did with Pence - if he's good, put him in MLB games right away. Kazuo is going to go down at some point next season. Even if he doesn't get injured, Sutton should get the opportunity to compete for the starting spot. Really, I wouldn't mind just calling Sutton up and trading Matsui - if Sutton is a disaster we can still use Loretta.

After Bogusevic recovered from a slight hamstring tweaking, he's gone .357/.435/.792 in 8 games. Not destroying anything, but that's alright. If he has a strong showing this fall, he's probably going to give Bourn a run for his money during spring training, too.

Vince the Idiot

2008-10-21T09:24:00.002-05:00

Da Good, Da Bad, and DeMeco has a pretty hilarious post up about Vince Young's most recent press conference. The best part:

"[Collins] and me, we talk all the time. All the time. For anything. Not just football but off the field things, business-wise, accounts. All kinds of stuff.'"

Why, just the other day, Kerry and Vince held court in the lockerroom regarding the current financial crisis, during which Vince opined that the largest problem is the lack of consumer confidence in the value of mortgage-backed securities. Vince advocated riding out the stock market fluctuations if you are still in at this point, though Kerry proposed that you should always have a stop-loss selling point in mind. Vince countered that, were someone still in, they likely passed a realistic stop-loss number a while ago.

Hah. As I've said previously, I think Vince Young can still be a good QB. His completion percentage rose last year (though he didn't get any increase in yards from it), and he might still be able to develop further. There's a pretty small window on that, however, I think it's doubtful he'll get the coaching he needs. That's not a knock on the Titans' coaching staff, it's just that the guy probably requires a very specialized touch.

Just to make things absolutely clear:

2008-10-20T00:27:00.002-05:00

Eat shit:
1) Boston / New England
2) Cowboys fans (and, by extension, Dallas)
3) Dallas (deserves its own)
4) Indianapolis

Houston wins (was WAY too close for comfort by the end, there, but a win is a win), Dallas loses, Boston loses. Great day. Now I don't really give a shit about what happens in the World Series, since I hate neither team, but I'd rather have the Phillies win. Having the Rays accomplish in 10 years what took the Astros 42 years is painful enough, but having them win a World Series would suck. Of course, those fucks in Arizona and Florida have titles, so fuck them. In any case, having the Yankees of the 21st Century lose some is pretty awesome, since we all hate those fucks in New England.

But the Cowboys lost to the fucking Rams. And the Colts got blown out. The only thing that would have made this better would have been if the Tennessee Sister-Fuckers had lost, too.

I've been fucking around with Madden lately

2008-10-19T11:36:00.002-05:00

I started a franchise game where I upped Slaton's stats slightly (79 -> 82) and traded Schaub and a 3rd round pick to the Titans for Vince Young. They were more than happy to take the trade and have someone other than an alcoholic with the shakes running the offense, and I was more than happy to see what virtual-Vince could do with some real receivers.

Thus far, I've been impressed. Obviously, video games are no way to evaluate players, but virtual Vince has added a fairly interesting dynamic to the Texans' offense. And with guys like Owen Daniels, Andre Davis, Kevin Walter, and (most importantly) our man Andre Johnson there to bail virtual-Vince out, it leads to interesting plays. The AI prefers to blitz virtual-Vince, but virtual-Vince is faster than the defense most of the time, which usually buys enough time for the receivers in the secondary to get open. My favorite play is using play action (Slaton is scary enough for most defenses to guard against his run, too), scrambling outside towards the line of scrimmage, and then throwing a long pass out to AJ or KW. Pretty cool.

Obviously, virtual-Vince isn't as mind-bogglingly stupid as real Vince. So he doesn't throw into coverage as often. But it's a fun experiment.

I think the real Vince Young might yet develop into a good QB. Unfortunately for him, he's been the victim of being rushed into the starting position and probably being retarded. It's really too bad that Bud Adams forced the Titans management to draft the poor bastard, because they have totally botched his development.

Hey, now I'm the hipster douche!

2008-10-19T09:22:00.004-05:00

I was a communist before it was cool.

And then I dropped it right as it got "mainstream." Shit, I knew I was a trendsetter. Pretty soon, everyone is going to leave Communism and become Syndicalists, and then I'll drop that for neo-feudalism. It'll be great, I promise.

Seriously though, anybody attempting to read Capital as a guide to what is going wrong in the current crisis is a fucking fool. That is some dense reading material, and anybody without at least some economics training is going to be lost.

Anyways, anyone looking for a slightly better evaluation of orthodox Marxism needs to read:
1) Marx's Revenge by Meghnad Desai
2) Beyond Marxism by Sidney Hook

Good discussions of the classic misinterpretations of Marx's work. I think Hook might be a little off, given that he thought Marx really had some sort of moral considerations, but he puts up a good argument. Desai is a relatively famous economist, and he shows where (particularly in Capital) Marx may have realized that Capitalism was not necessarily doomed to failure. On the other hand, the failure of Keynesianism and the victories of the neo-Classicals like Friedman might mean that Marx was right, after all. Keynes' work really fucked with what Marx thought was necessary, and Friedman's work shows that Capitalism really can't be "fixed."

The problem Marx presents is that he had such an ambivalent view towards Capitalism. He saw it, I suppose, as something similar to a walk in baseball - a good thing, but not the best thing. It made real surplus of wealth possible for the first time in human history, but it came at the cost of exploitation and inequality.

In any case, anybody who's turned off of Capitalism from this little spat in the economy needs to get a grip. But if they're looking for some sort of answer to the damn thing, don't look to the classical Communist parties. They're a bunch of tools.

As usual, nobody knows what the hell they're talking about.

2008-10-18T22:15:00.002-05:00

For the last week of so, the Jake Peavy rumors have been flying. And the Crawfish Boxes has a good post about the possible effects of such a trade.

Look, a trade for Peavy is pretty unlikely. As in, about 1000 to 1. But Peavy has stated that he'd really like to pitch in Houston. No doubt that the presence of Roy (with whom Peavy owns a hunting ranch in Michigan) is a big part of that.

While I think Wade could do worse than gathering Roy and Lance's hunting buddies into a team (remember how hard they were lobbying for Sheets?), the Astros really should be focusing on rebuilding. The only way I can see this working is if the Astros concoct some three-way trade for Peavy, which would be exceedingly difficult. If we were able to get rid of Tejada in such a trade, all the better. Otherwise, I have no clue as to how such a trade would happen.

A chronicle of everything wrong with my generation.

2008-10-18T00:06:00.003-05:00

College life has exposed me to a larger cross-section of my generation. It's a really astounding thing. Maybe it's that Tulane is filled with a bunch of wealthy Yankee fucks, but the whole experience has been rather disturbing. It really makes me question the optimism with which I typically view the future.

And there is no better example of the douchebaggery of our youth than in the Tulane Hullabaloo. Let's take a look at this week's editorial page, shall we?

Let's start off with a piece on abortion. Now, I know the guy who wrote this, and Will's a great guy, but he's totally fucking off base on this.

Add to that the belief that unless we get a chance to dip a soul in water, the all-knowing and all-powerful God is forced to make that soul burn for an eternity of torture. If you believe that, you're definitely going to have problems with abortion, and it makes sense that you would want to prevent others who happen to have different beliefs from having a say in the matter.

Unfortunately for the pro-life folks, it seems a majority of America doesn't agree - otherwise we would have stopped debating Roe v. Wade and started shooting doctors a long time ago.

Seriously? First he mischaracterizes the views of billions of religious people, then he insinuates that pro-lifers want to shoot doctors. Look, man - if you're attempting to critically examine the abortion debate, then do it. But this crap only further hurts the situation.

Then he gives Don Marquis' famous argument against abortion and argues against it with the basic shit we learned in Professor Courtland's Ethics 103 class. I'll skewer this shit another time. But suffice it to say that I'm sure Will isn't ready to really look at the ontology of embryos and humans. And if he can't do that (nobody really can in 500 words), then maybe he should stop trying.

Then we have a pair of political pieces that offer nothing new and simply parrot their respective parties' lines. I never said that this generation was politically disaffected. Just stupid.

We have the "Campus Question:" What do you think about the recent increase in sexual assault on and near campus? Well, Hullabaloo staff, I'm sure everything thinks it's pretty shitty. Some of the answers given:

"It sucks!" (No shit, really?)
"I don't know. I think it's awful."
"I think it's something that obviously and absolutely needs to be prevented."
"I think it's scary."

How insightful!

And, finally, we have the coup-de-grace. A piece by our resident hipster douchebag. Honestly, you can't make this shit up. And I'm sorry to all of those who won't get to see the writer's awesome staff photo, because this shit really needs to be seen. He's got the ironic smirk, ironic mullet, and ironic v-neck. Christ, I hate this school.

Really, I love his characterization of himself and his hipster friends as "young intellectuals." Yeah fucking right. Schedule of the hipster douchebag:

1:00 - Wake up, snort coke
2:00 - Walk around the quad with my shirt off and wearing cowboy boots (I've seen him do this, it's awful).
3:00 - Snort coke
4:00 - study about something. Just kidding, look ironic
5:00 - repeat ad nauseum.

He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals come up with new ideas. Even the postmodernists had something new to say.

If my generation's Students for a Democratic Society, the classic student activist group, composed our own Port Huron Statement, it would begin: "we are people of this generation, bred in substantial comfort, housed now in universities and gentrified neighborhoods, looking quite indifferently to the world we inherit."

You're all a bunch of fucking Randians. That's the only explanation. How can someone grow up in this society and not be convinced that something is grossly wrong? How can you look at the absolute poverty of New Orleans and not think that there are major problems in our everyday lives? How can you experience the iniquities of modern society and not see that there are still real battles to be fought? How can you look at the world - a world where most people live without real political power - and say that you are indifferent? You are a bunch of spoiled children. Perpetual children, who will always be living off of mommy and daddy's estate.

They (or we, if I may be so bold to include myself among today's apathetic wunderkinds) would rather steal V-necks and lament the implications of post-modern ontology than bother with such trivial things. We have no counter-culture because we have no cause.

No. You don't know what "post-modern ontology" means. You just like the way it sounds when it comes out of your pie-hole.

Look, compared to the hipster douches of the world, the Egoists as likeable. This guy is just full of himself. He's no wunderkind. He's a kid with too much free time and no sense of personal responsibility.

He's not the equivalent of Abbie Hoffman. Hoffman stood for something, even though life was pretty good. He's the equivalent of the characters in the Great Gatsby. And the only way his little clique will ever produce their Fitzgerald will be when some of them wise the fuck up.

I'm reminded of the Oingo Boingo classic "Nothing Bad Ever Happens to Me." They are this generation's yuppies. But they don't produce anything. They're just a cancer, a parasite on society. The Marxist in me wants to line them up against a wall.

Jesus, I just feel sorry for my English-major friends. They have to deal with this shit every day. These dicks stay out of the philosophy and economics departments, for the most part.

Urge to kill rising

2008-10-17T16:20:00.002-05:00

Fuck you, Bud. Goddamnit, you're the worst fucking thing since Pol Pot. And, I swear to God, if you play in Houston wearing the damn things, it'll be your head. Christ, the NFL better deny them their request. Fuck them.

This has gotten me thinking: if the opportunity to take back the Oilers legacy arose, would you take it? If Bud Adams died tomorrow, and whoever inherited/bought the team offered the Oiler name and records to Bob McNair, would we accept it?

My natural reaction is yes. I still think the "Texans" nickname is a stupid one, but it's one I've grown accustomed to. It would be nice to have the Campbell/Blanda/Moon etc. legacy back where it belongs. Actually, just having Campbell's records back would be cool. Moon is a drunk wife-beater. Campbell is an official Hero of Texas.

But I almost feel like that legacy is tainted goods. Those fucks in Tennessee tarnished it. And it kind of feels like accepting it and becoming the Oilers once again would somehow be a bitch thing to do. I don't know.

Whatev. That fucker better not show his jabba-the-hut face on the streets.

Maybe our secondary won't be so bad this weekend...

2008-10-17T10:40:00.002-05:00

'Cause Dunta is back, baby!

Never seen anything like that before...

2008-10-17T09:05:00.004-05:00

I'm sure I'm not the first (or second, or hundredth, or thousandth) person to point this out, but Obama's campaign is freakin creepy. Obama is the first political candidate (in my short lifetime, admittedly) whom I remember attaining legitimate status as a pop-culture icon. Growing up, I never saw people wear t-shirts with Clinton's face on them. I never saw Gore or Bush posters prominently featuring either's visage. What the hell is going on?

Is it just my generation? Is it just that people my age are predisposed towards this? I don't know, and it's a frightening thing.

Politicians should not have this sort of devotion attached to them. This is not simply a devotion to his ideas or ideology (he fails to articulate either, anyways), but a real idealization of the man. That's a troubling phenomenon, because it means that the likelihood of his supporters analyzing his policy decisions in the future is much less.

Politicians should be ugly. They should be uncool. They shouldn't have mainstream people hanging up their pictures.

I wouldn't compare this to a real cult of personality, because it's not even close. But Obama has become an actual icon, and I think that contributes to the weird ideas people associate with him - he'll fix all our problems, foreigners will love us, race relations will be solved, poverty will be gone. These expectations would not be associated with anyone else.

People just need to stop treating the guy like a movie star. It's disturbing.

Who the fuck keeps giving Mike Winters a job?

2008-10-15T22:03:00.002-05:00

He's the home plate umpire for tonight's NLCS game. Twice, he's called an inning-ending strike 3 on balls below the knee. Once on Russell Martin and another on Jeff Kent. The one on Kent was outside, too.

We've been through this shit with Winters before. It's kind of crazy that the MLB assigned him to umpire a playoff game. Christ, he's awful.

Why didn't Wade think of that?

2008-10-15T17:21:00.002-05:00

"If we add a few players, we can contend," ace Roy Oswalt said. "I think we're about three players away from being real good. I'd say baseball players. Pitching is a spot to start at, for sure. Players."

Well, shit, Roy... that's fucking deep. We just need a few more players - baseball players, specifically - and the Astros will contend. I'm sorry that DeMeco Ryans won't be the Astros' starting third baseman next season, but I'm glad that the Wizard figured out our need for baseball players.

Reason for some hope

2008-10-15T14:05:00.002-05:00

I think that Drayton's seeming reluctance to sign any big FA pitchers this winter is going to be a little painful. So I'm going to list the minor leaguers from this year's draft (and any Latin signings) whose stats jump out at me.

1) Nathan Metroka - OF/DH, 21 y/o. I know I've talked about him before, but it bears mentioning again. He batted .327/.387/.531 in 33 games. He's in rookie ball with Greenville. Oh, and he was our 49th pick of the draft.

2) Phil Disher - 1B/DH, 23 y/o. Again, mentioned before. .304/.381/.536. Dude's hit 13 homers in 71 games, so that's good. What's impressive about both Disher and Metroka is that they're walking. It's not a lot of walks, but it's not like they're Tejada. Walking 6-8% of the time is pretty good.

3) David Flores- 3B, 21 y/o. 56 games, 11 homers, 17 doubles, going .266/.319/.495. He's also stolen five bases without getting caught.

4) Jack Shuck - CF, 21 y/o. .300/.385/.430 Undoubtedly has the coolest name in the Astros' draft class. And he's doing fairly well.

5) Daniel Meszaros - RP 21 y/0. In 26 innings, he's posted a 1.10 WHIP. What's cooler is that he's striking out better than two an inning in low A. Small sample size, I know, but it's pretty good.

6) Patrick Urckfitz - RP 19 y/0. Okay, this guy has the coolest name. Urckfitz - wow. Striking out better than one an inning in rookie ball.

7) Jose Santana - OF 19 y/o. He's Dominican. What's strange about this is he's a Dominican with a real batting eye. Look at this line: .289/.434/.330. He doesn't have any power, but that's pretty typical of young kids. In any case, he's walking almost 15% of the time. That's good.

8) Jacob Priday - OF/DH 22 y/o. Okay, his numbers aren't really there yet. He's only played 24 games in A ball, though. What I know is that he's an Adam Dunn clone (and Dunn's his "most similar player," according to him). He strikes out a lot, but walks enough and shows enough power that he might have a career. If he can walk more and improve his power, he'll be great. And we might see that next year, as the current class gets acquainted with wooden bats and develop further.

Have faith. The Stros farm system is improving. Give it time.

Strange

2008-10-14T23:42:00.002-05:00

I was perusing the Rays blog over at SBN, and I looked at the posts for tonight's game (oh, by the way - Crawford tied a record for most hits in a playoff game, going 5-5. He also had two steals and scored thrice. He's from here, you know).

Anyways, I think that the Rays blog might just be populated by /b/tards. That's just going by the avatars and references to fuckin furries. I'm not sure what to think about that. On the one hand, /b/tards make the internet go, but on the other, they are the human equivalent of gonorhea.

Dickie J isn't from around here.

2008-10-14T09:31:00.003-05:00

Justice apparently needs more hits to his blog, because he's gone back to his "troll my readers" strategy. This time: Why do Houston fans hate the Cowboys?

I have no idea where Justice comes from. I know he's a UT alumnus, but that doesn't mean much. So maybe he doesn't understand this basic fact - Houston hates Dallas. It's just the way of the world. We hate their city (bunch of stuck-up fucks), they hate our city (dirty, mosquito-infested swamp) - it's a nice little set-up we've got going. The only people who root for the Cowboys in Houston are either (A) not from here, or (B) a bunch of traitorous fucks who better not be rooting for any other Houston teams, because that's a bunch of bullshit.

Now, for years, that rivalry was centered around the Governor's Cup and all that bullshit. But a decade of combined Oiler playoff chokes, losing Oiler teams, no NFL team in the city, and finally a terrible expansion team have made an NFL rivalry something of a joke. Houston is, strangely enough, more interested in the Stros than the Texans. Of course, the Rangers suck, so nobody in Houston really cares how they do. The only sport where Houston and Dallas are on par is basketball, and I'm happy whenever the Rockets kick the Mavericks' asses (I'm also happy when they destroy the Spurs, but it's less cathartic. I'm rather fond of San Antonio).

So, if the Texans can't compete with the Cowboys (however, the Cowboys are VASTLY overrated every year), I'm happy to just see Dallas teams lose. And I'm happy that Romo will not be playing for a month (lighten up, Cowboys fans, he just broke his pinky; he'll be fine). And I hope that "America's Team" fucking crashes and burns.

Honestly, I don't know what the hell Justice is confused about. It's a pretty simple equation.

EDIT:

I'm particularly fond of comments like this:

I'm a Cowboy's fan and rooted for the Oilers and Texans, as long as they weren't playing Dallas.

No. No, you're not a Cowboys fan. You can't cheer both teams and be a fan. I don't cheer the Mavs or Spurs. I don't care that they are from Texas; it just doesn't work that way. The only time boundary lines can be crossed is with South-Central Texans picking a baseball or football team. Otherwise, you stay loyal to your region's sports team. That's just the way it works.

That would be a stupid attitude to have in real life, but fortunately, sports teams aren't real life. So we can enforce arbitrary cultural boundaries.

The Texans' two minute drill

2008-10-13T20:28:00.003-05:00

I noticed, as have other people, that the Texans rely an awful lot on one play in their two-minute drill. In fact, it seems that virtually every drill features the play within the first three or four plays.

Yes, Texans fans, that play is their patented QB Sack. It wouldn't be a Texans last-minute-to-win-the-game drive without it. While the coaching staff seems to call this play less frequently after Mittens was released, and Houston was one of the worse teams in running the play last season, the Texans are still pretty awesome at getting their QB sacked when the game is on the line. I once feared that the improved O-line would cut down on the Texans' effectiveness in this regard, but (despite Duane Brown's excellence thus far) they have shown themselves to be amongst the league's elite. Congratulations, Texans. You earned it.

Texans Win! Texans Win! Texans WIN!

2008-10-12T16:38:00.003-05:00

Oh happy day! God, I knew You were just jerking us all around when You had Eugene Wilson catch that interception and then fumble it away. I knew You were just kidding around when Ronnie Brown got another TD to put the Texans down 23-28 with only 1:45 left on the clock. I knew it was all in Your divine plan to have the whole game come down to a 4th-and-3 QB draw play.

Sitting here in NOLA, I was joining in with those Texans fans at Reliant booing Schaub. He threw two interceptions today, which really cost us. Maybe that was just post-Case-of-the-Shits jitters.

Still, there were people chanting "We want Rosenfels" at the game. What the fuck, people? Were ya'll in some sort of mass coma last Sunday? Did you not see the Rosen-copter? I understand that Schaub was throwing pretty fucking dangerously today, but Rosenfels is no better. In fact, he's signifcantly worse.

Well, at least the Texans won't go 0-fer the season. This one had me holding my breath to the very end, and I'll be happy when the play the hapless Lions next Sunday. Hopefully that game will be much more conducive to my nerves.

The Rockets were handed their first defeat of the pre-season last night. Pretty bullshit calls at the end of the game. In other news, T-Mac almost got into two fights, and Ron Artest kicked Paul Pierce's ass. Awesome.

EDIT:

Oh, and Ed Hochuli was the ref for the Texans game. One blown call (that facemasking call in New Orleans wasn't his fault, fuckers) and Guns' career goes down the shitter - reffing Texans - Dolphins games. Ouch.

Rays win, Longhorns win, Texans will probably lose.

2008-10-12T09:09:00.002-05:00

That about sums it up. Glad to see Tampa Bay kick some ass, even if it took 11 innings. Also, Josh Beckett doesn't have a chin. The Longhorns benefited from some shitty officiating, but so did the Sooners. You'd think they'd have better refs for the Big 12's most important game of the year. Anyways, it's good to see Texas win, even if I'm not emotionally invested in them in the same way as Houston teams. Buncha hicks in Oklahoma should learn not to show up to these things.

The Texans face the Dolphins today. A couple weeks ago, this game seemed like a gimme, but it seems pretty clear now that the Dolphins are significantly better than anyone expected. They're no powerhouse, but they won't be pushovers, either. So the Texans will probably get their ass kicked.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

2008-10-10T22:17:00.003-05:00

I know that Drayton McLane and Ed Wade are going to take a lot of shit this offseason if they don't sign Ben Sheets (or some other ace pitcher). Drayton has indicated that they'll just stick with what they've got.

It's impossible to know someone's motivations. They way I see it, Ed Wade could have three reasons for not pursuing free agents this winter:

1) Money. It could be that Drayton is just unwilling to expand payroll. We're paying a lot of money to Tejada, Berkman, Lee, and Oswalt, and we're not getting that much out of it. Add to that a relatively large contract to Matsui, and we've got a club with a lot of money tied up in older players.

Now, I'm pretty sure that Drayton and Wade want to sign Valverde to a big contract. I'm not so sure that's a good idea - he's an injury risk and closers are highly overrated. I think his main value to the Astros would be as trade bait or as two draft picks in 2010. But clubs want "experienced" closers, and Valverde is as good as any other.

So Drayton could just be scrimping on payroll now to pay for other stuff down the line. That's not unreasonable.

2) Stupidity. Wade could be vastly overrating this team. He might think that this club really is an 87 win team, and that's just stupid. So he and Drayton might believe that, if they just go after some lesser-known talent, they can win big next year.

3) Wade is a freakin' genius. Or at least he pays attention. He might realize that this team really sucks, and that investing further will just be adding payroll to a team that might make it to 4th place in the NL Central next year.

So he might be looking for cheap contracts just to shore up the rotation and get the Astros through the season. They'll focus on the farm system for a while, and just hope for the best in the major league team.

I don't know. If they do go for a "rebuilding" route, it's going to be a shitty couple years. Only the wealthiest clubs (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.) can rebuild while remaining competitive in the big leagues. That's unfortunate for the rest of us. But remember that if we're patient, we can see another Astros dynasty. I'm pretty fucking tired of waiting for it, but I figure I can do it for another few years.

Shut your fucking yap

2008-10-10T19:45:00.002-05:00

I always find this time of baseball season the most mind-numbingly stupid. It's when all the sports pundits won't shut the fuck up about how some players are clutch and others just can't get it done in the playoffs. It's when all the fans get to act like their team is the center of the universe, and we see the idiots make asses of themselves.

I think that there is really no better example of this than with the Tampa Bay Rays. The Rays are good. Really good. Baseball Prospectus predicted this, stat heads knew this, and your average ESPN pundit didn't realize it. So they kept saying stupid shit about the Rays - they're scrappy, this has been a magical season, etc. That's a load of shit. The Rays are a fantastic collection of talent, and they'll keep being good for many more years. They've developed the best farm system in baseball, and they've ensured that the AL East will probably be the toughest division in baseball.

Now, the AL East didn't used to be good. Hank Steinbrenner thinks it was, but the AL East was just the Yankees for about eight years. Then the Red Sox got good, so now there were two good teams. Now the Rays are a powerhouse, and the Blue Jays are getting better every year. Only the O's continue to suck outright.

While the bullshit surprise about the Rays and Hank Steinbrenner's crybaby shit is hilarious, what's even better is listening to Red Sox fans. Yankees fans are just pissed that they didn't make the playoffs.

But Sox fans are pissed that this new team is challenging them. They're pissed that a team that can't sell out it's ballpark during the regular season is making it.

Here's the thing: we really shouldn't expect there to be a large fanbase for the Rays. They spent years sucking. And the old ownership didn't give a shit about fielding a good team or caring for fans.

Look, the Red Sox have had a lack of postseason success over the years. But they've also been a pretty good franchise. They've fielded winning teams for many years. They're a century-old franchise that hase developed many lifelong fans. Lifelong Rays fans are in Junior High School right now. And that's alright - twenty years from now, there will be many lifelong Rays fans. They'll sell out whatever new ballpark they build. Good teams do that.

There was a time when the Astrodome had awful attendance. It was the pre-1997 years, when the team hadn't made the postseason since Nolan Ryan was pitching. Ownership sucked most of those years, until Drayton bought the team.

But a decade of postseason appearances and a lack of pro football in Houston made the city a baseball town. The Astros don't sell out every night, but they do fairly well considering how awful the teams have been since 2006.

It will be the same with the Rays. They'll do well, build a fanbase, and sell out stadiums later. Right now, though, it's kind of no-win situation for Rays fans. If they don't go to games, they're bad fans. But if they do go, then they're bandwagon fans. I suppose they can take solace in being a better team than Boston, though.

--------------------------------

I'm watching the ALCS right now, and it occurs to me that Boston is roughly as white right now as the 2005 Astros. Remember that? I remember taking shit for that on the internet - the only minorities were Zeke Astacio and Willy T. A big deal was made about the fact that Houston didn't have any black players. All Boston has is Coco Crisp. Whatever.

Christ, I hate Joe Buck.

2008-10-09T20:46:00.003-05:00

And Tim McCarver. Right now, I'm watching their NLCS broadcast. And they won't shut the fuck up about how terrible Manny Ramirez is as a person. How he acted like a dick in Boston. How he shoved that traveling secretary in Houston.

Look, I know that this is the conventional wisdom about Ramirez. But it's a load of crap. He's got the same problem that Carlos Beltran has - he makes everything look too easy. He's like the geeky kid in your calculus class who finishes the test half an hour before everyone else - you hate that he does it so much better than you could hope to. But the fact is that while that kid (and Manny and Beltran) is blessed with great natural gifts, he also works pretty fucking hard.

From everything I've heard about the guy, Manny Ramirez is one of the toughest workers in baseball. He spends hours of extra time in the batting cages. He works on his hitting technique and approach like few others. The man didn't get where his is by just coasting.

Now, I hear all the dipshits amongst you talking about how Ramirez was dogging it in his last month in Boston. That's a load of bullshit. The guy hit .347 with an OBP of .473 in his final month with the Red Sox. Manny was traded because Epstein had it in for him, not because he was throwing games.

And, yeah, he shoved that guy. We all have bad days. That doesn't excuse it, but it does mean that we should forgive it if the victim has forgiven Manny.

And I hear that he's kind of a dick. He doesn't like to sign autographs, and he frequently doesn't show up to charity events and such. Well, that really shouldn't be expected of him. He's a private individual, and he can do whatever the hell he wants with his time. Just because he's an athlete doesn't mean he has to conform to our desires or image of what a sports figure should be. It's great if our sports stars are like Berkman, Biggio or Sampson. But they don't have to be.

So lay off of the guy. He does his job, and that's really all that should be expected of him. He's one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time, so I don't really give a shit if he doesn't hustle on easy ground outs.

Shalom, everybody!

2008-10-09T11:07:00.003-05:00

It's Yom Kippur! And since Tulane has a roughly 30-40% Jewish student body, we get the day off. Doesn't help me much, since I only have one class on Thursdays, anyways, but it's a nice gesture, even if I am Catholic.

So the Astros started making cuts. My favorite comment from the Astros website on this is from "Tranquillado": "That's a shame about Borkowski. Oh, wait, no it's not." I chuckled pretty hard at that one.

I suppose they're making room for FA's and draft protection. However, Drayton's said they probably won't go after the big-name FA's this season. I don't know how I feel about that. As I've said before, it seems like Drayton and Wade are half-assing the whole thing. They need to either pick the "spend a lot of money and get free agents" route or the "rebuild the farm and get good later" route. I favor the latter, but they have most of our big pieces locked up. Lee, Oswalt, and Berkman all have no-trades. Tejada is untradeable. Only Valverde and Wigginton might command something special. So you might as well go after free agents this winter. Whatever.

In other news, Jason Castro apparently led the HWL with a .438 BA in his first week. He now is 5th. Still, that's pretty good. He's only walked three times (2 BB, 1 IBB), but he's doing well. He only has two doubles, however.

The Astros took a lot of shit for drafting Castro. I know that I would have preferred Smoak. But I think that Wade was really drafting for signability, allowing him to spend later (as with Seaton). And Castro had done fairly well in low-A. He's not hitting for the kind of power that one would like, but he's walking about 11% of the time and can add power. And there's really nothing wrong with a guy who just hits for average and has a good OBP. It's, sadly, kind of a lost art. Ichiro is commonly thought of as that type of player, but (unlike Tony Gwynn, for instance) he hardly ever walks. We're looking for more of a Wade Boggs type player.

So if Castro turns into that type of player, that's fine. Hitting for average and the occasional double or homer while still walking makes you a great player. And it's the kind of player that really helps out teams, especially when you've got sluggers behind you.

I guess that's the bright side of the Astros not signing anybody significant. We at least won't lose any draft picks. And maybe Wade can really build a good farm system.

This is pretty cool.

2008-10-06T23:26:00.004-05:00

This little ESPN page has a list of MLB players' walk-up music. My favorite is Tejada's choice (I hope it's his choice anyways, and not some cruel joke by the MMPUS staff) of Toby Keith's "(I Ain't) As Good As I Once Was." Somebody told me that this was his new walk-up music around late July, and I really couldn't believe it. Remarkably self-effacing.

Kazuo Matsui's song is some DDR song. Stereotypical, but somewhat surprising.

Berkman's choices are an interesting mix of the expected and surprising. What you might expect: Ted Nugent and some Christian rock song. Not really surprising: Godsmack, Motley Crue. WTF?: Nickelback's "Animals." Christ, I hate Nickelback. As I once said to a friend, they lack poise.

I really think that Carlos Lee should have a mariachi band play his entrances. That would be sweet.

Remember your roots

2008-10-05T19:57:00.002-05:00

The inestimable Tom Kirkendall points out that this loss was up there with the worst in Houston sports history. And he kindly lists those other epic chokes.

He links to a story about John Elway's 98 yard drive to stop Houston from reaching the AFC championship game. I was too young (and in Baltimore) to remember that one. And I certainly didn't realize that our own Gary Kubiak was the holder on the Broncos' game-winning kick. Damn.

Never forget, folks, that Houston has a long history of choking, largely unrecognized by the outside world. It's a proud history. It wouldn't be Choke City without those events.

Choke City proves it once again

2008-10-05T17:31:00.005-05:00

Jesus. That was just fucking awful. I commented to my roommate that, with about five minutes left in the game and up seventeen points, the Texans were probably not going to lose this one. But they found a way, goddamn it, because that's their job.

I think everything that needs to be said about the game has been said. Rosenfels almost got a spectacular win, but then he cost us the game. Three consecutive turnovers. Fuck. So instead, I'd like to write about some of the comments I've seen. Most of these will be from the Chronicle website, primarily because that site brings out the idiot brigade.

Everyone wants to blame Sage, but he is the reason they were up. His deciveness with the offense and command of the huddle. He is to blame for not covering up the football, but the coaching should get a serious look for this collapse.

No, Sage was not responsible for the lead. That was play calling, Slaton, Daniels, and Andre Johnson, with a healthy dose of a resurgent defense. Go back and look at Sage's TD pass to AJ. That was almost a pick, and if Johnson weren't such a monster, it would have been going the other way. He threw into triple or quadruple coverage several times. Those were awful decisions, and he was only saved by the Colts' failure and the receivers' brilliance. Carr could have taken us to that point.

And he is definitely responsible for every bit of that collapse. HE tried the ridiculous leap-over-the-defense-for-the-1st-down play. HE couldn't protect the football. HE threw the interception to end the game.

With that said, the DC should still be fired. Our defensive playcalling sucks.

UUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHH! What a heartbreaker! Why wouldn't Kubiak pull Sage after the second turnover!? I could see his deer-in-the-headlights look on a low-definition TV!

Because (1) Schaub had a bad case of the shits, and (2) Owen Daniels is our third back-up. To be fair, though, I think Owen Daniels as QB would be pretty cool for a few plays. Just snap the ball to him and play him like a FB.

First:
All of you saying you are through with the Texans - PLEASE live up to your word and get the heck out!! You're are not needed or wanted in the fan base.

Listen, man. It's understandable to hate this fucking team right now. It's been almost seven years of losing (or not-winning!) football. We have yet to get a playoff appearance. Yet to post a winning season. Yet to do anything.

And I really don't blame Houstonians and the rest of Southeast Texas if they don't want to watch this team lose week after week. It fucking sucks. And we see the two teams we hate most - Dallas and the Titans - planning for playoff appearances. Meanwhile, we pray for a winning season.

So I understand if someone doesn't want to keep watching and hoping. That's fine. And if we start doing well, I hope they come back. I don't want them to leave permanently. At this point, it's not as if anyone watching is a bandwagon fan. It's not like they're the Astros or Rockets - teams that have failed to do anything after years of awesomeness. They're the fucking Texans. They wouldn't be jumping off the bandwagon, because there is no bandwagon to speak of.

The Texans Oilered it. This is not how you grow or maintain a fan [base].

Go Texans! Beat dallas!

See, that's the appropriate response. They choked. That's why we're Choke City (I particularly like the "Oilered it" comment). I mean, it sucked to watch them blow this. It was a real kick in the gut. But I couldn't help but chuckle at the damn thing. It was fucking comical. They just totally fucked up, and that's what we've come to expect. It would be weird (pleasant, but weird) if they didn't blow it.

So I'll still watch next week. I'll watch them until I die or they move. They're Houston's team, and so they're my team. I want them to kick ass next week, but I'm willing to wait until they do. It's getting harder year by year, though.

EDIT:

This collapse has inspired a new title card. Unfortunately, I can't find a photo of Rosenfels' Jim Brown style move, so I'll just use this photo of his later fumble.

So, was this a worse collapse than The Comeback? Probably. Granted, the Buffalo incident came with a hall-of-fame QB at the helm and the playoffs on the line, but that was also the result of Buffalo just playing like beasts.

While Rosenfels imitated Moon's fumble, Rosenfels absolutely choked on this one. No credit can really be given to the Colts offense. This one is squarely of Rosenfels.

Eat shit, Cubsfans (part 2)

2008-10-05T00:14:00.002-05:00

hahahahahahahahahaha

oh jesus

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahaha

oh, fuck

hahahahahahaha

Dem Bums pulled off the finest upset since the Super Bowl. Wonderful.

I don't believe in luck or karma, but if there is such a thing, then I think the Cubs lost all of it with the Milwaukee Astros series. Right then, I knew that the Cubs just wouldn't win if God is just (and He cares about baseball, which I'm sure He does). He surely wouldn't reward a fan base that boos hurricane victims.

Of course, He also lets the Yankees win, but I figure that was just to test us.

Fuck the Cubs, that was fucking awesome.

We're probably going to lose tomorrow...

2008-10-04T10:48:00.004-05:00

and that's alright. I mean, it's not like 0-4 is a big hole or anything. It's not like we were all hopeful that this year - yes this very year - might be the year the Texans finally post a winning record. I didn't really buy the "we're going to make the playoffs" talk - we don't have a secondary or running game to speak of - but I still maintained hope that the Texans might make it out of the league's "laughing stock" category for once.

This team's got significant problems, and the last four weeks have only cemented that judgment in my mind. You can list the good defensive players on one hand - Mario, DeMeco, Okoye (though he's in a slump), and that's pretty much it. Everyone else is awful. This is particularly disturbing, since the front office has spent most of their top draft picks on the defense.

The offense is better this year. The receiver corps has improved, and Schaub (if he doesn't fuck up) will probably prove himself to be worth the investment. And Steve Slaton has been one of the few happy surprises for the Texans (most in our history have been of the "Surprise! Your #1 pick sucks!" variety).

But you look at where the Texans are as a franchise, and you're seeing a team that has been killed, time and again, by poor luck and poorer decision making. And I think that goes all the way back to Mittens.

The thing with Carr, I think, was that he could have been a good QB. As noted by so many over the years, he has good fundamentals, but he was just never developed. I think that the Texans really should have brought in a veteran free-agent in their first few years, giving Carr time to learn as a back up behind someone who knew what he was doing. I have no idea who was available in 2002, but that's not the point. The bar was set pretty low - they could just grab a journeyman backup for all it mattered. Just somebody who was competant. I don't know if that would have given Carr time to develop - it's entirely likely that he'd still develop into the terrible QB we all loathe - but it seems like that would have been a better strategy.

I don't know what to say about the Texans, otherwise. They're fucked. Maybe they'll tank the season and we'll get the Andre Johnson of safeties in the draft.

This is a recipe for disaster

2008-10-04T09:39:00.003-05:00

MSNBC.com's page on the financial crisis is called "Gut Check America." Yes, that's exactly what we need. Not reasoned debate or a careful study of what's wrong - we need a fucking gut check. What does your gut tell you about the financial crises? What's that, gut? You think it was the Jews? Thank you, gut, for telling me about the traitors in our midst. Now all we need is some sort of final solution.

What the hell is everyone so upset about?

2008-10-02T13:36:00.002-05:00

So Jerry Jones apparently made some sort of statement about something:

"The Cowboys have never been about checkered tablecloths and boots and hats," Jones says. "They've been about glitz and glitter. Leave the other stuff to the Houston Texans."

You know, he's right. And it's an accurate description of the difference between Dallas and Houston.

Dallas is a city of hicks with money. More money than they know what to do with, in fact. And, thus, they spend their money as you'd expect a bunch of hicks with money to spend - rented BMW's, crappy "designer" shit, etc. And the Jerry Dome.

Houston is more working class. The "checkered tablecloths and boots and hats" and all that crap are a reflection of our nature. It's better than being a bunch of fake assholes. We're a city of working people - rednecks, immigrants, and executives. It's a great place.

But here's the kicker: we're more sophisticated than they are. All the things that makes a city "sophisticated" - the arts, universities, museums, etc. - better in Houston than they are in Dallas. We have a better symphony, opera, art museums, all that crap. Our universities are clearly superior - Rice beats SMU (no fucking shit), and Cougar High is a legitimate institution and the superior of UNT. We're just better with how we spend our money.

So the old claim that Dallas was somehow more "cultured" is false, too. So, if you're scoring at home, points go to Houston for culture, diversity, economy, politics, baseball, basketball, football players who aren't rapists, and history. Oh, and soccer. Dallas gets points for hockey (who cares?) and football teams made up of felons.

Seriously, thank you Jerry. Thank you for pointing out that Houston is better than Dallas. Texans didn't really need reminding of that fact, but all those Yankees might need to be updated on the situation (as it has stood for the last thirty years).

Oh, and fuck Dallas for just reinforcing the typical Texas stereotype. Go to fucking hell, you stupid assholes. Fuck Dallas.

This is ridiculous

2008-10-01T11:34:00.002-05:00

MVP voting is always a fucking crap shoot, but that this guy will fill out a ballot for the damn thing is a travesty. I mean, Sabathia and Ramirez are #1 and #2? They played for half a season!

Now, I've made my points about Berkman's candidacy before. I think he deserves the award. And if not him, then Pujols does. And if not him, it's Hanley Ramirez.

But read Heyman's line on Berkman:

10. Lance Berkman, Astros. Houston was just a little too late to the party.

What? They mounted a fantastic run at the playoffs (incidently, however, this had little to do with Berkman, and more to do with Lee and Wigginton)! They finished ahead of Pujols and the Cardinals! What the hell do you want from him? He was clutch, he was fucking Mr. Automatic, and he was just awesome. Without Berkman, the Astros don't have a winning season, let alone a playoff run.

And Ryan Howard? He sucked the whole year! He got good just as the season ended, and that's it. Utley deserves it more than Howard.

And Francisco Rodriguez for the AL MVP? That's just idiotic. The man is an excellent reliever, but he had nowhere near the value that Maeur, Sizemore, Youkilis, etc. had to their teams.

Fuck, people are stupid.

Economic Meltdown

2008-09-30T22:45:00.003-05:00

It's funny, but people seem to like to work in hyperbole. This is apparent in any discussion about dictatorships (Pinoche suddenly becomes Hitler, Castro becomes Stalin), but it's also present in the sciences. Particularly those of the "social" variety.

The best example right now is in the discussion of the financial crisis. To hear politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, speak of this, it would seem that we are heading for a second Great Depression. In fact, that is essentially what has been said. Ben Bernanke, Paulson, and the rest of the government's economists have not only failed to diffuse this notion, they have (as best I can tell) aided in its diffusion.

This is a ridiculous idea. The "fail-safe" mechanism of the American (and world) economy - the Federal Reserve and Treasury - is still intact. Individual banks may fail, but the government can always issue more money. That will come at great cost, but at a much lesser one than either the "natural" result or the plan that so recently failed in Congress. And, really, we're looking at a fairly large but not massive loss of capital investment - a trillion dollars in a sea of some forty trillion. At the end of the financial day, the market will - somehow - reach equilibrium. If anything, we might just see a revitalization of American jobs as the dollar falls and foreign capital flows into the American system.

I think the main failure here has been in the American political system. Both sides have attempted to blame the other: Democrats blaming some vague failure of the "Bush economic policy," while Republicans conjuring up the "liberal government" bogeyman.

The Republicans are clearly engaging in little more than flinging bullshit, but the Democrats appear to be articulating a real critique. The problem is that the Democratic economic platform is not significantly different from that of the Republicans. The Bush Republicans, in fact, are advocating the exact same policy that the Democrats are supporting (albeit with a great deal of wailing and finger pointing). Both want a massive government bailout. The Democrats are just complaining about it more.

Really, what could have been done about the housing bubble? What would the Democrats have done differently in 2002 or 2003 to slow the boom? Their current critique stems from some abstract idea of a failure of the regulatory system - specifically the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act - but this idea is clearly a no-go.

Even if the Democrats want to say that the mortgage industry should have been more regulated, what could have been done? Would they have repealed the subsidy on mortgages? Would they have ordered the SEC or Fed to examine every mortgage issued? No, they would not have. Neither party wants to do anything different on this point. In fact, I think that if the Democrats had been in control in 2002, they would have simply taken credit for the boom, just as the Republicans did, and then pointed their fingers at the opposing party today - just as the Republicans are doing now.

And both sides do seem to be in consensus - banks should not be rewarded for their failures. But this desire for punishment seems to be related entirely to CEO and executive pay. This is absolute horseshit - a base appeal to populism that does absolutely fucking nothing. Yes, these men and women created this crisis. But so did home buyers, investors, and Congress. And demanding cuts to CEO pay is a laughable punishment. What would be an adequate punishment? Don't bail them out. Let there be natural consequences. Let the banks declare bankruptcy and be reorganized and bought by other, larger, better run banks. Let the market take its course.

Yeah, people will lose money. And nobody will like the results, mid-correction. But that's life. And the result will probably be better.

Playoff predictions and hopes

2008-09-29T21:43:00.002-05:00

We'll see what happens in Minnesota tomorrow, but I don't really give a fuck what happens, anyways, so I'll go ahead and make my predictions.

The Dodgers will lose to the Cubs in five. Unless something epic happens, and then we will all laugh at Cubs fans and tell them to eat more shit, because it is becoming of them.

The Phillies will win over the Brewers. You can't win with only one good pitcher. I also imagine Lidge will give up one go-ahead homer in the series, which will cause everyone on ESPN to get a bad case "won't shut the fuck up."

The Phillies will win over the Cubs in the NLCS. Zambrano's arm is falling off.

The Rays will win over the Twins/White Sox. The Red Sox will lose to the Angels. The Angels will beat the Rays.

The Angels will beat the Phillies in the World Series, which will cause a truly epic riot in Philly. Awesome.

My "dream" playoff: Cubs lose to Dodgers, Phillies lose to Milwaukee. Milwaukee wins over LA. Rays lose to the Twins, Angels win over Boston. Anaheim loses to Twins. Twins win over Milwaukee. Why is this my favorite? Because I hate advertisers, and no one outside of Minnesota, Milwaukee, and those few absolute fans of baseball will watch that series. No one. And it will be sweet.

Hilarity and Madden 2009

2008-09-29T20:58:00.002-05:00

I got Madden '09 this week. A few things:

1) It seems to be fucking impossible to get a sack in this game. Any time I get within grabbin' distance of the opposing pansy, he gets a magical pass off to his chosen WR. Gets my blood a-boilin'.

2) Running is a bitch.

3) Goddamn, but the corners in this game are fast. Can't pass into any coverage at all, lest I get picked off.

4) I really love the Battle Red uniforms (sans the red pants, of course).

I played a franchise season as the Texans. I just simmed through the regular season. Amazingly, the Texans went 10-6, making a wild card berth. Won the wild card against the Chargers, then I took on the Colts. The AFC Championship was between the Texans and the Patriots, in what was a truly epic passing battle in the middle of a fucking thunderstorm. My opponents for the Super Bowl? The motherfucking Cowboys.

Haven't played that one yet. Promises to be pretty cool.

Here's the funny thing about the Madden simmed playoffs. The teams that made it to the quarter-finals:

AFC:
Texans (of course)
Colts
Patriots
Steelers

NFC (here's where it gets good):
Cowboys (fine)
49ers (huh?)
Saints (maybe, I guess)
Lions (wat?)

And they say that the NFC is the stronger conference. Yeah, right.