What's Your Final Four (II)?

As we did last year, the four blog contributors will post their final four picks here. Our readers are invited to post their picks in the comments. Closest to the pin gets bragging rights and our respect (not really).

Side Bar's Final Four:

Kansas, Kentucky, Villanova, Pitt
Kansas over Kentucky in the final

Cinderella: Montana, San Diego St.

Earlier-than-expected exits: Syracuse, Georgetown

Open Bar's Final Four:

Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse, ???
Kansas over Kentucky in the final

Cinderella: UTEP, Siena

Earlier-than-expected exits: Purdue, Villanova

I'm having more trouble with this year's bracket than I have with any in recent memory. For God's sake, man, I'm about to put freakin' Baylor in the Final Four. That just can't be right. All my above picks are subject to change, btw.

ChuckJerry's Final Four
Kansas, Syracuse, Wisconsin, Baylor
Kansas over Wisconsin in the final.
Cinderella: If Cornell can win their first round game (they got hosed on that matchup. Their former coach is the coach of Temple), then they could make a run at Kentucky in the third round.
Cinderella 2: OK St. I think Ohio State and G'Town are overrated. Also Siena I think will win a couple games. They lucked out getting Purdue in the first round.
Early exit: Kentucky (free throws will kill them. Write it down (I just did)), Maryland just isn't that good.

That Duke, Villanova, Baylor bracket is really weak. Baylor seems like the only logical choice. I feel you, Open Bar.

The Notorious LJT's Final Four
Kansas, Syracuse, Villanova, West Virginia
Syracuse over Villanova
Cinderella: Azmagoots & Chizzlewinks

More dumb predictions!

Last night was Opening Day for the 2009 baseball season, with the hated Braves topping the even-more-hated Phillies, 4-1. And on the heels of my incredibly prescient NCAA Tournament picks, I figured I'd throw out some more evidence here that humans cannot and should not predict the future.

NL East:

1. Mets
2. Phillies
3. Marlins
4. Braves
5. Nats

I'm fairly confident in my Nats placement; the others, not so much. This division should be a tight race all year, with the eventual winner maybe reaching only 88 wins or so. The top four teams are all good, but all have serious question marks. The improved Mets bullpen gives them the edge over the Phils, who have too many important players likely to downslide this year (Brad Lidge, Ryan "Mr. Overrated" Howard, Raul Ibanez, definitely Cole Hamels, who threw waaaaaay too many innings last year). The Braves season will depend on Larry Wayne Jones not getting hurt, which is like relying on Lucy not to move the football at the last second just this one time! The Marlins have a lot of young talent, but no one really knows how good most of them will play at this level. This team could possibly chase the wild card or battle the Nats for the cellar, depending on whether these kids can play or not.

NL Central:

1. Cubs
2. Cardinals
3. Brewers
4. Reds
5. Astros
6. Pirates

The Cubs' and Pirates' picks seem fairly secure, as Chicago is probably the NL's best team and the Pirates its worst. I think the Cards are due for a bump up this year, with Albert Pujols (somehow) still getting better and a returning Chris Carpenter. Granted, Carpenter's a huge mystery, but if he can approach his 2004-06 level (which is a lot to ask), he could make a huge difference. The Brewers lost C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets, which is too much quality starting pitching for even Prince Fielder, J.J. Hardy and (my dark horse MVP candidate) Ryan Braun to make up for. Braun may turn into the best hitter in the league if continues to improve at this rate (and someone offs Pujols). The Reds could surprise everyone and possibly even snatch the Wild Card if absolutely everything falls into place. They have an awesome young corps (Volquez, Votto, Bruce) who could break out, and if Harang and Arroyo can rediscover their past form, look out. Then again, they also have the worst hitter in baseball (Willy Taveras). And I don't know much about the Astros except that Lance Berkman's a really good hitter, Roy Oswalt should demand a trade, and Carlos Lee should ease up on the cheeseburgers.

NL West

1. Dodgers
2. Diamondbacks
3. Rockies
4. Giants
5. Padres

Again, the top pick was easy, so was the bottom, and the middle three are fairly interchangeable. I give the D-Backs the edge largely due to their dual aces, Brandon Webb and Dan Haren. But how will they score? They didn't re-sign Adam Dunn, and their top hitter, Mark Reynolds -- while knocking 28 dingers -- struck out 204 fucking times. Holy balls, that's a lot. The Rockies have an old guy who used to be awesome (Todd Helton), a few young guys who should become household names (Chris Iannetta, Troy Tulowitski), and one guy who looks like a steady, above-average player (Brad Hawpe); as for their pitching, it doesn't look good, with the only bright spot being Ubaldo Jimenez -- and he walked 103 guys last year. Yuck. The Giants added Randy Johnson so who cares I'm done writing about them. And poor Jake Peavy, stuck in San Diego with a team that wouldn't be able to score more than 1 or 2 runs against the 1990 TBO Just Video squad, which we all played on except Chuck who we wouldn't have wanted anyway.

AL East

1. Red Sox
2. Rays
3. yankees
4. Blue Jays
5. Orioles

The Red Sox pitching depth is astounding, and their lineup top to bottom is tough to beat. The best team in baseball, on paper at least. It's hard to see the Rays improving too much on last year's 97 wins, not in this division anyway. But they're probably the most fun team to watch, and if their younger players continue to improve, who knows how many they'll win. Picking the yanks third isn't out of bitterness; I really wonder whether Sabathia overthrew last year and whether his arm is shot for this year. A.J. Burnett has a recent injury history worthy of Larry Wayne Jones. Rivera (though still the man), Posada, Matsui, and Pettitte are all already old as fuck -- and that's "old" as in "for the earth," not for clubbing -- while Jeter and Damon are starting to downslide significantly. Teixeira is awesome, he could even win the MVP this year, but I don't think he'll be enough. The poor BJ's and Orioles don't have a chance, and who knows if they ever will. Then again, that's what everyone used to say about the Rays.

AL Central:

1. Indians
2. Twins
3. Royals
4. Tigers
5. White Sox

This division blows. A team here could tally only 85 wins and still take it. Which makes it kind of interesting I guess. Hey, the friggin' Royals might steal this thing, and they haven't won shit since Side Bar and I were on Cedar Lane Texaco. I don't feel like getting into this division too much, except to say that Cleveland's Grady Sizemore is one of the best players in baseball, but people don't know too much about him because:

• He plays in a small market.
• He hasn't hit .300 yet, and sports journalists still think that's more important than OPS-ing .876 while being one of the best center-fielders in the world.
  
• His dumbass manager still bats him leadoff, even though he clocked 33 dingers last year. This keeps his RBI total (another way-overrated stat) below 100, and thus beyond the notice of Joe Sportswriter.

AL West:

1. A's
2. Mariners
3. Angels
4. Rangers

You know what I said about the AL Central sucking? Ditto here. I feel like 87-88 wins will DEFINITELY claim this division, and it could be any of those top three. The A's starting rotation's average age is under 24, which sounds like they'll deal with some high-ups and low-downs this year. Matt Holliday was a great pickup, and I'd say the same about adding Nomar and Giambi if this were like eight years ago. The Mariners, with Endy Chavez, Franklin Gutierrez, and Ichiro, now have by far the best outfield in baseball -- which makes you wonder if Griffey will get any non-DH time. (He shouldn't.) The Angels have some bigger names and somehow they seem to get really lucky every year, but their top 3 starters are hurt right now and I hate the friggin' Angels especially Mike Scoscia so fuck him. The Rangers? Wow do they suck.

Odd notes:

One thing I'm interested to see this year is how the two leagues stack up during interleague play. The past few seasons, the AL has demolished the NL, but this year may be different. Sure, the three best teams in baseball (Red Sox, Rays, yankees) are all in the AL, but after that, there's a serious dropoff in quality. I'm not saying the NL will catch up entirely this year, but it seems as though the pendulum has at least started to swing back.

Quickly, on the Mets: It's quite strange following last year's horror to say that the part of this year's team I'm most confident in is the bullpen, but there you have it. That's also the biggest problem: What I'm most worried about is the guys who actually play 90 percent of the game -- the hitters and the starting pitchers. Sure, Johan, D-Dub, Reyes and Beltran are as close to locks as anyone, but after that is nothing but question marks (Maine, Pelfrey, Delgado, Church, Murphy), outright worries (Perez), and guys who fucking suck (Livan, Castillo, Schneider). Maybe it'll come together, who knows, but especially after the last two years, it's on those assholes to prove that they're worth the irrational amount of attention and emotion I squander every goddamn year. FUCKING WIN, JERKOFFS!

Also, this year bodes well for some wild and crazy trading, even before the July 31 deadline. With the recession, many small-market teams are gonna end up dumping salary, and fast if they're not doing well early. The Mets certainly need more bats and, especially, arms, but I just worry that they emptied the farm system last year to get Johan (which certainly wasn't a mistake, mind). Basically, if you're making a bunch of money playing for a team that isn't contending and/or located in New York, Boston, Chicago, or L.A., you will likely be on the trading block. I'll bet that most team rosters look far more different at the end of this year than they would had the recession not destroyed most teams' economic prospects.

With that last point in mind, it's particularly dumb to make these sorts of predictions this year, as we have no idea what players are going to play for which teams in six months. But I did it anyway, and if you're still reading all the way down here, dude, go outside. Live a little.

Award predictions:

It's always really stupid to do this, but what the hell.

NL MVP: Manny Ramirez (maybe: Ryan Braun)
NL Cy Young: Johan Santana (dark horse: Derek Lowe, dude looked sick last night)
NL Rookie: Jordan Schafer (homered in his first at-bat last night)

Best Pennant Race: East

AL MVP: Grady Sizemore (maybe: Mark Teixeira)
AL Cy Young: Scott Kazmir, because God hates the Mets (dark horse: one of the kids on the A's)
AL Rookie: Matt Wieters (this kid, the new catcher for the Orioles, is the next big star in MLB)

Best Pennant Race: East

Not to be an east-coast-bias guy, but the quality teams in both leagues seem saturated in the East divisions (Cubs and Dodgers excepted), which isn't to say that the other four divisions won't be close. It's just that -- at this point -- the teams aren't as good overall, so I'll be less interested in watching.

Post-season:

NL:

Division Series: Mets over Dodgers, Cubs over Phillies
NLCS: Mets over Cubs

AL:

Division Series: Red Sox over A's, Rays over Indians
ALCS: Red Sox over Rays

World Series:

Red Sox over Mets, with me slitting my wrists at how the Mets manage to blow a 3-1 series lead. ARGH!

What's Your Final Four?

I'm inviting all of my blog mates to post their Final Four selections so then someone will have bragging rights at the end of the tournament (probably Open Bar, who's got far more time to handicap this stuff).

ChuckJerry's Final Four
Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma
Pitt over Memphis in the final
Cinderella team: USC I'm going with VCU aka Virginia Commonwealth (I wanted to pick Gonzaga, but they're a 4 seed, and 10th in the nation)

Open Bar's Final Four
Um, weird, but Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma (though until the first game begins, I'll be checking espn.com constantly for updates on Ty Lawson, which may alter my fourth choice)
Pitt over Louisville in the final
Cinderella team: Western Kentucky

Notorious LJT's Final Four
Kansas, UConn, UNC and Duke
Duke over UConn in the Final
Cinderella Team: The Teaneck Highwaymen

Side Bar's Final Four
Pitt, UConn, Kansas, UNC
Pitt over UConn in the final
Cinderella Team: Marlyand

Prediction time, yay!

Yeah, that’s right, three exclamation points, what? Do something. Yeah, I thought so.

Anyway, after a goddamn eon or something, this fucking election is finally gonna be over tonight (well, hopefully). Side Bar laid down the first bet: 338-200 (for Obama, presumably).

Not bad, my Facebook-hating friend. I’ll take your 338 and raise you a North Carolina, which brings it to 353-185. I'll tack on a popular vote call to: 51.8%-46.3%.

And incidentally, if you run into anyone who gives you that “If Obama loses, I’m moving to Canada” thing, punch that person in the throat. That’s retarded. You can also kick their dog, if they have one and it’s in your immediate vicinity.

Anyway, here’s a lil’ clip from the lovely Faith who, by the by, is a Rhodes Scholar and a part-time Navy S.E.A.L. So I hear, anyway.

First, Obama Justice. Then, Justice Obama.

Remember back in December when the four of us endorsed Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States? And remember when he pulled off a huge upset to unseat Hillary Clinton as the heir apparent to the Democratic Party, and then ran an extraordinary presidential campaign, putting himself in position to win the presidency (which - barring a seismic shift in the current landscape - he will do about 24 hours from now)?

You do? Good. Now forget it. We're on to the next big thing.

As Open Bar has observed before, the Internet (ok, fine, the blogosphere (just puked in my mouth)) can be a cutthroat environment. Everyone wants to be first to report, predict, or develop something. Credibility comes from scooping others, or getting to the right result faster than anyone else. And so, confident in his victory tomorrow (JINX!) I am prepared to announce Barack Obama's next government job:

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

That's right. You heard it here first. Barack Obama will be the first black Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Here's why:

1). When he leaves office, Obama will be the second youngest former president in modern history. He will not reach the age of retirement until about a decade after he leaves office, even if he serves two full terms.

2). At some point during his post-presidency years, it is reasonable to assume that a Democratic president will have the opportunity to appoint someone to the Supreme Court. That's a stretch of 20-30 years, and I doubt the Republicans are going on that kind of streak.

3). Obama would be an ideal candidate. Barring a Bush-style presidency (I doubt it), or a Clinton-style scandal (I really doubt it), I think Obama can expect to leave office as a well-respected, if not adored, president. This would make him an easy confirmation, especially if there is a five- to ten-year lag between his departure from office and his nomination to the Court (ex-president's tend to become more and more popular with the passage of time. Even Nixon got a decent tribute when he died).

4). Obama would be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. As a constitutional law scholar, he would be at least as prepared to sit on the Court as some of his co-Justices (I'm looking at you, Justice Thomas).

5). The Chief Justice thing is a little bit more of a stretch, but I think it makes sense, given the respect accorded to former Presidents, that Obama would ascend to the Chief Justice's chair in the event of a vacancy. It also assumes that there will not be another black justice named to the Chief Justice position between now and . . . say, 2020, which is also a tad presumptive on my part.

There is some precedent for this. Obama would not be the first American to lead both the executive and judicial branches of the federal government. William Taft was the twenty-seventh President of the United States, and the tenth Chief Justice of the United States.

Anything can happen in the next eight years (shit, anything can happen in the next eight hours) that would preclude this from happening, but I think it is a real possibility. Obama is going to prove himself to be an intellectual president on the order of Clinton (who would almost certainly be talked about for a seat on the Court if he hadn't been disbarred), and his post-presidential years are not going to be spent lecturing to law students in Chicago. It's just not prestigious enough for a former president. Absent a return to the Senate (which I wouldn't rule out), or a Carter/Clinton-type bid for a Nobel Prize, bank on the Supreme Court for Justice Obama.

A Conversation With the Next President

A hypothetical interview with Barack Obama, November 7, 2008, on the Today Show with Matt Lauer.

ML: Good morning Mr. President-elect, first off let me congratulate you on being elected the forty-fourth President of the United States, and on being the very first African-American in our nation's history to hold that office. Can you describe how you feel at this moment?

BO: Thank you so much, Matt. Of course there is a range of emotions that accompanies such an awesome responsibility, but I think the two that rise to the top are humility and gratitude. I am grateful to my family, my friends, my staff, and the thousands of volunteers who made this campaign a success. And I am humbled by the trust the American people have placed in me, and I am honored to serve. We are going to do our best, and like we've said all along, Matt, we're fired up and ready to go.

ML: Your success today is at the same time the failure of another man. What did you say to John McCain when he called you yesterday afternoon to tell you he was not going to challenge to the certification of votes in Ohio and was conceding the race to you?

BO: Well first of all Matt I would disagree with your characterization of John McCain's campaign as a failure. John McCain received over 50 million votes in this election, and should be commended for the fine race that he ran. I think it says a lot about our country that so many Americans wanted to be heard in this election, and clearly we need to reach out to the millions of Americans who voted for my opponent. I am going to answer to them for the next four years just as I am going to answer to the millions of Americans who voted for me.

ML: You mentioned the total vote tally, and of course you defeated Senator McCain by almost 10 million votes in the popular vote. But the electoral college was a different story, and were it not for your victory in Ohio, I might be having this conversation with Sen. McCain. What does it say about our electoral system that someone could win the popular vote so overwhelmingly, but just barely secure a win in the electoral college? And what would have been your reaction if you had lost in Ohio, giving Senator McCain the presidency despite your large margin in the popular vote?

BO: Well fortunately Matt we don't have to have that conversation this morning; we won not only the popular vote but also the electoral vote now that Senator McCain has decided not to challenge the certification of the vote in Ohio. It is of course troubling that the will of the American people might be thwarted in this way, the way it was in 2000, and it is something we will have to look at as a nation. This is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue. The electoral college serves the important purpose of ensuring that all Americans are heard and are relevant in the most important decision we can make as a nation, but we also need to make sure that no person or group of people has a disproportionate say over the election of a president.

ML: Let's talk about Ohio for a moment. On Wednesday morning, we awoke to yet another Presidential election that could not be decided on election night. The count in Ohio was within 0.1%, in your favor, which under state law meant that a recount was mandatory. At the same time, the McCain campaign raised allegations of improper counts in heavily Democratic counties. When the recount was over, you were ahead by less than 10,000 votes, and some members of the McCain campaign said privately that they were confident that they could have at least twice that number of votes disqualified in Cuyahoga County if they could make their case to a Federal judge. Did you win in Ohio, and was it fair?

BO: Yes and yes, Matt. We won Ohio by about 9,000 votes. It was a hard fought campaign, and we owe a lot to Vice President-elect Strickland for his tireless efforts in his home state. Not only did we win, we won fairly. The votes in Ohio were counted twice, and each time we came out ahead --

ML: -- but what about the McCain campaign's allegations that they could have votes in Cleveland disqualified --

BO: Well Matt I cannot tell you today what some supporters of John McCain think they could have done had the Senator elected to drag this nation through months of litigation and over the manner in which ballots were cast and votes were counted. While the McCain campaign was exploring its options in Ohio, we were looking at Virginia and Florida. We lost both of those states by tremendously narrow margins, but we lost them nonetheless. We had already decided that we would not challenge those results because of the uncertainty and prolonged animosity that would result from another election decided in the courts. I think John McCain was equally unwilling to put the country through such an ordeal, and I think he is to be commended for recognizing that our lead in Ohio was sufficient to withstand any legal challenge, to win the state, and therefore the election.

ML: Switching to Iraq. Over the last few months, the situation on the ground has deteriorated rapidly, with a new insurgency challenging Iraqi forces, and American soldiers remaining caught in the middle. What is the solution, and to what extent is President Bush required to consult with you on the conduct of the Iraq war between now and your inauguration in January?

BO: Well first off Matt, President Bush is the President of the United States until January 20, 2009. While I look forward to the opportunity to sit down with President Bush and ensure a smooth transition -- especially during this dangerous time for our troops and our nation -- the conduct of the Iraq war is ultimately his responsibility --

ML: -- but what if he wants to send in more troops despite your intention to withdraw troops --

BO: Well Matt we have said for a the last year that we would like to begin bringing the troops home, but the time and manner in which we do so will of course have to be dictated by circumstances on the ground. Having said that, I think it would be very unfortunate if President Bush were to send more troops to Iraq at a time when we need to be disengaging from that country. I've said all along that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. An increase in troop levels now will do nothing to secure the American people. That is George Bush's number one responsibility today, and it will be my number one responsibility come January 20, 2009.

ML: Would you make any efforts to stop him from sending more troops to Iraq before he leaves office?

BO: Together with all Americans I would try to persuade President Bush that such a move would be ill-conceived and ill-time, but as President-elect I have no constitutional authority to do anything more.

ML: Speaking of the Constitution, three weeks ago today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas announced his intention to retire at the expiration of the current Supreme Court term, which ends in June of 2009. Many have speculated that this was a political maneuver intended to mobilize support on the right for John McCain's struggling campaign. Do you believe Justice Thomas will retire at the end of the next term, and if so, how will you go about replacing him?

BO: Matt I take Justice Thomas at his word, and I have never believed that his announcement was political. However, until he resigns from the Court, whenever that may be, he is a sitting member of a co-ordinate branch of government and I wouldn't be inclined to say more on the topic than what I've said already.

ML: But if he does resign, there will be no African-Americans left on the Court. Would you feel obligated to replace him with a black Justice?

BO: Absolutely not. If an when there is any vacancy on the Court, we will conduct a thorough search for the most qualified candidate, whoever that may be. We will look for jurists who recognize that the Constitution does not present us with static, immutable rules, but rather with fixed principles that have to be applied dynamically as our nation progresses and develops. My political opponents would accuse me of supporting judicial activism, but I think that's wrong. We need Supreme Court Justices who understand that the brilliance of our founders lay not in the creation of a set of commandments that would hold true in all circumstances, but rather in the formulation of an organic, living Constitution that is hard-wired to accommodate and adapt to evolution in our society and ourselves.

ML: Switching to the economy, you were opposed to the so-called "gas tax holiday" that your opponent supported throughout the campaign. It never got any traction in Congress, due in part to the fact that Democrats would not support a measure opposed by their candidate for President. With the national average for a gallon of gas now approaching $5.50, do you think you made a mistake in opposing some form of tax relief for motorists?

BO: Matt the gas tax holiday would have provided -- at best -- a few extra dollars per family at a time when our roads and bridges are crumbling. I was not willing to promise Americans a short-term solution at great long-term cost. I think most Americans recognized the proposed gas tax holiday for what it was. Our solution to the energy crisis is not going to come in the form of a one-time tax break of $80 or $90. The only way out is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through alternative and renewable sources of energy, and to change the way we consume fossil fuels.

ML: President-elect Barack Obama, thank you for your time this morning, and congratulations on your historic victory.

BO: Thank you Matt.


What? A man can dream, can't he?

The Mets and the Mean

I think that I have been about as critical of the Mets as anyone so far this year, and Open Bar and I have been saying for a while now that it is a mistake to expect much out of this team (as he already noted). But I think it is still a little premature to write them off, especially given what happened last year. Coincidentally, or not, on May 24, 2007, the Phillies were under .500, in fourth place in the NL East, and 6.5 games out of first (as are the Mets today, almost exactly one year later). And on that same date, the Rockies, Diamondbacks and Cubs (the three other 2007 NL playoff teams), were in last place, third place and second place, respectively. On June 1, 2007, none of the eventual NL playoff teams was in first place and only one of them was over .500 on that date. It was not until July 28, 2007, that the first of these four teams - the Diamondbacks - made it in to first place in their division (tied with LA on that date). And of course, as we all know, the last NL playoff team to take first place in their division was the Phillies (I just stabbed myself in the leg with a No. 3 pencil).

Of course, a number of surprising things had to happen for the Phillies and Rockies to get in, and for the Padres and Mets to fall out (side note: the Padres seem to be getting an absolute free ride here; they collapsed just like the Mets last year, and they suck just like the Mets this year. I know, I know, payroll. But still). I am hardly suggesting that we can count on other teams in the NL East to fall apart at the end of the season, but 6.5 games (six in the loss column) is hardly insurmountable with more than 100 left to play.

I think part of the explanation here is that, while it is impossible to resist the temptation to do so, it just is not appropriate to draw major conclusions based on a team's performance for just over a quarter of a season. In that span, you can see numbers that won't carry through for a whole year. Start with the Phillies. They are a solid team, and played a lot of their best baseball this year without reigning NL MVP, Jimmy Rollins. But their offense is still playing over its head: Chase Utley and Pat Burrell were both putting up unsustainable numbers for a while, and both have started to descend back to earth. Ryan Howard will improve, but strikes out too much. Neither Chris Coste nor Greg Dobbs can continue to hit in the .340's forever. On paper, our pitching staff is still better than theirs (even without an effective Pedro).

The Marlins are a great story, but have too many young pitchers to compete down the stretch. Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez are both going to have solid careers, but I would still take Reyes and Beltran for the long term (yes, I really would). Watch for this team to begin to fade shortly before the All-Star Break.

The Braves actually scare me more than anyone else in this division. Their pitching might prove to be competitive for the full year: Hudson is on par with Santana, Jair Jurrjens (or whatever) looks legit, Glavine will be serviceable, and their other starters have all performed pretty well. Their offense is solid (Chipper will cool off, but won't struggle), and their bullpen looks good (at least against us). They can't win on the road, which seems odd, but might correct itself by the end of the year.

The point is that while each of these teams has undeniably played better than the Mets, each of them has done so with almost all of their players performing at or above expectations. With the exceptions of Ryan Church and Billy Wagner, I think it is fair to say that every met has underperformed reasonable expectations for the year so far. Wright and Santana are close calls, but I think we could have expected better than 5-3 with 932 home runs out of Santana, and I know that Wright's numbers look decent right now, but other than one weekend when he was on an absolute tear in Philly, he has not been playing at his highest level.

The rest of the team is really just miserable. Beltran, Reyes, and Delgado have all disappointed, and it is reasonable to expect Maine and Perez to last longer than the fifth inning. I am pretty sure Mike Pelfrey really is that bad, so forget him.

I am not saying that I expect the Mets to make the playoffs, but I am saying that if everyone in the NL East regresses to the mean over a full season, I think we can expect it to be a bit closer, and the Mets to play a bit better. I can accept and admit that they may not be the best team in the division, but I struggle to believe that this is really a .500 team.

Nostra-Side Bar

Now I recognize that sports prognostication is pointless: you take some outrageous position (the "Giants are the team to beat in the Superbowl this year!"), and then if it comes true you want to take credit and be loved for your foresight, but when it proves as ridiculous as it sounded, you simply shrug it off. Mike Francesa and Chris Russo have made millions of dollars on this dynamic.

All that said, I want a little bit of credit for this (scroll down to prediction #10).

10. Barry Bonds Will Not Go Away. Remember that girl you hooked up with freshman year in college? You felt weird about it within weeks, because something was just off, and it only got worse, because you realized sophomore year that no one likes her, she's kind of ugly, and kind of a bitch. A few years later she is sitting next to you at graduation, your mom is talking to her mom, and they both want to know if the two of you have met.

Watching Chris Berman call Barry Bonds' record-breaking home run shot on a Tuesday night in August against the Nationals is going to be much more awkward.

This was posted in March of 2007. Barry Bonds broke the record on Tuesday (night), August 7, 2007. Against the Nationals.

(Incidentally, this was one of my better posts of all time, and it was my first. I've clearly lost a step. Chan Ho Park? That was fucking gold).

And no, conspiracy theorists, I did not go back and change the post; I have better things to do with my time (like reading old posts on this blog?).

Adios

Yo, Alberto Gonzalez is going down. Stick a fork in him. Write it down, take a picture, I don't give a fuck.

These nine federal prosecutors being fired, as handled by Dubya, has got to be one of the worst-managed scandals of all time.

A President can fire any one of the 93 federal prosecutors whenever he or she wants. They serve at the President's "pleasure". I also feel like the President or Executive Branch should be able to place more emphasis on certain - crimes to a point - than others may - like one may be very a bit more or aggressive in prosecuting, say, drugs or illegal immigration or whatever.

So when this story first began, I really didn't pay much attention to it and I don't think I totally even understand it right now. When the story first broke, it was like, "Oh whatever, some people got fired". I figured, well they can do that...but then came the explanations. Had they just said their usual - "fuck you, because we can" this thing may not have had legs.

But then the Bush Administration said they didn't know or do anything about it. OK, maybe Harriet Myers did but Gonzalez didn't, then he knew but wasn't involved, then - oh yea - he was in a meeting for an hour about it. I guess it's depends on what the meaning of "involved" is. Hmmmm.

Oh yea, his Deputy resigned, a staff member is pleeing the fifth....and did I mention Karl Rove may have been involved? Good times.

If you've been alive and remotely awake the last six-plus years, probably can see something smells funny. My shoes are on as I write this, so it's not me.

What evidently happened is that these people were fired (or at least a few of them) because they did or didn't prosecute certain cases or groups of cases that affected close races. Did you prosecute 'Duke' Cunningham or Tom Delay? Did you not go after voter registration fraud claims that you didn't think were credible? Yeah, you're probably not going to make it to the 2007 Justice Department Christmas Party. What's that, the FBI didn't think you should have prosecuted the voter fraud case? Tough shit, kid.

While I am comfortable giving the Administration some leeway in this area, I am definitely not comfortable with them leveraging US attorneys to sway close political races.

Flag on the play - Bush Adminstration - Illegal motion - that'll be one Attorney General and that last bit of credibility you had.

First Down!

Play Ball!

So this is my first post to our group blog. The blog was formed as a sort of news magazine type concept, where each of us will focus on a particular area of interest (with the occasional digression). I'm doing sports, and will attempt to write a "sports guy" type thing that is different enough so people don't say, "I guess he's kind of like the sports guy, but not nearly as funny and definitely doesn't know as much about sports."

I think that at times I may write about somewhat more narrow and perhaps mundane topics (e.g., complaining the morning after a particularly bad Mets' loss, or typing "I told you so" 150 times when Eli goes 28-34 for 400 yds and 5 touchdowns on Monday Night Football (coming sooner than you think), and things like that), but given that the MLB season is right around the corner, I thought I would try out a few prognostications. I promise to re-post in October to check out my stats.

Five Things That Will Happen Even Though I Don't Want Them To:

1. The Mets Will Make The Playoffs, And Not Win The World Series. You can't deny it. This team is built to win for a long season, and lose in a short series. The offense is terrifying to any opponent -- especially in a division with only a handful of other bona fide superstars (see number 4, below) -- and can put up five runs in the blink of an eye. But the offense is also not as young as everyone wants you to believe (Delgado at first, Lo Duca behind the plate (and el Padre de Tiempo backing him up), Alou and Green in the corners), and these guys will naturally slow down towards the end of the year. Worse than that, though, the only proven pitching is geriatric, and the Mike Pelfrey's of the world haven't really shown us anything yet (side note: he looked really good against Baltimore tonight; hope springs eternal). Remeber the playoffs last year? "Glavine, Maine and pray for rain." Cute. Omar better pull a rabbit out of his hat before the trade deadline, or we're going to be saying it again this year. And it won't be as cute. The next person who tells me that Oliver Perez might ever be good again is getting punched -- you've been warned. Chan Ho Park? Stop it. Unless he is buying the naming rights to the new stadium, I don't want to hear Chan Ho Park and the Mets in the same sentence.

What are we going to do when we are spot-starting Scott Erickson in game 3 against the Astros? Exactly.

2. El Duque's Leg Will Fall Off In A Pre-Game Warm Up. Further to the above, the pitching this year is scaring the hell out of me. As someone wrote on metsblog.com the other day (great stuff for die hards, by the way), "El Duque will be fine as long as he doesn't have to run to first, field his position, or ever walk from the clubhouse to the dugout. Oh sh*t."

3. The Mets Will Decide That Victor Zambrano "Has Totally Turned It Around." If you are a Mets fan, see the response to number 5, below. Otherwise, you don't care about this at all except to the extent that you can point it out to me and make me puke.

4. Ryan Howard Will Hit 138 Home Runs (Half Of Which Will Be Off Billy Wagner In the Ninth Inning of A Game I Am Attending). Howard is amazing. While he is very high on the "This Guy Totally Has Kevin Maas Written All Over Him" meter, I think he is the real thing, and he has been doing it long enough (over a year) to shush the Maas talk into a whisper. The New York Times did a great profile on him, his family, and his approach to the game, and it sucked because all I want is to hate this guy, and you just can't. By all accounts he is a great guy, has never touched the performance enhancement stuff (side note: the subject of a separate post will be the witch hunt in baseball re: steroids, and the fact that you are either clean or not based on whether Mike Francesa has ever said (in that fat, doughy whisper of his): "we can never know, but no way this guy's not juicin', dawg." Puke. (side note to the side note: the post after that will be about how quickly making fun of Mike and The Mad Dog went from funny to cliche to just lame)), and can hit the ball 850 feet. Scares me to death when the Mets are facing him in a tough situation. Hey Willie . . . get those four fingers out of your pocket right now.

5. Barry Bonds Will Break Hank Aaron's Legendary Home Run Record. "Wait a minute," you're thinking, "this one isn't really as funny as the others. It's just sad, true and kind of a bummer." Yep.

(Impossible to entirely hate Phillies fans by the way . . . the above gets a 9.2 on the creative-enough-to-make-other-smart-drunk-guys-laugh-at-pro-sporting-events scale).

Five Things That Will Not Happen Even Though I Want Them To:

6. The Yankees Will Not Miss The Playoffs. Just deal with it.

7. Dice-K Will Not Win 30 Games And Throw Six No-Hitters Against The Yankees. (He may engage in some sort of dragon-themed battle with Hideki Matsui, in which the movement of their lips does not correspond with the words they are speaking, which would be cool, but I digress). First, Dice-K? Come on. Let's be a little more creative. Even the hot dog guy has cooler nicknames than that. (side note: how long before some enterprising 14 year-old Yankee fan unfurls a banner at Yankee Stadium that reads "Dai-SUCK-e Matsuzaka"? Clever). I know he comes highly touted, but the excitement about him rewriting the dynamic between the Sox and the Yanks for the next five years is just irresponsible journalism borne of the fact that there is nothing to write about in Spring Training. This guy will be good, yes, but to quote the Wolf in Pulp Fiction . . . .

And speaking of irresponsible journalism . . .

8. Bob Klapisch Will Not Be Fired. This guy is the most irresponsible, band wagon writer in the New York media. I understand that they all go with the flow, and flip around a bit to suit their columns to fit current events, but this guys goes too far. When the Mets lose two in a row he wants Willie fired, when they then proceed to win a game or two he is using words like "Cooperstown" and "dynasty." Despite all this, he seems to be getting more play lately (ESPN.com, for example), rather than less. Beat it Bob.

9. SNY Will Continue To Broadcast Road Mets Games In Lo Def Even In The Ballpark Of A Team That Plays In Hi Def. Ok, so this one needs a little explanation, but if you are (a) a big sports fan, and (b) the proud owner of an HDTV, then I KNOW you are with me here. Scenario: Mets playing a road series in say, San Diego. You know for a fact that Padres home games are broadcast in high definition in the San Diego area, so you can conclude that they have hi def cameras and what not in the stadium at the time the game is being played. Despite all this, the game you are watching on SNY is in the lowest of lo def of all time . . . David Wright looks about as well defined as Sir Graham pulling the dagger out from under the rock on a CGA monitor (side note: give yourself five points if you picked up on the Sir Graham reference ("push rock" -- that sh*t never got old)).

("Wright stands in against Wells . . . the count is 2-2")

10. Barry Bonds Will Not Go Away. Remember that girl you hooked up with freshman year in college? You felt weird about it within weeks, because something was just off, and it only got worse, because you realized sophomore year that no one likes her, she's kind of ugly, and kind of a bitch. A few years later she is sitting next to you at graduation, your mom is talking to her mom, and they both want to know if the two of you have met.

Watching Chris Berman call Barry Bonds' record-breaking home run shot on a Tuesday night in August against the Nationals is going to be much more awkward.