Covering The Table

Covering the table

It's just cruel to the forces of fortune to put me in front of a Roulette table. The strategy here is called 'covering the table'. On a table with one green zero the payout is 36:1. So, if I cover every number, betting $35, EXCEPT for 2 number...in this case 28 and 30, then I'm betting $35 to make $1 on a payout of $36. It's a ridiculous bet, to wager $35 in order to profit $1. Ok, but the strategy is simply to turn the odds in your favor so you are winning more often.

I've tried another system on Roulette called the Martingale system where I chose Black and then doubled my bet every loss. I concluded that 6 consecutive loses will either brake my bank or I will reach the table limit and can't bet enough to win back my losses. It's a brutal game...basically 50:50 odds it will come up black and to lose 6 consecutive times is amazing. What is even more amazing is that I have yet to win. Within 5 or 6 bets, after a few wins, I will go on the streak of losing 6 straight and that breaks my bank. See, the Martingale system works for lucky people. In my case, I will lose and then double my bet. $1 becomes $2...lose...then $2 becomes $4...lose...then $4 becomes 8...lose... Then $8 becomes 16...lose...then $16 becomes $32...lose...and lastly $32 becomes a $64 dollar bet....which I lose. The investment is $127 in order to win $128...or $1 profit which is called a 'coup' since that's the original bet amount. At that point I will need to bet $128 in order to simply win back my own losses plus $1. It's very predictable in a way that should not be predictable. In the screenshot you can actually see the streak of 6 that broke my bank before I went to the cover the table strategy. 6 consecutive losses is all that it takes.

If you can make a $128 bet to profit $1 then Vegas is the place you should go because my conclusion is that the whole essence of gambling is based on that insanity. In gambling you will eventually be asked to make a huge bet for an insignificant profit, if only in a vain attempt to break even. This is guaranteed.

Well, I don't want to talk about merely bad luck of 6 straight 50/50 losses. I want to talk about an amazing run of bad luck where I covered the table, picked 35 numbers out of 37 possibilities...AND LOST 3 STRAIGHT TIMES. Yes, reader, in the screen shot you see I did not cover #28 and #30...and #28 was the number that came up. Ok, well, you will have to take my word that the previous two attempts I had covered different numbers and chose to omit #15...and Lost...and in the previous game I omitted the Green Zero...AND LOST. Three straight bank busters. My interest in mathematics faltered exactly around the time we got in probability equations so I don't want to 'prove' how bad my luck is. Just accept that I had 35 numbers of 37 covered...so 105 numbers of a possible 111 and the ball dropped into one of those 6 omitted numbers THREE STRAIGHT TIMES. 

This is the whole problem with gambling is that once the losses are recorded, my whole grind strategy WILL NEVER RECOUP THE LOSSES even with amazingly good luck. See? I could go on an incredible streak with the same strategy, but I just lost $105...and I'm betting in order to profit a single dollar. So, I will need to win 106 times in a row in order to break even. Statistically, I think it's possible to win 106 times in a row if I cover the table, but I just defied the odds with three straight losses so why do I think my odds will even out?

Baseball Ethics

I'm going back to my roots now with an essay on Baseball. I don't want to get overly sentimental or nostalgic but I have a long history with the game.
And Pete Rose is a figure from the past that periodically pops up. He was part of the studio commentator for FOX Sports this past post season and others correctly said he reminded them of 'my drunk uncle' with his slurred ramblings on hitting and pitching. Most players are careful with their words but Rose obviously is never wrong when it comes to baseball. So back in 1989 it was exposed that he was gambling on baseball, which is prohibited by baseball rules, and he was gambling on games he was coaching, and probably gambled on games he had played in. There are some obvious ethics issues because even if you 'always bet your team to win' then it will affect how your relieve pitchers...or if you took the over or under (total score) or specifics. It's classic rabbit hole of bad ethics because you suddenly control the game that you have bet on and if you have insider information on your pitching staff then you can bet with that information on your side. It's a testament to how confident Vegas Bookies are that they would take bets from the person involved in managing the team they are betting on. Vegas is confident because they aren't trying to beat a single person, they are trying to 'middle' the line so it can go either way...and that way 50% of people lose and 50% win...and the VIG is the profit. Vegas doesn't want to 'win'. No, they already know they will win the VIG, which is enough. They simply want to speculate on the lines in such a fashion that one incomplete pass, one missed field goal, one interception or fumble, one injury is the difference in the game and no one can predict those intangibles before the game. Well, Vegas can predict them in a way that will leave you heartbroken if you want to get into sports gambling. It's evil and addictive and all wrong for the sport, but it's not going anywhere. So, I pity Rose for having a personality that suited itself to the delusion of thinking oneself superior to Vegas bookmakers. I guarantee Rose lost more than he won and probably lost millions.

MLB recently rejected Rose's appeal to lift the ban. And even though he was banned for life, the current commissioner seemed to suggest that there were conditions that Rose could meet and the ban would be lifted. But Rose has not met those conditions, such as amending his ways, penitence, sorrow, etc. And this can't really be denied because even though most of the world only knows Rose through his commentary stints, it is clear he's no different than he was in 1989. But seated a few feet from Rose was the villainous Alex Rodriguez, who demonstrated equally abominable conduct on and off the field, but 'played the game' when it came time to serve his suspension and acted regretful, etc. It's all bullshit. Rose and ARod are no different at heart. Most players are looking out for themselves. ARod is not banned from baseball.

This is all kind of pointless since Rose doesn't want to coach or play. The only issue is if he's eligible for the Hall of Fame, which is actually a separate entity involving journalists, but since 1991 they have agreed that those people who have been banned from baseball will also not be eligible for Hall of Fame induction. Rose holds the all-time hit record and if you watch a highlights reel of him you see him running to first base on a walk, which is something no other player does. Today, a walk means the player will take off all the armor they wore to the plate and then jug/walk toward the base. Most walk the entire way.

Should the ban be lifted? Yes, and it's simply because as a player Rose was the best example of a true love of the game. No, he didn't really care about other players, he wasn't nice, he was interested in winning for his own purposes. But he has to be on everyone's all-time team list simply because when he played he was playing to win and he played his hardest on every play. That's all you can ask and it qualifies him for Baseball. A lifetime ban is something completely different...I don't even know what would deserve a lifetime ban. There's a list of people banned and they are mostly drug users and gamblers. But the silliness of banning someone with vague conditions, like, have you learned your lesson? I don't get that because it sounds very grade school to me, something in 4th grade. As adults we have to accept that suspensions and punishments should be pro-active. Some good should come out of it. Sure, Rose bet on baseball and he probably lost a ton of money, so we're going to punish him for losing money? You think he wanted to lose money? He loved winning games more than he loved winning money. Any gambler will tell you there is no joy in winning money because it immediately comes with the realization of how much you've lost and how deep in the hole you still are and...hey is the line moving on NY? I'll take the Over. It's instantly forgotten and only the high of betting is where the thrill lies. The winning or losing is totally meaningless. It's the action. So, Rose deserved to be suspended, certainly. But lift the ban and let the teams decide if they want to hire him. That's a decision they will make on their own. Let the Journalists decide if he belongs in the Hall of Fame. It's too much power in the Commissioner's hands to execute a person's career like this. He can suspend them and investigate, but that's all he can do. Consider that Rose was losing $10,000 a day gambling...and maybe $25,000 a week. If he were getting rich of gambling then we could lynch him, but he was losing consistently. So, either he was betting against his own team...and accidentally coaching to win...or he was betting in favor of his team and then losing despite his best efforts. Either way, he sucked at gambling and ultimately played and coached as a competitor, not a gambler.

The last comment I want to make is on ticket scalping. Stub Hub is a ticket brokering network where people can buy tickets at premium rates. Season ticket holders sell their own tickets...and a $17 seat ends up costing $250. This practice is ignored by the Commissioner, who pretends to be interested in integrity. Fine, let's talk about integrity. Let's talk about $1000 for a family to go see a baseball game. How is that good for baseball? I ask you. It's no good and it's within the power of the Commissioner to change it for the integrity of baseball. Will they? No, because they don't care about the fan, they only care about money, which makes them 10x worse than Pete Rose, who was addicted to winning.

I ask you this, The Red Sox remained segregated, despite horrible win-loss record, for 14 years after baseball was desegregated. The 1st Commissioner of baseball, Kenesaw Landis did not oppose desegregation of baseball but he could not force a team to hire a black player. Isn't it possible to look at Pete Rose the same way? To investigate and publicize your findings, but then let the teams and journalists decide what to do. Rose was making bets from the dugout, so I assume the Reds management knew he was gambling, but they decided it was better for baseball to let him remain a coach.

Baseball is no more devoted to integrity than before, so don't be fooled. Baseball cares about money. Pete Rose cares about Pete Rose. Stub Hub cares about Stub Hub. They can talk about integrity, but there is very little in practice and Pete Rose is simply a scapegoat poster child of what happens when you don't play nice and get put in the corner. It's my belief that the game can be cleaned up in many ways to provide fans a better opportunity for honest entertainment.

Obstruction

That Mets person is a coach, not a player, and that is obstruction. Wilson should be called out.

World Series has arrived and if MLB promotion ads want to repeatedly equate the '86 Buckner error with the Mets winning the world series then I want to point something out:

Rule: 7.09 "It is interference by a batter or a runner when --(h) With a runner on third base, the base coach leaves his box and acts in any manner to draw a throw by a fielder; "


4.05
(a) The offensive team shall station two base coaches on the field during its term at bat, one near first base and one near third base.
(b) Base coaches shall be limited to two in number and shall (1) be in team uniform, and (2) remain within the coach’s box at all times.
PENALTY: The offending base coach shall be removed from the game, and shall leave the playing field.
Rule 4.05 Comment: It has been common practice for many years for some coaches to put one foot outside the coach’s box or stand astride or otherwise be slightly outside the coaching box lines. The coach shall not be considered out of the box unless the opposing manager complains, and then, the umpire shall strictly enforce the rule and require all coaches (on both teams) to remain in the coach’s box at all times.
It is also common practice for a coach who has a play at his base to leave the coach’s box to signal the player to slide, advance or return to a base. This may be allowed if the coach does not interfere with the play in any manner.

In the Game 6 incident, the Mets First base coach, is Bill Robinson, is approximately 10 feet beyond the limit of where a coach can go, he has intentionally moved to distract Buckner, who is a mere 6 feet from him, instead of the 15 feet the field coach is supposed to be. It's inexcusable considering the situation for a coach to interfere with the players. That coach can do nothing but interfere with the play standing where he is. When Buckner overran the ball he almost collided with the Mets coach who had to bounce back out of the way and scurried like a cockroach to join the celebration at home. I've seen first base coaches move up and down the line but rarely will you ever see a first base coach actually in the same location as a defensive player with the ball in play. Usually they run away from the ball but in the case of Wilson's groundball, the first base coach ran toward Buckner intentionally trying to distract him. This was not caught by the home field umps. the Sox didn't protest, but it's clearly obstruction by the first base coach, who would've collided with Stanley and Wilson had the ball been fielded by Buckner. Since all the Mets were coke and crack fiends I'm sure this can be blamed on mid-eighties drug addiction.

I would not bring this up but MLB wants to shove that play in my face repeatedly during the World Series so I have to say something. This gets into the realm of the pine tar incident, except for the fact the field coach is truly trying to distract Buckner's peripheral vision because he has the same uniform as Wilson, who is running, so Buckner might think there is a player 6 feet away from him and has already reached first base, but it's not. Wilson is way down the line. Simply a dirty move by the dirty Mets coach. I can say definitively that Mets manager Davey Johnson did not influence that play and I can say the home plate ump didn't influence that play, but I can not say definitively that Bill Robinson did not influence that play, and since he is a coach and had no business on that side of the coach's box, he is guilty of obstruction and the Mets are cheats with a giant * next to that '86 win.

P.S. I was real pleased that the Mets were 2 outs from winning Game 1 tonight and managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Bravo Royals! It's weird, but Game 6 in 1986 was played on October 25, and because of the ALDS and Wildcard the 2015 World Series didn't even start until October 28th.

Extreme Sports

I think when George Mallory was asked, "Why climb Everest?" and he replied "Because it's there." he was really referring to his Ego. 

He said, "I want to travel light and take the summit by surprise," and the translation of that is ,"We paid an army of poor sherpas from our oppressed colony to carry our shit for us, but we'll take all the credit in the end."

Mallory might've reached the summit but he took that secret with him when he died on the mountain and his body is up there still along with the corpses of many others.

I watched the movie Everest the other day. It is based on the true events of the bungled summit attempt by about 50 thrill seekers in 1996. There was probably a little bit of editorializing and exaggeration, but that's only because this unknown director didn't quite grasp there is no need to exaggerate anything that happens at 28,000 ft. Like there are no average days for a human in outer space. If you tape a cocktail straw between your lips and use only it to breath, while running a marathon, then you might get the idea of what it's like to operate at that altitude, but this grave effort is only brushed over along with ridiculous cinematic conventions such as removing ones goggles and mask in sub zero temps so the audience knows who is talking...but I can ignore that.

 I've been reflecting on this topic of extreme sports, considering opening a Los Angeles guide service that walks you through a month on Skid Row. Escorted heroin addiction. The complete package will include starting out living in a van that will be confiscated by the police in a midnight raid while you are suffering from food poisoning. The police will club you and mace your eyes while you plead for medical attention. You will wind up sharing a cardboard box with a lunatic, wearing unisex pajamas in 30 degree temps and rain. Why not? Driving the Pan American Highway is a breeze compared to living on the streets of Austin where I was a false move from either being gunned down in the street, wrongfully convicted of murder and executed, or mugged and killed, not to mention heat stroke. The stress was very high and there was no Embassy to call for relief, the chance of 'disaster' was also very high. And if someone paid me $65K for the chance to spend a month living in 125 degree heat, dodging pimps, meth heads and trigger happy cops you would be right to call them crazy. One day I lugged 200 pound sheets of masonite into a church attic for 10 hours, tore all the skin off my arm, ate a single uncooked Ramen noodle packet for my entire calorie consumption, and earned about $22, which all went in my gas tank, and then was interrogated by the police for an hour with guns aimed at my temple, while they tried to get me to do something suspicious so they could arrest or execute me. Believe me, after my work day there was no fight left in me. I sincerely didn't care if they executed me or not and the cops eventually went back to their bat cave. Only after I navigated all those dangers could I sleep in the 120 degree oven my van had become during the day. Yet, there are no guide services for this 'urban challenge sport' and equally crazy people who pay $65K to climb Everest get a movie made about them when they die. That makes no sense. I survived a hellish situation in Austin and Corpus Christi for 5 months and for a small fee I could lead you through a similar experience. If Everest is a Summit then why is it not popular to plunge to the depth of social decay and survive? Los Angeles just declared a state of emergency because of 25,000 homeless people dying on the streets. Don't you want a chance to be one of them? I don't get it, but I'm not conventional so I guess I'm biased. I also accept the fact that some adventures must surpass any rational limit, at some point we reach a do or die, safety limit and keep on going anyway. That seems to be the lesson of the movie: rarely is your goal easily achieved and sometimes you have to die to reach a summit. But you will die knowing you reached the summit and if it's that important to you then go ahead because you'll die eventually anyway. That's what Mallory thought.

The movie is interesting but they all chose to be there at 8000 meters and their choice puts many people at risk for their mistakes. They all depend on an army of locals. They leave behind trash and shit and frozen bodies in a wake of destruction following their summit attempt. What kind of person would do that? Nature lovers? No. The kind that would later claim to have "Climbed Mt. Everest" Sure, you climbed Mt. Everest like I built my car. Fortunately, the dead don't ask for sympathy, so I don't have to have any. I'm selfish, I cultivate my own private goals and hobbies, but at least I admit it. But I also try to limit the imposition on others. When I'm asked if I will drive to Chile in my van I respond, "The question isn't if I can make it; the question is how many Bolivian potato farmers I want to inconvenience along the way." The answer is zero. I think a Bolivian potato farmer has enough challenges without taking time out of his day to help me find a distributor cap or help me through a parasitic attack. And since a trip to Chile in my van will not only cost around $7K, it will also inconvenience dozens of innocent people unlucky enough to live along the route I choose, I think that kind of trip is not going to happen. Better to take a bus or motorcycle.

There was a time when the peak of Everest was free of conceited and selfish assholes, but it's safe to say that time has passed. This movie is both a fittingly garish/lavish tribute and commercialized memorial to those selfish, conceited assholes who now seem to be the only people capable of reaching the summit.

We were just minding our own business...

Patriots Finally Win Their 4th.

Pats fans have watched two superior Patriots teams lose in the Superbowl and tonight a slightly inferior team beats their equal. I don't want to analyze this game but it should reinforce the notion that anything can happen. The game could've been decided by a bunch of plays. The game is 60 minutes long and the first minute is as important as the last minute but we usually only remember the last minute. But because the first minute is as important as the last there really can never be a single play that decides the game. All sports fans have this law taught to them and some refuse to learn it. The Bill Buckner play will haunt Red Sox fans but it took 10 innings to get to that point and lots of pitches, lots of plays. Jim Rice gets thrown out at the plate. Schiraldi pitches his third inning of relief for the first time of the year, after two innings of horrible pitching. Clemens fails on three sac bunt attempts. Oh, I wrote a book about this topic which is mostly unreadable nonsense, but it gave me some closure on the event. If we could do things differently then it's possible the one play we'd change wouldn't be the one everyone talks about. It might be some play in the 2nd quarter that was critical. They are all important plays and it's a team sport and there's always a next season to redeem yourself.

Monday Morning Quarterback

It's awesome to question sports decisions knowing the final outcome. But people miss the point during these monday morning debates. I'm not theorizing on the past, I'm actually talking about the future, using the past as a reference.

The current topic is the Green Bay/Seattle NFC Championship Game. With the score 19-7 at about 5 minutes left, Burnett intercepted a pass that Kearse-15, had go through his hands. 12 points is not insurmountable, but since that was the 4th interception of the day for GB they figured it was the end of the game. GB would run 2 minutes off the clock and then Seattle would throw another interception. Well, this is what happened....

Catch or Not?

Not the best video angle, but most clearly demonstrates Bryant caught it at the 5 yard line.

There were some epic football games recently. No matter what I do, sports are in my blood. The particular play that sticks in my mind is this catch that was reversed and called incomplete on a 4th & 2. The details are great with this play. The strategy is epic. The Cowboys have plenty of 2 yard plays they could've called with high percentage of success...but they went for the home run and Bryant makes contact with the ball in both hands at the 5 yard line. For those challenged by Imperial measurement that's 15 feet away from the goal line. At first, they awarded the catch and spotted the ball initially at the 2 foot line. Then it was challenged and reversed. So Bryant managed to carry the ball 13 feet without catching it? That's what the refs would have us believe? 13 Feet and he failed to possess the ball because he never made a football move, never completed the process, in 13 feet??  Naw!

Games with officials can be heartbreaking because this one play was important. A game is comprised of every play, not merely one, but one play is still one play and in this situation it's a big one. As a former pick-up game athlete with bad knees and dirty pants I don't see how a person can carry a ball for 13 feet without ever possessing it. Did he not catch the ball at the 15 and then fumble it at the 2 ft line? OR the conclusion is that he merely touched the ball at the 15 and then juggled it for 13 feet? Seriously? I don't like the Cowboys even though I was a Texan for a brief spell. But how can you justify saying he carried it for 13 feet before finally failing to possess it?

I guess the momentum of his running carried him those 13 feet before he possessed it. But that's two lengths of his whole body. So I still have a problem with them saying he carried it, without possessing it for 13 feet and never made a football move. I think the football move involved carrying it for 13 feet and trying to score with the football. He wasn't juggling it, but when he reached out finally the ball hit the ground and he lost control of it, 13 feet, nearly 5 yards, after he had caught it. So, it wasn't the catch that was in question, it was the fumble.

But the conclusion ruled and the Cowboys lost possession. The lesson is hard to take but it amounts to two points:
1) Go with high percentage plays when the game is on the line
2) Once you've caught the ball inside the 5 then go ahead and keep both hands on it. You'll score when the next play runs it in. Keep both hands on the ball and don't try to score because the game has gotten that picky about possession. The days are gone when the naked eye won the day. Now officials have HD and super slow motion and super zoom and if the ball moves and you have been in the air and tumbling the whole time then they will decide that you actually were in the process of catching the ball for 13 feet and ultimately didn't catch it. That's the conclusion because that's what the video shows. It was an acrobatic catch, which means you must do something non-acrobatic before losing control of the ball, and Bryant never did anything non-acrobatic. The whole catch was acrobatic up until the ball came loose. So it was never a catch.

I would maintain the non-acrobatic move was him turning around and lunging for the end zone, but the refs seem to be thinking that was part of the acrobatics. No, Bryant is a superhuman. He can't be judged like the rest of us. The catch was already accomplished while most of us were catching flies with our mouths, and Bryant was trying to get the touchdown and that was the proof he had made the catch. Otherwise, the rule forces Bryant to catch the ball and not move at all until he is downed on the 1 yard line...instead of catching it and turning for the touchdown, like all superhuman receivers would do.*

My sympathies, because this was a great playground catch and all the players in the world salute Bryant with a touchdown sign. He caught it, was tackled, and the ground caused the fumble so it's down on the 1 yard line. Incredible. But we can't go back in time and see if Green Bay takes the lead again so there's nothing to be done. It's a game of inches.

I salute all the players of this weekend's games. The season started out about as bad as any season I can remember. Only my NFL addiction forced me to watch the games I could find. Anyone with dignity turned their backs on the sport. The NFL needs to clean up its act, and by making it this far at least they proved they have the will power to make a clean game not full of abusers and junkies and murderers. Whether they apply that will power is another question but I know their hearts are strong and they merely need to get their priorities straight. The game itself is going to be good no matter how it is played, but please maintain some perspective. Do it for the kids.

*Per the rulebook, Bryant had to maintain possession “through the process” of making contact with the ground, so when the ball came loose once it hit the turf at the 1, even though he definitely had possession of it before that, officials were required to rule it incomplete, because he hadn't touched the ground yet. So, this goes back to training camp and practicing acrobatic catches in the air while focusing on keeping the ball off the ground as you hit the ground.

Thinking Outside the Gridiron

This won't happen any time soon but as an example of a non-intuitive approach to problem solving I have a theory that the way to make pro football more safe is to double the schedule and have teams play at least twice a week. Maybe even three times a week. Instead of 16 games, the schedule would be 48 games long in the same time period from Sept to January. My theory is that like basketball and baseball which have 82 and 160 games respectively, the NFL players will pace themselves, the physical nature of the hits will have to be turned down. Every week you can decide to play utterly fatigued because you went all out during the last game, or you pace yourself, like NBA and MLB players. The reason the NFL is so violent is because the players have 6 days to lift weights, replenish their energy and they know they will have 6 days off after the game so they give 100%. This makes for a high impact/energy game but it's clearly too violent even for the taste of the owners as more and more rules are being made to protect players. Well, what the fuck? The rules aren't working because it's rarely a dirty hit that causes the injury and the hits that get the flag aren't the ones that cause injury. The extreme nature of the game has not changed at all because the players themselves have no incentive to go easy. The only way to give them an incentive is by punishing them with more games so they physically can not be as violent and careless because they know in three days they have to do it all over again. That is exactly how MLB and NBA get through their seasons, they pace themselves. The teams that don't pace themselves are without key players late in the season.

Ugly War

This was a bloody war against the computer opponent. Heavy civilian casualties on both sides. Both armies obliterated so that only the royalty remain. I preserved my queen and king but I almost forced a stalemate a few times. It's not easy to use only these two pieces to check mate an opponent. I think this configuration will be the only way to do it. The king protects the queen. The hard part is letting the opponent move without stalemate.

Second Person Butchered Again

Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo didn't read my previous post regarding the abuse of second person pronouns when referring to yourself. Otherwise he might not assume we all have fractured vertebrae and are trying to prepare to play football.

'It's progressing," the signal-caller said of his back during an NFL PLAY 60 event. "I think each day it gets, you know, a little bit improvement, and I think that you just keep trying to figure out what you're able to do each day. Then you go into the next and hopefully you are able to improve enough to get ready to go."

When he says, "you know" that's actually the correct use of second person pronoun because he's trying to verify that the reporter has some clue about injuries and the time it takes to heal. But from that point on he refers to this generic "you" that has no relationship to reality. This is the most frequent scenario where people abuse the second person because athletes are constantly asked specific personal questions and over time they stopped answering in the first person, even though they should since the question is specific and personal and if they answer it with a generic "you" they are framing the whole conversation in almost pre-determined, internationally recognized terms, like we can all relate. This really irks me and has me carving ceramic tile statues in the image of my disgust.

I believe it has become habitual at this point so Romo can't be faulted too much. It's accepted that if someone says, "Tony, you fractured your spine, how does that feel?" Tony will respond, "Well, you get up in the morning and you do your exercises that you have been prescribed and you take your pain meds and you and you and you....blah blah...you do this you do that." And he manages to answer without using a single first person pronoun. That's fucking insane. Do people understand how fucked up that is? He fractured his spine by getting a 200 pound knee to the back...and he'd already had spine surgery on a different part of his spine. And even though this is very specific and personal and almost no quarterbacks have spine injuries or spine surgeries, he's still responding like there is some generic "You" who is not only a celebrated NFL quarterback but is also suffering from multiple spine problems. There might be 5 people out of 7 Billion who fit that description. Tony, there is no generic "you" who can relate to your condition and circumstances. Only YOU can answer that question by saying, "Well, I'm in a lot of pain, I take medication but that only does so much and it makes me sick and tired and I have a broken back so of course I'm frustrated. But I can only progress one day at a time."

Instead, he says this:

“We’re just taking it day by day,” Romo said. “Obviously, if you couldn’t walk through, you’ll probably struggle getting ready for practice. It continues to get a little better incrementally each day. You just reassess it every day.”

How hard is it for an athlete to use the first person? Why is this second person abuse now an accepted tradition? And what are you doing about it?

Wild World Series 29 years ago

I can't be sure but it sounds like Al Michaels doing the play by play.





As a baseball fan I was looking into the last time The KC Royals were in the World Series. It was 1985 and their opponent was the St. Louis Cardinals, so that's an all Missouri event. Both ends of the state were represented, St. Louis is on the Mississippi in the far east, within sight of Illinois, and KC is on the far west, right before you enter Kansas on Interstate-70.

The '85 World Series is classic in my memory because the Royals had finally refused to be denied. Starting in 1978 the Royals, with 3rd year star 3rd baseman George Brett leading them on, had finished 1st, then 2nd, then 1st, then the messy strike season of 1981 which I won't count, then 2nd, 2nd, 1st in 1984 (losing the ALCS to the Tigers) then again in 1st place in 1985...finally beating the Blue Jays in 7 games to advance to the World Series. This is back when there were only two divisions to each league, East and West. The Central Division was added 20 years ago in 1994 to make the post season more interesting with a wild card team allowing a divisional playoff in addition to the league championship, which is ironic because 1994 was also the year the season ended in August due to Communist tendencies in the player's union so there was no post season.

It's nice to win a World Series like the Red Sox did in 2013, magically beating the better team in the Tigers, overcoming awful calls and playing above themselves to win it all in Fenway Park for the first time in about a century. But to then go immediately back to the basement is a sign of inconsistency. "Oh, the Red Sox took the season off. Ok." The Royals were consistently good, like the modern St. Louis Cardinals. They didn't have a stinker season for a whole decade and in 1985 they met the Cardinals for an I-70 Series with the Cardinals being the favorite.

East Division 1985

Tm		W	L	W-L%	GB
Toronto Blue Jays	TOR	99	62	.615	--
New York Yankees	NYY	97	64	.602	2.0
Detroit Tigers	DET	84	77	.522	15.0
Baltimore Orioles	BAL	83	78	.516	16.0
Boston Red Sox	BOS	81	81	.500	18.5
Milwaukee Brewers	MIL	71	90	.441	28.0
Cleveland Indians	CLE	60	102	.370	39.5

West Division 1985

Tm		W	L	W-L%	GB
Kansas City Royals	KCR	91	71	.562	--
California Angels	CAL	90	72	.556	1.0
Chicago White Sox	CHW	85	77	.525	6.0
Minnesota Twins	MIN	77	85	.475	14.0
Oakland Athletics	OAK	77	85	.475	14.0
Seattle Mariners	SEA	74	88	.457	17.0
Texas Rangers	TEX	62	99	.385	28.5

I won't break down the entire 1985 Post Season. After watching this Game 6 bottom of the 9th inning
I do want to point out a few things:

Cardinals won Game 1 and Game 2. They Lost Game 3. Then won Game 4 and could clinch it in St. Louis in Game 5. They needed one win in 3 games. They lost Game 5 so the Series went back to KC.

The Cardinals lead the series 3-2 so they could win it with 3 outs. It's a 1-0 game in favor of Cardinals playing in KC. Dominant pitching made the '85 series very tense. It's easy to think it's boring but the tension comes from who will keep up the domination and who will blink first. Any asshole can analyze a 10-3 blowout. But hardcore baseball historians start to drool when they see a 1-0 game go into the bottom of the 9th and the home team finds a way to win 2-1. The details make me want to chew leather they are so juicy with grief and nostalgia. It almost always plays out exactly like a good western where the dog barking, the tumbleweed tumbling, the whiskey bottle being 3/4 empty, the losing poker hand being three Jacks. All of these things suddenly loom large. All of the following events have taken place countless times during regular season games and are never mentioned again. Put the same events in the bottom of the 9th inning of Game 6 with the away team 3 outs from clinching the championship and everything becomes a dramatic stage. The intensity of Postseason baseball is the best and Game 6 of the 1985 Series is a good example.

Jorge Orta grounds a 0-2 pitch to Jack Clark, who feeds it to Todd Worrell and Worrell makes the grab with his foot on the bag, a little awkward, but he's out...NO WAIT, the ump, Denkinger, calls him safe. He's totally out of position to make the call but he calls him safe. Ouch! It's a brutal memory considering MLB now has review policy that would've called him out. I guess I don't understand why Denkinger is in the wrong position. He makes the call in the one place on the field he can't see the ball enter the glove. The first out of the inning is the only the first out, but it's a big out. The Red Sox proved only one year later that you can still lose big time after making not only the first out, but the first two outs. So, it is what it is. An error by the ump. I wonder if another ump could've helped him.

Clark then misplays a foul ball by Balboni, who then singles to Left. The foul ball is catchable, must be caught, but Clark was a right fielder normally and wasn't used to balls going straight up with no way to reference direction of drift. Pete Rose would've caught that ball.

Sundberg bunts on a two strike pitch, after two foul bunts, and Orta is thrown out at third for the first out. Men on First and Second again.

Worrell then throws a breaking ball when the catcher Porter was expecting a fastball. It rolls away and the runners advance. With first base open and that run being meaningless, they intentionally walk McRae to load the bases. This wild pitch is horrible because it put the winning run in scoring position.

Dane Iorg pinch hits and could easily end the game and the series with a double play ball. The Right fielder's throw was only trying to preserve a tied game and it was an incredible throw, in the air knee high about 80 yards on target, but Porter must catch it about two feet too far away from the plate. The ball beats the runner but because it was about to land Porter must catch it and then turn, which takes longer than catching it where the runner is. See? He can't short hop it so he must catch and turn...and that instant of motion costs him the run, and the game. KC crushed the Cards in Game 7 to win the championship. And they haven't been back since, after those 7 or 8 years of domination they never threatened again.

It's interesting that all this was done with the 5,6,7,8,9 hitters. Brett, Wilson, Smith, White were on the bench the whole time.

surfer in air

The steamer

Red Sox Rant

It's hard to win back to back championships. But it's also hard NOT to win back to back championships.
Maybe next year.