hasn't this shit started to just go WAY to far???!!!

Mike Cameron is god

who did we trade for him... Joey Joe Joe Junior... Shibodeau?

where have all the great teams gone?
As you may know, I am an avid reader of ESPN Page 2 and they often post "best/worst 10" lists, then throw them open for public voting. The Fan's version of "worst Championship teams ever" came out today and my neck is sore from vigorous nodding in agreement -- Particularly the top 3.

Augh! I remember feebling telling people last October/November that I would rather see the hated Yankees win, not that I Really wanted the Yankees to win another World Series, like most people I wanted our beloved M's to take care of that, but shit, whattyagonna do when the N.Y. Pinstriped Postseason Juggernaut's roll over the 116-win SeaMen with ease. You shrug and say "what's the shame in losing to the Yankees!" Exactly, which is what the Ride-their-Backs DIDN'T do. I felt, time and time again, (and, mind you I didn't actually Watch much of the World Serious) that The Ride-0n-Johnson/Schilling's-Backs just didn't Deserve the Title. C'mon, their batting order was solidly sub-par, only Partially redeemed by the maniacal bat of Luis Gonzalez (who I can't help but feel is just another product of this ridiculous live-ball/short-fences phase MLB is in right now -- are you listening Bret Boone, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, and the whole lot of ya!). It just goes to show you that a team that has only a fraction of greatness in a sea of mediocrity -- as long as that greatness resides in the right place (let's see, they had 1/9 of a batting lineup, from what I saw their bullpen was nothing to write mommy about, but they had 40% of a legendary staring staff!) can win Championships. Ugh.

Then there's the NFL. What does it say about a League when the last two Champions were partial teams, at best, somewhat fortunate (or as in the case of the Pats, Extremely fortunate) to get there (actually what it says is the NFL is the most wide-open, competitive, balanced league out there -- which is a great thing). I will say this, whereas the Ravens had one of the best defenses Ever, they only had to beat one of the great Playoff Poseur teams of All Time, the Football giAnts, to "claim" their Lombardi Trophy; whereas the Patsies did have to defeat the best team in the NFL -- hands down -- in the St. L 'ams. Oh, wait, make that a L' ams team that forgot to get the ball to All Galaxy athlete/sumperman Marshall Faulk in the 4th quarter, and who's "Genius" leader Mike (Marvin the-) Martz-ian ("there was supposed to be a TRE-mendous KABOOM!) forgot that the primary property of a succesful gameplan is to Win the game at hand.

Anywho, I'm not trying to take anything away from any of these teams, who all more or less had to beat the best (remembering that the Edgar Allan Poes had to win IN Tenessee and Oakland to make the Stupor Blow) but let's face it: If those Playoff scenarios are played out 10 more times each those teams win, at best twice (and in the case of the Patsies, once in a 100).
[and don't think I'm a conflicted soul -- the phrase "Trent Dilfer, worst Super Bowl winning QB Ever" haunts me like bad breath, after seeing the guy as clearly the best option for the Hacks QB conundrum... beyond that, the fact that Tom Brady got all the credit for basically being a "just don't screw up and pray for defense/special teams TD's" QB will bother me to my grave, seeing as how potential future Hall of Famer (and all around Washington stat college football god) Drew Bledsoe (pride of Walla Walla) sat on the bench, then gets run out of town (okay, he demanded out -- but who WOULDN'T have?) and I have a strong feeling New England fans will be rueing the "curse of Bledsoe" for a generation (do you REALLY belive Brady has that "potential for greatness that Bledsoe has, I mean, not that Drew always lives up to it, but it's pretty hard to when the rest of your offense is driven by hamsters and you got a turbo flat-6 Boxster engine, just waiting for a stretch of open road]

But we all know the Folly of Dominance, as best represented by those Damn Yankee's I admitted to pulling for above, or the Bulls of a few years back, the Lakers of now... and, to pull an example from Where No One Except Me Gives Shit, Michael Schumacher on the F1 World Championship circuit.

Schumi (and is Ferrari team) has made the racing (at least for the win) quite boring, but it is also quite something to sit back and appreciate someone's Sporting Dominance.

How good is Michael Schumacher? Well, he's looking to make a mockery of this year's Formula One World Championship with his dominance in the Ferrari, with even the mighty Williams and McLaren teams included in the "race for scraps."

Going back to 1974, the World Champion has driven a McLaren or Williams 18 times (out of 28 years). Ferrari has taken 5 titles, but none between 1979 and 2000 (with Schumacher, or course), and other than Mario Andretti in a Lotus in '78, and a couple of Nelson Piquet wins in a Brabham ('81 and 83) EVERY championship has been taken by one of the Big Three since '74... Except: Yep, you guessed it, Schumacher's two titles in '94 and '95 in a Benneton (after which he moved to Ferrari).

So, what does this mean? Well, the Williams/McLaren dominance of the driver's Championship between '84 and '99 was interrupted only by Schumacher, and then ended, of course, after Schumacher and Co. built the Ferrari team into world beaters. It also bears worth noting that I am far from alone in the belief that the '99 title was Schumi's, but for a broken leg that sidelined him for nearly half the season. It was a year that Mika Hakinnen, driving the McLaren -- widely regarded as the quickest car -- won almost by default, or so it seemed (and it's also worth noting that Ferrari won the manufacturer's title that year... somehow).

One could argue whether or not the McLaren was the quickest car on the circuit in the 2000 season, but it certainly was at the start of the year, and the team's Mercede's power probably had more horses than the Ferrari. Either way, one could make the argument that 3 (and at least 2 -- the '94-'95 titles with Bennetton) of Schumi's four titles were won with the car that definitively wasn't the quickest on the circuit. That is something not even Ayrton Senna (3 titles) or Alain Prost (4 titles) can say. Senna won all three of his titles in the era when the McLaren-Honda team for which he drove was untouchable '(88-'91) save for perhaps '91, when the Williams was about even. Prost had three titles with McLaren, including '88, and then with Williams in '93, when no-one could come close to the most technologically advanced car at the height of the electroinc driver aids era.

Right guy, Right Place, Right Time: Jordan in Chicago, Shaq in L.A., Woods in Augusta (and the other events he bothers to show up to).

DO YOU LIKE BEER?!!!

Here is a standing offer for kayaking
if anyone out there wants to head out on a WEEKDAY, I get my boat FREE, and I will pick up half the cost of yours (it just seems fair to do it that way) because I would rather not get a Double (big and slow) IF, however, you insist on getting a double (which costs nothing with my membership) I will begrudgingly accept -- but I will stress it is just a lot bettre to get you own single kayak.

Well, all interested parties know how to get a hold of me.

Here are some alternate pool games I have developed (with help from Ryu):

"Best-of-7"
This is superficially similar to 9-ball, in that the lowest ball on the table must be the first struck with the cue-ball. However, it is played with 7 (seven) balls, and the goal here is to be the first to sink 4 (four) balls -- i.e. win the "best of seven" game. The balls are arranged in "V" with the 1-ball at the point, and the 7 at one of the ends. Scratches are "ball-in-hand," any ball sunk "illegally" (i.e. on a scratched shot, or on shots where the lowest ball remaining on the table wasn't struck first) are placed back on the table at the dot.
The first break is determined by coin-flip or paper-rock-scissors or some such thing. Subsequent breaks are made by the loser of the last game. The Match is, of course, best of seven games. (although, frankly, there is no reason that can't be modified to best of three, five, nine, or whatever -- thus rendering the game, for example, Best of 7/Best of 5).

"Best-of-5"
Virtually the same game as "Best-of-7" except, of course, 5 balls are used, and the winner of the game is the first person to sink 3 balls. Match is best of five games. Balls are again arranged in a "v" with the 1-ball at the point and the 5-ball at one of the points.

"3-ball"
This is a rapid-fire game. Three balls arranged in a triangle, they must be sunk in numerical order, and the person to sink 2 of the three scores one point. If somone sinks all three, they score 2 (two) points. First person to 7 wins (although really any number over two will work, whatever you decide). Opening break is decided as above, with subsequent breaks by the person who lost the last round.
Please note the distinction, however, that the balls must be sunk in numerical order and not just "lowest ball struck first" as in nine-ball, et all. A ball not sunk in numerical order will be treated as a "scratch" and the ball will be placed at the dot, with ball-in-hand for the opponent.

"Goals"
At its simplest, this game is modified slop. The objective is to score 21 points, by sinking balls in your end of the table. Balls sunk in your opponent's end, even by you, score for them. Balls sunk in the middle pockets count for nothing; BUT sinking balls in any pocket (even your opponent's) allows you to keep the shot, and balls hit into the side pockets reduce the number of potential points on the table (advantageuous if you have the lead). Balls sunk on scratched shots count as points, but obviously you don't get to keep the shot, and a scratch is "ball in hand" for your opponent.
Opening break is determined by the usual coin-flip/paper-rock-scissors method, with subsequent breaks made by the person in the lead (if tied, it alternates from whoever broke last). The person NOT breaking gets to pick his end, of course, so I suppose to winner of the opening coin-flip would want to pick his end instead, which is perfectly acceptable.

there are, obviously, numerous permutations of the above games. For instance, one can make a simple modification to "Best-of-7" stipulating the balls must be sunk in numerical order, or one can remove the nine-ball-esque "balls struck in order" from Best-of-7 or Best-of-5, as well as play "Best-of-9" or whatever. One could change to target score in "Goals" to anything, really, and even reduce the number of balls on the table.
I kind of like a "tournament" format for "Best-of-7" or "-5" wherein three or four people can be involved, and no-one has to stand around waiting for very long. With three people, you could just play 1 game at a time, with the winner keeping the table. With four people, you could play "mini-tournaments" with person 1 vs 2, and person 3 vs. 4, then the winners of those two games playing... repeat ad-naseum.

I can see that i have been slacking on the Blog again, and as usual it is not for lack of things going on. I had this big blog to write all about last Thursday, but never got around to it, and now it just seems like the moment has passed and none of it is too interesting.

Saturday night we had a small get-together to observe Greg's birthday, which was officially yesterday. Many of the usuual idiots showed up, including Laurie all the way from Chicago.

Today, I called Mike and cajoled him into coming up to the House, where we played some pool and I took hm out on his first-ever kayaking trip.

and that is a lame entry, but all I really feel like writing right now.