Two years ago I did a mental exercise of sorts and drafted my own first and second rounds of a 12-team fantasy baseball league. I didn't do it last year, but I'm ready to have another go. Again, I only do the first couple rounds, because I don't want to give away any of my personal information about guys I might be targeting when my ultra-competitive keeper league drafts this Saturday. But the first two rounds are the kind of hardball decisions that can make or break a draft. So let's get down to it.
1. Hanley Ramirez, SS, Marlins - I'll summarize my argument for taking Ramirez over Albert Pujols. Shortstop is miserable this year. Hanley is an across-the-board producer at the game's weakest non-catcher position.
2. Albert Pujols, 1B, Cardinals - Pujols is the epitome of reliability. His .312 average last year was actually 19 points lower than his career average. The guy is a hitting machine, and you won't be unhappy with him, even if you take him first.
3. Troy Tulowitzki, SS, Rockies - This is where your draft list gets a lot tougher. So I'll repeat: shortstop is miserable this year. Tulowitzki has had a couple of really nice seasons, and just a filthy September: .322, 30 R, 15 HR, 40 RBI. Even after only playing 18 games in June and July, his season was good enough to rate in the top 25 in Yahoo's ranking system. If he can stay healthy, it looks like he's the real deal, and his wide contributions at a thin position make him one of the more useful guys out there.
4. Joey Votto, 1B, Reds - Almost every list I saw coming into this season actually had Miguel Cabrera at #3, behind Pujols and Ramirez. The thing is, Votto has all the pedigree that Cabrera has, he puts up the same kind of numbers, but he's got the ability to contribute on the basepaths as well. Add in the question marks that we're hearing about Cabrera's drinking issues, which could cost him some playing time this season, and I think Votto is a decidedly better pick this season.
5. Evan Longoria, 3B, Rays - Third base isn't quite shortstop, but it's still a fairly tough position to fill. And Longoria is another 5 category contributor who's valuable no matter where you play him. It's also worth mentioning that his 22 home runs last year were actually a career low. An uptick back to around 30 HR is completely reasonable. Partner that with a .285 average, 100 runs and RBI, and the potential for double-digit steals, and I think we're happy.
6. Miguel Cabrera, 1B, Tigers - Listen, on a basic, baseball-only level, Cabrera is better than everybody except for Pujols. He's a fantastic hitter with tremendous power, and he posts stats every year, without fail. But there are two small factors that pull Cabrera down from #3 to #6 in my book. First, the aforementioned alcohol issues. I'm not too concerned with it affecting his on-field performance (it doesn't seem to have ever had an impact in the past), but with the legal system being involved again, there's the chance of missing some time. Second, he's still a first basemen. I mean that in two regards: he's only 1B eligible, and he doesn't steal any bases.
7. Chase Utley, 2B, Phillies - This is one spot where I tend to differ from general fantasy baseball opinions. Most people will have Robinson Cano as their #1 second baseman. But Utley is a completely proven commodity, who from 2005-2009 averaged the following stat line: .301, 111 R, 29 HR, 101 RBI, 15 SB. He was injured for part of last year, but came back and looked fine. He had 8 multi-hit games in September. I'll bet on Utley every time.
8. Carl Crawford, OF, Red Sox - A lot of people are going to tell you that Crawford's speed numbers will go down because he'll end up batting 2nd or 3rd in the Red Sox lineup. Those people are retarded. Crawford batted in the two-hole 408 times last year, and in the three-hole 192 times. Will he steal 50 bases? Probably not. But he's a very skilled hitter with pop and speed, and he's going into a lineup that might be the best in baseball. I'd expect a broad range of statistical contributions.
9. David Wright, 3B, Mets - Two years ago, David Wright was a "question mark." His power dipped to 10 HR and 72 RBI, his steals spiked to 27, but his batting average stayed high (.307). In 2010, Wright got back to his normal line, though he posted the lowest average of his career at .283. I trust the overall package, though. Wright will always find a way to be a fantasy force, even if his team is in constant disarray. Constant, extreme disarray.
10. Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Rockies - Alright, chances are he's not going to go 34-26 again. And it's almost a certainty that his batting average will drop off from the crazy .336 he hit last year. The thing is..."almost"..."chances are"...but what if? He certainly showed that he has the capacity to be a nightmare for opposing pitchers, and a ridiculous fantasy contributor (#1 ranked player in Yahoo last season). I wouldn't necessarily recommend Gonzalez as a pick for everybody here, but if you're pretty confident in your ability to draft down the board, his upside is tremendous.
11. Ryan Braun, OF, Brewers - Ever since he came into the league, Braun has been a spectacularly steady producer for fantasy owners. Very good power, good speed, career .307 hitter, plenty of run production. Basically, Braun is exactly what you're looking for if Carlos Gonzalez looked too risky for you.
12. Adrian Gonzalez, 1B, Red Sox - This tier of first basemen is a little tough to analyze, until you actually start to consider the difference in Gonzalez's situation between last year and this year. In 2010, Gonzalez hit 36 points higher on the road, and hit 20 HR away from Petco, versus just 11 in San Diego. Partner that with the fact that he goes from the Padres (22nd in the majors in runs scored) to the Red Sox (2nd), and you're looking at a very real chance of a .300-110-35-110 season out of Gonzalez...as a floor.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Why I'm Taking Hanley Over Pujols
As you might have been able to tell from the title of this post, I'm assuming some level of knowledge with regards to fantasy baseball among readers of this article. If you're uninterested in fantasy baseball, you're probably better off waiting until April, when the NFL draft comes around, and the NHL season draws to a close.
Every list I look at has Albert Pujols as its #1 player. He's the consensus first player that should come off the board in every league. And really, you can never go wrong acquiring Albert Pujols. He's a megastar, unquestionably the best hitter in baseball. He gives you batting average, runs, home runs, and RBI, all in spades, and even tosses in a couple steals, because why not?
But if it's me with the #1 overall pick, or setting up a top __ list, or deciding how to allocate my auction funds, Hanley Ramirez is at the top of my rankings. Since it'd be a pretty boring post if I didn't, I'll explain why.
(By the way, this article assumes a 12-team league. In a 10-team league, position eligibility loses some of its importance, and I think makes it a dead heat between Hanley and Pujols).
We'll start with a look at their stats. These are their average 5x5 stats over the past five years (starting with Hanley's first full season):
Ramirez: .313, 112 runs, 25 HR, 78 RBI, 39 SB
Pujols: .330, 111 runs, 41 HR, 122 RBI, 9 SB
Obviously you're ecstatic with either of those lines. Hanley gives you across the board plus production other than RBI, and Pujols will post outstanding numbers in four different categories. Based purely on numbers, you're probably leaning towards Pujols, and that's perfectly reasonable. You're thinking, "Oh, I can just draft Michael Bourn in the 11th round to take care of my steals." And you can, of course you can. I won't ever say that taking Pujols first overall is a bad pick. It's a safe pick, a sure thing, and you'd be following the advice of all the experts.
But not my advice (notice how I just labeled myself a non-expert...oops!). I'm assuming you've all done ten or twelve fantasy baseball drafts, yes? When you're going through your draft, true or false, you much more often find yourself trying to find a reasonable steals guy to draft than a reasonable power guy to draft?
Of course it's steals. The thing about steals guys is that, when it comes to baseball, they're actually not all that valuable. Sure, speed is nice, and if you can be a very effective basestealer, you can put yourself into a position to score a lot of runs. But a bopper will always be more valuable, have a more solidified lineup spot, and thus, be a safer pick in the middle rounds. Think about guys like Dave Roberts and Eric Young, speed guys who disappeared because their speed wasn't enough to keep them playing every day.
The speed of Hanley acts as a counter-weight to Pujols' power numbers. Now, Pujols still has a 17 point edge in batting average. What position does he play again? First base? And Hanley plays...shortstop, that's right. But is position eligibility something you even want to take into account at the top of the draft?
Umm...yes? Why is Robinson Cano's average draft position 9.9? Because it's so impossible to find a .315 hitter who gets 25 HR, 100 RBI, and 100 runs? Kevin Youkilis is going 19 picks later. Vlad Guerrero is going 107 picks later. The reason Cano is so enticing (beyond his talent) is that he's a second baseman.
To wrap it all up, what position would rather be in 22 picks: you've got a huge-hitting 1B and holes at all the tougher positions to fill, or you've got a do-everything SS, and can wait for the right 1B at the right time in the draft? As a bit of reference, here are a couple guys at each position, their numbers from last year, and their average draft position (ignoring guys whose ADP is less than 24, since theoretically they won't be available, and guys with multiple position eligibility):
1B
The ultimate scenario would be if Jose Reyes were to fall to your second round pick, but there's just no way you could count on that. And if you miss out on Reyes, you're sifting through the bargain bin at shortstop. Meanwhile, you should be able to get Morales or Morneau with your 5th round pick (#49), or Konerko all the way down in the 7th (#73). Or, if you wanted to just ignore 1B for a while, both Derrek Lee and Adam LaRoche had at least 19 HR, 75 R, and 80 RBI, and they're both going after pick #200, putting their draft spot somewhere in the middle of the 16th round.
You know what shortstop falls in that area? Yunel Escobar (.256, 60 R, 4 HR, 35 RBI, 6 SB in 135 games).
Take Hanley. Unless you're in the same league as me, and I've got the #2 pick. In that scenario, Albert Pujols is a no-brainer. :)
Every list I look at has Albert Pujols as its #1 player. He's the consensus first player that should come off the board in every league. And really, you can never go wrong acquiring Albert Pujols. He's a megastar, unquestionably the best hitter in baseball. He gives you batting average, runs, home runs, and RBI, all in spades, and even tosses in a couple steals, because why not?
But if it's me with the #1 overall pick, or setting up a top __ list, or deciding how to allocate my auction funds, Hanley Ramirez is at the top of my rankings. Since it'd be a pretty boring post if I didn't, I'll explain why.
(By the way, this article assumes a 12-team league. In a 10-team league, position eligibility loses some of its importance, and I think makes it a dead heat between Hanley and Pujols).
We'll start with a look at their stats. These are their average 5x5 stats over the past five years (starting with Hanley's first full season):
Ramirez: .313, 112 runs, 25 HR, 78 RBI, 39 SB
Pujols: .330, 111 runs, 41 HR, 122 RBI, 9 SB
Obviously you're ecstatic with either of those lines. Hanley gives you across the board plus production other than RBI, and Pujols will post outstanding numbers in four different categories. Based purely on numbers, you're probably leaning towards Pujols, and that's perfectly reasonable. You're thinking, "Oh, I can just draft Michael Bourn in the 11th round to take care of my steals." And you can, of course you can. I won't ever say that taking Pujols first overall is a bad pick. It's a safe pick, a sure thing, and you'd be following the advice of all the experts.
But not my advice (notice how I just labeled myself a non-expert...oops!). I'm assuming you've all done ten or twelve fantasy baseball drafts, yes? When you're going through your draft, true or false, you much more often find yourself trying to find a reasonable steals guy to draft than a reasonable power guy to draft?
Of course it's steals. The thing about steals guys is that, when it comes to baseball, they're actually not all that valuable. Sure, speed is nice, and if you can be a very effective basestealer, you can put yourself into a position to score a lot of runs. But a bopper will always be more valuable, have a more solidified lineup spot, and thus, be a safer pick in the middle rounds. Think about guys like Dave Roberts and Eric Young, speed guys who disappeared because their speed wasn't enough to keep them playing every day.
The speed of Hanley acts as a counter-weight to Pujols' power numbers. Now, Pujols still has a 17 point edge in batting average. What position does he play again? First base? And Hanley plays...shortstop, that's right. But is position eligibility something you even want to take into account at the top of the draft?
Umm...yes? Why is Robinson Cano's average draft position 9.9? Because it's so impossible to find a .315 hitter who gets 25 HR, 100 RBI, and 100 runs? Kevin Youkilis is going 19 picks later. Vlad Guerrero is going 107 picks later. The reason Cano is so enticing (beyond his talent) is that he's a second baseman.
To wrap it all up, what position would rather be in 22 picks: you've got a huge-hitting 1B and holes at all the tougher positions to fill, or you've got a do-everything SS, and can wait for the right 1B at the right time in the draft? As a bit of reference, here are a couple guys at each position, their numbers from last year, and their average draft position (ignoring guys whose ADP is less than 24, since theoretically they won't be available, and guys with multiple position eligibility):
1B
- Kevin Youkilis* (.307, 77 R, 19 HR, 62 RBI in 102 games) - ADP of 28.6
- Adam Dunn (.260, 85 R, 38 HR, 103 RBI) - ADP of 50.6
- Kendry Morales (.290, 29 R, 11 HR, 39 RBI in 51 games) - ADP of 59.6
- Justin Morneau (.345, 53 R, 18 HR, 56 RBI in 81 games) - ADP of 60.3
- Billy Butler (.318, 77 R, 15 HR, 78 RBI) - ADP of 66.5
- Paul Konerko (.312, 89 R, 39 HR, 111 RBI) - ADP of 93.4
- Jose Reyes (.282, 83 R, 11 HR, 54 RBI, 30 SB in 133 games) - ADP of 27.2
- Jimmy Rollins (.243, 48 R, 8 HR, 41 RBI, 17 SB in 88 games) - ADP of 44.6
- Derek Jeter (.270, 111 R, 10 HR, 67 RBI, 18 SB) - ADP of 52.5
- Alexei Ramirez (.282, 83 R, 18 HR, 70 RBI, 13 SB) - ADP of 70.2
- Elvis Andrus (.265, 88 R, 0 HR, 35 RB, 32 SB) - ADP of 99.3
- Stephen Drew (.278, 83 R, 15 HR, 61 RBI, 10 SB) - ADP of 100.4
The ultimate scenario would be if Jose Reyes were to fall to your second round pick, but there's just no way you could count on that. And if you miss out on Reyes, you're sifting through the bargain bin at shortstop. Meanwhile, you should be able to get Morales or Morneau with your 5th round pick (#49), or Konerko all the way down in the 7th (#73). Or, if you wanted to just ignore 1B for a while, both Derrek Lee and Adam LaRoche had at least 19 HR, 75 R, and 80 RBI, and they're both going after pick #200, putting their draft spot somewhere in the middle of the 16th round.
You know what shortstop falls in that area? Yunel Escobar (.256, 60 R, 4 HR, 35 RBI, 6 SB in 135 games).
Take Hanley. Unless you're in the same league as me, and I've got the #2 pick. In that scenario, Albert Pujols is a no-brainer. :)
Monday, February 14, 2011
Not-So-Super Idea, Mario
If you're a hockey fan, you've heard/read Mario Lemieux's comments about the fracas between the Islanders and the Penguins last weekend. He decried the punishments as insufficient (a perfectly reasonable stance; the contest was a bloodbath), and then spewed this nonsense:
I had a bunch of ideas for this article. Metaphors, analogies, and other comments. And then I read what other people have already written, and they've outlined it pretty well already.
My best thought is this: really, truly, who gives a shit about Mario Lemieux in today's NHL? He's an owner, one of thirty. If any owner doesn't want to be a part of the league, you know what he can do? Sell the team. There would be plenty of wealthy investors very interested in purchasing a team with the national appeal of the Penguins, and a brand new stadium to boot. Mark Cuban has expressed interest in the past.
Would it feel weird for the league to turn its back on one of its greatest players? Yes, of course. And Penguins fans would be crushed; the man who saved their team back when it was terrible feeling so wronged by the league that he abandoned it? No small story. But once Sidney Crosby gets back on the ice, Penguins fans will put aside feelings of betrayal on behalf of Mario, and get back to hating the Capitals and rooting for their team.
As I said, other people have written pieces expressing many of my other sentiments, so I'll just link them here. And here. And also here.
"If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it."Am I the only one who had flashbacks to another whiny Pittsburgh sports figure? James Harrison said he considered retiring because of the NFL's new commitment to follow rules already in their rulebooks. Now, a hockey legend, maybe the second best player of all time, says he might want to end his relationship with his sport because a few Islanders weren't suspended enough?
I had a bunch of ideas for this article. Metaphors, analogies, and other comments. And then I read what other people have already written, and they've outlined it pretty well already.
My best thought is this: really, truly, who gives a shit about Mario Lemieux in today's NHL? He's an owner, one of thirty. If any owner doesn't want to be a part of the league, you know what he can do? Sell the team. There would be plenty of wealthy investors very interested in purchasing a team with the national appeal of the Penguins, and a brand new stadium to boot. Mark Cuban has expressed interest in the past.
Would it feel weird for the league to turn its back on one of its greatest players? Yes, of course. And Penguins fans would be crushed; the man who saved their team back when it was terrible feeling so wronged by the league that he abandoned it? No small story. But once Sidney Crosby gets back on the ice, Penguins fans will put aside feelings of betrayal on behalf of Mario, and get back to hating the Capitals and rooting for their team.
As I said, other people have written pieces expressing many of my other sentiments, so I'll just link them here. And here. And also here.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Sports Quizzes
So rather than talk to you about the Super Bowl, which was entertaining, I'd like to offer you a link to one of my favorite sites right now.
Sporcle is a site that has trivia quizzes on tons of topics. Most notably with regards to this site, however, is the Sports topic . There are a ton of interesting quizzes on there, just waiting for you to eat them up.
Go ahead. Eat them up. I'll be here when you're done.
Sporcle is a site that has trivia quizzes on tons of topics. Most notably with regards to this site, however, is the Sports topic . There are a ton of interesting quizzes on there, just waiting for you to eat them up.
Go ahead. Eat them up. I'll be here when you're done.
2010 Games of the Year #1 - League of Legends
With apologies to Chip, League of Legends is my Game of the Year.
League of Legends, developed by Riot Games, is one of a few successors to the classic Warcraft III custom game, Defense of the Ancients (DotA). When my brother sent me a link to the game over a year ago, I was intrigued, but not enough to really sit down and give the game a good run. But a few months later, when several friends started playing, I returned to see a game that had developed considerably.
The basic concept of the game is a glorified arena. Two teams of three or five players meet on a battlefield. Waves of troops pour out of two bases, pushing towards the other base. The players each control a champion who joins the battle, trying to turn the tide of combat.
The sheer complexity of skills, and the potential for great teamwork is what keeps me coming back to the game. They release a new hero every couple weeks, and while I'd really like to see a new map (hint hint Riot), the new heroes keep things fresh enough.
Oh, did I mention the game is free to play? There are hundreds of items you can buy, such as champions, skins, runes, XP boosts, and other useful items, but you don't have to spend a nickel to play. Furthermore, Riot has taken an admirable stance and insisted that "power" would never be sold. That is, any item that increases your champions abilities can only be bought with Influence Points, an in-game currency that you accumulate from playing. So while I can't use the Nurse Akali skin unless I pay for it, I can always buy runes to boost my damage and kill any Nurse Akali I come across.
The game isn't without its flaws. Their servers are sometimes inconsistent, particularly with regards to friends lists and chat, but they've settled down the gameplay servers. It's also pretty frustrating at times, since you're matched up with and against complete strangers fairly often, and a lot of them can be terrible/rude/stupid. But you'll get that cross-section no matter what game you play.
In the end, it's a well-made game that's a lot of fun, and into which I put a great deal of time in 2010. Congratulations League of Legends. Victory!
League of Legends, developed by Riot Games, is one of a few successors to the classic Warcraft III custom game, Defense of the Ancients (DotA). When my brother sent me a link to the game over a year ago, I was intrigued, but not enough to really sit down and give the game a good run. But a few months later, when several friends started playing, I returned to see a game that had developed considerably.
The basic concept of the game is a glorified arena. Two teams of three or five players meet on a battlefield. Waves of troops pour out of two bases, pushing towards the other base. The players each control a champion who joins the battle, trying to turn the tide of combat.
The sheer complexity of skills, and the potential for great teamwork is what keeps me coming back to the game. They release a new hero every couple weeks, and while I'd really like to see a new map (hint hint Riot), the new heroes keep things fresh enough.
Oh, did I mention the game is free to play? There are hundreds of items you can buy, such as champions, skins, runes, XP boosts, and other useful items, but you don't have to spend a nickel to play. Furthermore, Riot has taken an admirable stance and insisted that "power" would never be sold. That is, any item that increases your champions abilities can only be bought with Influence Points, an in-game currency that you accumulate from playing. So while I can't use the Nurse Akali skin unless I pay for it, I can always buy runes to boost my damage and kill any Nurse Akali I come across.
The game isn't without its flaws. Their servers are sometimes inconsistent, particularly with regards to friends lists and chat, but they've settled down the gameplay servers. It's also pretty frustrating at times, since you're matched up with and against complete strangers fairly often, and a lot of them can be terrible/rude/stupid. But you'll get that cross-section no matter what game you play.
In the end, it's a well-made game that's a lot of fun, and into which I put a great deal of time in 2010. Congratulations League of Legends. Victory!
Thursday, February 10, 2011
2010 Games of the Year #2 - Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale
From the moment I saw the title of this game on Steam, I was intrigued. One of my favorite aspects of World of Warcraft is the buying and selling that goes on in the auction house, so a game that transfers focus onto that aspect is definitely going to draw my attention. But even with my interest piqued, I didn't expect to love the game as much as I have.
You take on the role of a child who has to turn her home into an item shop in order to pay down her now-missing father's extraordinary debt. The game does a good job of walking you through the beginning, and opening up options over time rather than overwhelming you early on. But you also stand virtually zero chance of actually beating the game the first time through. It's got a similar feature to Dead Rising, where you can start your game over, keeping your merchant level and purchased goods. And most people should be able to generate enough money to pay off the debt by their second playthrough.
Yes, buying and selling products is a big part of the game, and yes, I do enjoy it. But luckily, that's only half of the game. The other half is a dungeon-crawler, with several different warriors to choose from. You pay a hero and send him/her off into a dungeon to fetch treasures that you can sell at your store. The different champions have surprisingly different abilities and play styles, and you learn to appreciate each of them in their own way. You gain one companion early on, but as you progress through the dungeons and meet more people around town, you gain several more warriors to choose from.
The strongest evidence in support of Recettear being near the top of my list is simply that I've poured a ton of time into it. Between the two games I've played (at home and at work), I've put in over 40 hours of game time, and I don't foresee it dropping off any time soon. That's partly because my gaming options at work are limited, but also because the game is simply a lot of fun.
And I've still got so much left to do! There's at least one more warrior to unlock, tons of new gear to discover, and I'm less than halfway to the maximum merchant level. I expect to be playing Recettear plenty in 2011 as well.
You take on the role of a child who has to turn her home into an item shop in order to pay down her now-missing father's extraordinary debt. The game does a good job of walking you through the beginning, and opening up options over time rather than overwhelming you early on. But you also stand virtually zero chance of actually beating the game the first time through. It's got a similar feature to Dead Rising, where you can start your game over, keeping your merchant level and purchased goods. And most people should be able to generate enough money to pay off the debt by their second playthrough.
Yes, buying and selling products is a big part of the game, and yes, I do enjoy it. But luckily, that's only half of the game. The other half is a dungeon-crawler, with several different warriors to choose from. You pay a hero and send him/her off into a dungeon to fetch treasures that you can sell at your store. The different champions have surprisingly different abilities and play styles, and you learn to appreciate each of them in their own way. You gain one companion early on, but as you progress through the dungeons and meet more people around town, you gain several more warriors to choose from.
The strongest evidence in support of Recettear being near the top of my list is simply that I've poured a ton of time into it. Between the two games I've played (at home and at work), I've put in over 40 hours of game time, and I don't foresee it dropping off any time soon. That's partly because my gaming options at work are limited, but also because the game is simply a lot of fun.
And I've still got so much left to do! There's at least one more warrior to unlock, tons of new gear to discover, and I'm less than halfway to the maximum merchant level. I expect to be playing Recettear plenty in 2011 as well.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Cooke
I'll try to put together a better, more complete post on this or some other topic later in the week, but I needed to get this onto (digital) paper right away.
Matt Cooke is a bad guy.
Matt Cooke is a bad guy.
2010 Games of the Year #3 - Dead Rising 2
This ranking probably comes as a shock to a lot of you. Dead Rising 2 was by far my most anticipated game of the year; it was, in fact, the only game I pre-ordered. And at #3, I certainly don't regret having pre-ordered it.
I'd go into a whole discourse on the game's merits and how it plays, but I've really already done that. First, I talked about the prequel mini-game that Capcom released to generate buzz for the game, and make a little cash. Then, I spoke about the game itself, here. The game has since also had an epilogue game released, which I've purchased, but haven't played yet.
So why did it end up #3, rather than at its preordained spot up at #1? Well, two main factors.
First, the game, while entertaining and a distinct improvement on the original (which I also loved), didn't expand too much on the features of the original game. The crafting system was a neat addition, and the interface/controls are definitely crisper, but it's still basically the same game. Also, I'm a sucker for achievements, but many of the achievements for this game were simply outrageous. That sort of scenario dampens my feelings of accomplishment, which are really the main reason I play video games at all.
Second, through no fault of its own, Dead Rising 2 just didn't measure up to the top two games. It was a very good game, and a lot of fun. The top two were just better. Which games, you ask? Stay tuned.
I'd go into a whole discourse on the game's merits and how it plays, but I've really already done that. First, I talked about the prequel mini-game that Capcom released to generate buzz for the game, and make a little cash. Then, I spoke about the game itself, here. The game has since also had an epilogue game released, which I've purchased, but haven't played yet.
So why did it end up #3, rather than at its preordained spot up at #1? Well, two main factors.
First, the game, while entertaining and a distinct improvement on the original (which I also loved), didn't expand too much on the features of the original game. The crafting system was a neat addition, and the interface/controls are definitely crisper, but it's still basically the same game. Also, I'm a sucker for achievements, but many of the achievements for this game were simply outrageous. That sort of scenario dampens my feelings of accomplishment, which are really the main reason I play video games at all.
Second, through no fault of its own, Dead Rising 2 just didn't measure up to the top two games. It was a very good game, and a lot of fun. The top two were just better. Which games, you ask? Stay tuned.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
2010 Games of the Year #4 - Mass Effect
From the first day Mass Effect came out, my brother has told me, "This is your kind of game, dude." Three years later, I finally decided to give it a shot, and I was very pleased with the results.
I played a lot of Knights of the Old Republic, and the games are similar. The interactions with all sorts of people, the wide array of options given to you over the course of the game, and the good vs. evil spectrum of your actions. The main difference between the games is the live combat, and I think it's for the better. Rather than relying on good odds in a D&D style rolling system in order to hit your enemies, you just have to hit them. It's also a lot more gratifying to blast a guy with a shotgun manually than to "pew pew" him with a blaster pistol automatically.
The graphics are good, the interface is good (although combat can be a little clunky), and the story is interesting and fun. And immersive. You can literally play the game for 40 hours and still not have completed half of it. I know. I haven't completed half of the game yet, I don't think. And I'm well over 40 hours.
For whatever reason, I went elsewhere before I finished Mass Effect. I didn't stop liking the game, and I didn't get frustrated or disappointed with anything. I think I just started playing something else, and never went back. That's the only reason I've got the game down here at #4 instead of higher up.
And hey, any spot on the list is pretty good.
I played a lot of Knights of the Old Republic, and the games are similar. The interactions with all sorts of people, the wide array of options given to you over the course of the game, and the good vs. evil spectrum of your actions. The main difference between the games is the live combat, and I think it's for the better. Rather than relying on good odds in a D&D style rolling system in order to hit your enemies, you just have to hit them. It's also a lot more gratifying to blast a guy with a shotgun manually than to "pew pew" him with a blaster pistol automatically.
The graphics are good, the interface is good (although combat can be a little clunky), and the story is interesting and fun. And immersive. You can literally play the game for 40 hours and still not have completed half of it. I know. I haven't completed half of the game yet, I don't think. And I'm well over 40 hours.
For whatever reason, I went elsewhere before I finished Mass Effect. I didn't stop liking the game, and I didn't get frustrated or disappointed with anything. I think I just started playing something else, and never went back. That's the only reason I've got the game down here at #4 instead of higher up.
And hey, any spot on the list is pretty good.
Monday, February 7, 2011
2010 Games of the Year #5 - World of Warcraft - Cataclysm
Some of you know that I've spent quite a lot of time playing World of Warcraft this past year, and certainly plenty of time after the most recent expansion. It's possible that I put more hours into WoW over the past year than any other game. It would seem logical for the most-played game to be #1 or #2 on my annual list.
But I've been playing WoW for years. The eligible game is not the original WoW, but the Cataclysm expansion, and that's a different bird altogether. A bird that I didn't get all the way into.
Here are some notable features that I associated with the expansion when evaluating it for this award:
Check in tomorrow for the #4 game of 2011.
But I've been playing WoW for years. The eligible game is not the original WoW, but the Cataclysm expansion, and that's a different bird altogether. A bird that I didn't get all the way into.
Here are some notable features that I associated with the expansion when evaluating it for this award:
- Two new races: goblins and worgen - I've been hoping for the opportunity to play as goblins for a while, so this was a nice feature. However, I had sort of been hoping that the goblins would be a third, unassociated faction, rather than part of the Horde. So, my excitement was tempered.
- New zones, new dungeons - I've seen some of the starting areas for goblins and worgen, haven't seen any of the 81-85 zones, and likely won't for a long time, if ever. My style is to play several characters, rather than push one up to max level.
- New secondary skill, Archaeology - I haven't gotten high enough with it to know if it's actually useful, but I do like digging up fossils on a basic level, so it's a good addition.
- Totally revamped classes - This was the most important part of the equation, and the part that brought the expansion into my top 5.
Check in tomorrow for the #4 game of 2011.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
2011 NFL Playoffs - Super Bowl
This post contains adult language, and is intended for a mature audience. Reader discretion is advised.
Full disclosure, I hate the fucking Steelers.
Right after the conference championship games, I said to myself, "These teams are even." I looked over their numbers through the regular season and playoffs, and still came out with "These teams are even." I looked back at my previous posts about the playoff games, trying to find some point I made earlier that would tilt me in one direction or the other. But alas, you guessed it, I still thought these teams were even.
Then this happened:
Does this statement change anything about Harrison? No, not really. I don't expect him to do anything different on Sunday; his motor will be running and he'll be ready to go, as will everyone else on the Steelers...right?
Here's what I know. When Harrison made his biggest deal about the headshot rules, after the Steelers rolled the Browns in week 6, the team seemed to lose focus. They barely won at Miami, 23-22, against a team that won only one home game all season. They followed that with a 20-10 loss to the Saints, then edged a free-falling Bengals team that had lost four straight, 27-21. They wrapped up a four game stretch by losing 39-26 at home to the Patriots.
Pittsburgh rebounded the following week by decimating the Raiders, but a chink was perhaps found. The Steelers didn't respond well to being called a dirty team. It's clear that, for whatever reason, Harrison had it in his head again that he was being put upon by the league, and for the Packers, it couldn't come at a better time. You take any advantage you can find.
I could talk about the teams' offenses and defenses, but you know them. I've already talked about them in previous weeks, and if you've watched any sports coverage at all this week, you've heard all the numbers. On Sunday, we'll watch two pretty evenly matched teams go head to head.
Normally I'd say I hope it's a good game, but I really don't. I hope the Steelers get throttled. I hope they go into halftime down 37-3, because Mike McCarthy called a pair of 2-point conversions late in the half, to rub salt in the wounds. I hope James Harrison gets upended and breaks his fucking leg. I hope Ryan Clark gets knocked out on the first play when he (inevitably) leads with his helmet on a tackle attempt.
I hope.
Prediction: Packers 29, Steelers 28
Full disclosure, I hate the fucking Steelers.
Right after the conference championship games, I said to myself, "These teams are even." I looked over their numbers through the regular season and playoffs, and still came out with "These teams are even." I looked back at my previous posts about the playoff games, trying to find some point I made earlier that would tilt me in one direction or the other. But alas, you guessed it, I still thought these teams were even.
Then this happened:
"I don't want to hurt nobody. I don't want to step on nobody's foot or hurt their toe. I don't want to have no dirt or none of this rubber on this field fly into their eye and make their eye hurt. I just want to tackle them softly on the ground and if you all can, we'll lay a pillow down where I'm going to tackle them, so they don't hit the ground too hard ... Mr. Goodell."On Super Bowl media day, Harrison offered up that gem as an indication that he's still upset that he was asked to treat other players like human beings. In the same session, he indicated that he had experienced concussions and not left the game, implying that people who get concussions and do leave the game are less manly than he. To the educated sports fan, though, Harrison's revelation merely confirmed our suspicions that he's fucked up in the head.
-James Harrison, LB, Steelers
Does this statement change anything about Harrison? No, not really. I don't expect him to do anything different on Sunday; his motor will be running and he'll be ready to go, as will everyone else on the Steelers...right?
Here's what I know. When Harrison made his biggest deal about the headshot rules, after the Steelers rolled the Browns in week 6, the team seemed to lose focus. They barely won at Miami, 23-22, against a team that won only one home game all season. They followed that with a 20-10 loss to the Saints, then edged a free-falling Bengals team that had lost four straight, 27-21. They wrapped up a four game stretch by losing 39-26 at home to the Patriots.
Pittsburgh rebounded the following week by decimating the Raiders, but a chink was perhaps found. The Steelers didn't respond well to being called a dirty team. It's clear that, for whatever reason, Harrison had it in his head again that he was being put upon by the league, and for the Packers, it couldn't come at a better time. You take any advantage you can find.
I could talk about the teams' offenses and defenses, but you know them. I've already talked about them in previous weeks, and if you've watched any sports coverage at all this week, you've heard all the numbers. On Sunday, we'll watch two pretty evenly matched teams go head to head.
Normally I'd say I hope it's a good game, but I really don't. I hope the Steelers get throttled. I hope they go into halftime down 37-3, because Mike McCarthy called a pair of 2-point conversions late in the half, to rub salt in the wounds. I hope James Harrison gets upended and breaks his fucking leg. I hope Ryan Clark gets knocked out on the first play when he (inevitably) leads with his helmet on a tackle attempt.
I hope.
Prediction: Packers 29, Steelers 28
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Fantasy Baseball Previews
So historically, I've always done some fantasy baseball preview articles. Baseball is my favorite fantasy sport, and I love talking about it. But, I've always sort of tempered myself in my posts, for two main reasons:
That goes for you too, ladies. Holla!
- I'm in an ultra-competitive league, and I don't want to give away any of my personal interests.
- I could write a hundred articles on fantasy baseball, and it's tough to pick a few topics to actually write about.
That goes for you too, ladies. Holla!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Why I'm Siding With The Players
With the NBA and the NFL both facing labor disputes and potential work stoppages in 2011, I thought I would take a little time and outline why I'm siding with players. In fact, I'm siding with the players this time, next time and probably every time after that. Here's why:
1) The players won't propose a deal that's bad for ownership
No, you read that correctly, the players won't and can't propose a deal that is bad for ownership. A bad deal for ownership would be one in which their labor costs to the players and other operating costs are so high that they don't make an acceptable profit and consider shutting down the sport for an extended length of time. If this were to happen, the players are basically putting themselves out of business. Since the players are (at least semi) rational, they won't offer a deal that kills the golden goose. Thus, the players have no choice but to agree to a deal that keeps the owners happily in business. Sure, they'll try to push as far into the owners profits as far as possible, but ultimately the players have to present a deal that is good for both sides.
The flip side of this is that the owners don't have to present a deal that is good for both sides. In fact, they want to maximize profits by lowering operating costs as much as possible. As long as their deal would be good enough to keep the talented players from choosing other professions (probably not hard to do since the average American makes somewhere south of $40k), then the owners would be in business and raking in even more cash.
2) The players are what we want to see
The players ARE the game. Watching the world's greatest athletes play the most exciting games at the very highest level is the reason we tune in to professional sports. Want proof of this: How many WNBA games did you watch last year? How many Division III college football games did you watch? How many cricket matches did you watch? I'm guessing the sum of these three question is probably less than five. Now, how many NFL games did you watch? That number is a lot higher, isn't it?
The talent is really the reason we watch professional sports. Without extraordinarily gifted players performing remarkable physical tasks, nobody pays attention. It doesn't matter how good your marketing is, how nice the stadium is or how delicious the hot dogs are, if the players aren't highly skilled nothing else matters. This isn't to say that we don't need the business side of sports to make things operate, we do, but the players are what draw people to the game.
In addition, it's important to note how scarce talented players are. Approximately 400 guys play in the NBA every year. Maybe another 2000 guys play in the NFL each year. That's 2400 people out of roughly 300 million Americans (yes, yes, some of the NBA guys come from overseas, bear with me). That means that roughly 0.0008% of the country is talented enough to play in the NFL or NBA. I don't care what other profession you name, I'm guessing more that 0.0008% of the population can do it.
3) It's a zero sum game
I've heard it a thousand times: "The players are just a bunch of spoiled millionaires who should shut up and be thankful they are getting paid 100 times more than the average school teacher". Ok, that's true, but guess what, the owners are multimillionaires too, and in most cases billionaires. Either way somebody really, really, really rich is going to end up with the money. It makes no sense to tell the players just to be grateful when it essentially makes someone else richer. Both sides are trying to maximize their slice of the revenue, this is capitalism.
4) Ticket prices aren't going anywhere
Another favorite argument is that if the players would accept less money, the owners (who were then facing lower operating costs) would lower ticket prices. This is flat out wrong. Ticket prices are calculated based on what people are willing to pay to walk in the gate. It's based on market research and demand to see the product on the field. Do this thought experiment: If all the player's salaries dropped to $100,000 tomorrow, what would happen to ticket prices? That's right, the ticket prices would stay exactly where they currently are...and the owners would pocket the difference.
5) The owners have an investment, the players have a job
Due to the increasing popularity of American professional sports (both in America and expanding around the world), an NBA or NFL franchise is worth more today than it was ten years ago...approximately 50% more. For example, the Jacksonville Jaguars (the NFL's least valuable franchise), was worth $460 million in 2000 is now worth $725 million. The Oakland Raiders went from $315 million to $758 million over the same ten year period. Even my beloved Cleveland Browns went from $557 million to $1032 million proving that you don't need to win to make money. Even if the owners weren't making any money year to year (and believe me, they are as all but 6 franchises had profits of greater than $10 million in 2009), the act of simply owning the team is returning 50% over ten years. Obviously, past results don't guarantee future returns, but, damn.
The players are another story. The average NFL career is only a few years and when you are done, you're done. Of course there is the NFL pension plan, but that is only for players that played at least three years and you can't get full benefits until the age of 55. While this is a nice benefit that most American workers would probably kill to receive, it doesn't exactly seem to match up with the 50% return on investment the owners are seeing.
Highly skilled players, representing the only real commodity of their sport, presenting a reasonable, win/win offer to ownership that is seeing huge returns on their investments. That is why I'm supporting the players in the upcoming NBA and NFL labor disputes.
1) The players won't propose a deal that's bad for ownership
No, you read that correctly, the players won't and can't propose a deal that is bad for ownership. A bad deal for ownership would be one in which their labor costs to the players and other operating costs are so high that they don't make an acceptable profit and consider shutting down the sport for an extended length of time. If this were to happen, the players are basically putting themselves out of business. Since the players are (at least semi) rational, they won't offer a deal that kills the golden goose. Thus, the players have no choice but to agree to a deal that keeps the owners happily in business. Sure, they'll try to push as far into the owners profits as far as possible, but ultimately the players have to present a deal that is good for both sides.
The flip side of this is that the owners don't have to present a deal that is good for both sides. In fact, they want to maximize profits by lowering operating costs as much as possible. As long as their deal would be good enough to keep the talented players from choosing other professions (probably not hard to do since the average American makes somewhere south of $40k), then the owners would be in business and raking in even more cash.
2) The players are what we want to see
The players ARE the game. Watching the world's greatest athletes play the most exciting games at the very highest level is the reason we tune in to professional sports. Want proof of this: How many WNBA games did you watch last year? How many Division III college football games did you watch? How many cricket matches did you watch? I'm guessing the sum of these three question is probably less than five. Now, how many NFL games did you watch? That number is a lot higher, isn't it?
The talent is really the reason we watch professional sports. Without extraordinarily gifted players performing remarkable physical tasks, nobody pays attention. It doesn't matter how good your marketing is, how nice the stadium is or how delicious the hot dogs are, if the players aren't highly skilled nothing else matters. This isn't to say that we don't need the business side of sports to make things operate, we do, but the players are what draw people to the game.
In addition, it's important to note how scarce talented players are. Approximately 400 guys play in the NBA every year. Maybe another 2000 guys play in the NFL each year. That's 2400 people out of roughly 300 million Americans (yes, yes, some of the NBA guys come from overseas, bear with me). That means that roughly 0.0008% of the country is talented enough to play in the NFL or NBA. I don't care what other profession you name, I'm guessing more that 0.0008% of the population can do it.
3) It's a zero sum game
I've heard it a thousand times: "The players are just a bunch of spoiled millionaires who should shut up and be thankful they are getting paid 100 times more than the average school teacher". Ok, that's true, but guess what, the owners are multimillionaires too, and in most cases billionaires. Either way somebody really, really, really rich is going to end up with the money. It makes no sense to tell the players just to be grateful when it essentially makes someone else richer. Both sides are trying to maximize their slice of the revenue, this is capitalism.
4) Ticket prices aren't going anywhere
Another favorite argument is that if the players would accept less money, the owners (who were then facing lower operating costs) would lower ticket prices. This is flat out wrong. Ticket prices are calculated based on what people are willing to pay to walk in the gate. It's based on market research and demand to see the product on the field. Do this thought experiment: If all the player's salaries dropped to $100,000 tomorrow, what would happen to ticket prices? That's right, the ticket prices would stay exactly where they currently are...and the owners would pocket the difference.
5) The owners have an investment, the players have a job
Due to the increasing popularity of American professional sports (both in America and expanding around the world), an NBA or NFL franchise is worth more today than it was ten years ago...approximately 50% more. For example, the Jacksonville Jaguars (the NFL's least valuable franchise), was worth $460 million in 2000 is now worth $725 million. The Oakland Raiders went from $315 million to $758 million over the same ten year period. Even my beloved Cleveland Browns went from $557 million to $1032 million proving that you don't need to win to make money. Even if the owners weren't making any money year to year (and believe me, they are as all but 6 franchises had profits of greater than $10 million in 2009), the act of simply owning the team is returning 50% over ten years. Obviously, past results don't guarantee future returns, but, damn.
The players are another story. The average NFL career is only a few years and when you are done, you're done. Of course there is the NFL pension plan, but that is only for players that played at least three years and you can't get full benefits until the age of 55. While this is a nice benefit that most American workers would probably kill to receive, it doesn't exactly seem to match up with the 50% return on investment the owners are seeing.
Highly skilled players, representing the only real commodity of their sport, presenting a reasonable, win/win offer to ownership that is seeing huge returns on their investments. That is why I'm supporting the players in the upcoming NBA and NFL labor disputes.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Games of the Year - 2010 Eligible List
In what has shockingly become an annual feature, I'll be posting my personal Game of the Year list for 2010 all next week. We'll start with #5 on Monday, and finish off with my #1 game of the year on Friday, February 11th.
As you may remember, the Housington Game of the Year system is a little different from your normal Game of the Year stuff. I don't buy very many new games, but I do generally buy/play a lot. So, my Game of the Year eligible list includes games that I feel like I got into enough to use up their "rookie" status. The list of eligible games is below.
This year's list is extensive, as it was my first full year purchasing and playing games from Steam. Their sales are numerous and the discounts are deep. To give you an idea of how much so, I've already got more games in my Steam library that I haven't played than are on the PC list below. I also purchased a PlayStation 3 in 2010, though obviously from the lack of any PS3 games below, you can tell that I haven't really gotten into it yet. Expect that to change in 2011.
GameCube
Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
PC
And Yet It Moves
Alien Swarm
BattleForge
Borderlands
Braid
Dead Frontier
Dungeons & Dragons Online
Gish
League of Legends
Left 4 Dead 2
Lord of the Rings Online
Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers
Osmos
Puzzle Agent
Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale
World of Goo
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm
Xbox 360
Band Hero
Dead Rising 2: Case Zero
Dead Rising 2
Guitar Hero 5
Guitar Hero Smash Hits
Lego Rock Band
Mass Effect
Overlord
Rock Band 3
South Park Ultimate Tower Defense
I'd love to hear your predictions, if you've got any. You've got a week to make your guesses. And I'll tell you what; to make it easier, I'll post a poll over on the sideboard.
Edit: I removed BIT.TRIP.BEAT and Company of Heroes from the list of eligible games. The reality is that I did not play those two games enough for them to have lost their rookie eligibility. I don't expect either to make it into the Top 5 in 2011, but they remain eligible.
As you may remember, the Housington Game of the Year system is a little different from your normal Game of the Year stuff. I don't buy very many new games, but I do generally buy/play a lot. So, my Game of the Year eligible list includes games that I feel like I got into enough to use up their "rookie" status. The list of eligible games is below.
This year's list is extensive, as it was my first full year purchasing and playing games from Steam. Their sales are numerous and the discounts are deep. To give you an idea of how much so, I've already got more games in my Steam library that I haven't played than are on the PC list below. I also purchased a PlayStation 3 in 2010, though obviously from the lack of any PS3 games below, you can tell that I haven't really gotten into it yet. Expect that to change in 2011.
GameCube
Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
PC
And Yet It Moves
Alien Swarm
BattleForge
Borderlands
Braid
Dead Frontier
Dungeons & Dragons Online
Gish
League of Legends
Left 4 Dead 2
Lord of the Rings Online
Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers
Osmos
Puzzle Agent
Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale
World of Goo
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm
Xbox 360
Band Hero
Dead Rising 2: Case Zero
Dead Rising 2
Guitar Hero 5
Guitar Hero Smash Hits
Lego Rock Band
Mass Effect
Overlord
Rock Band 3
South Park Ultimate Tower Defense
I'd love to hear your predictions, if you've got any. You've got a week to make your guesses. And I'll tell you what; to make it easier, I'll post a poll over on the sideboard.
Edit: I removed BIT.TRIP.BEAT and Company of Heroes from the list of eligible games. The reality is that I did not play those two games enough for them to have lost their rookie eligibility. I don't expect either to make it into the Top 5 in 2011, but they remain eligible.
Friday, January 28, 2011
NHL All-Star Draft - Team Lidstrom
Eddie and I agreed that we both feel like the Team Lidstrom trio is a little more impressive than the Team Staal trio, but certainly you're not unhappy with either set of superstars. Here's how I arranged my lines:
Forwards
Line 1 - Henrik Sedin, Martin St. Louis, Corey Perry
Line 2 - Brad Richards, Loui Eriksson, Paul Stasny
Line 3 - Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Martin Havlat
Line 4 - Matt Duchene, Daniel Briere, David Backes
Defense
Pairing 1 - Nicklas Lidstrom, Zdeno Chara
Pairing 2 - Dan Boyle, Brent Burns
Pairing 3 - Dustin Byfuglien, Erik Karlsson
Goalies
Period 1 - Carey Price
Period 2 - Tim Thomas
Period 3 - Henrik Lundqvist
What Happened During the Draft
Coming in, I had only one plan: get Chara. My feeling was that he was the one guy, even more than Stamkos, who was a cut above the rest of the guys at his position. Had Eddie taken Chara first, I'd have obviously settled on the goal-scorer extraordinaire Stamkos, but I was glad that Chara fell.
Of course, after I saw how the first two picks went for Eddie, I immediately questioned my selection of Chara. I mean, Chara's great, but Stamkos, Ovechkin, and Staal or Kesler creates a pretty impossible matchup for even the best opponents. I had to trust my gut, and hope I had planned correctly.
I had been hoping to get both Sedins, but I didn't pay attention to the fact that Eddie already had two centers when I took Henrik. Had I taken Daniel, maybe I'd have been able to snag Henrik the following round. Or maybe it wouldn't have mattered. I'm a big fan of Brad Richards, so I'm okay with how things turned out there.
I really liked the guys in the middle of my draft. Perry, Byfuglien, Toews, Boyle, and Duchene were all guys I had hoped to get. I took Tim Thomas and Henrik Lundqvist a little earlier than I had to, because I didn't want to get backed into having to take Marc-Andre Fleury. Fleury can be great, but he can also single-handedly lose games for you.
In the last few picks, I was really just looking for guys to fill out the roster. Havlat's a nice veteran, and Stasny showed during the Olympics that he has the capability to shine on a big stage. David Backes is on my fantasy hockey team, and he's putting up great numbers for me. Also, I heard somewhere that if he got picked last, he'd start knocking heads at the All-Star game. Both Eddie and I agreed that this was reason enough to let him slip to the last pick.
Laying the Lines
Picking the lines was more art than science, in that I didn't really have much in the way of a "valid" reason to partner up certain guys; I just went with my gut mostly.
On the first forwards line, I wanted to make sure I had enough firepower to compete with what would inevitably be a more talented line on the other side. I hear Corey Perry is kind of a bastard to play against, so I like him on that line. Sedin and St. Louis are megastars. I tried to pair up teammates where I could, putting Toews and Kane on one line, Richards and Eriksson on another.
On defense, I tried to make sure that each pairing had at least one rough and tumble type player. That's why Chara, Burns, and Byfuglien are each on different lines (although the idea of putting Chara and Byfuglien on the same line was briefly very appealing). I know you're technically not supposed to "hit" in the All-Star game, but come on. Somebody's gonna get chippy.
I knew I wanted Lundqvist to finish out the game, so he was a no-brainer for the third. I feel like Carey Price is a well-liked player, and certainly exciting, so I chose him to open the game. I put Tim Thomas in the middle to keep the pressure low on him, but also because a good second period can put your team in great shape. And his numbers this year are just phenomenal.
It's a shame that Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin weren't able to participate this year. The only thing I really know is that the Caps and Pens don't like each other, and it would've been interesting to see how that manifested itself in this draft. Though maybe we'll still get some snark between Kris Letang and Ovechkin...
Dare to dream.
Forwards
Line 1 - Henrik Sedin, Martin St. Louis, Corey Perry
Line 2 - Brad Richards, Loui Eriksson, Paul Stasny
Line 3 - Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Martin Havlat
Line 4 - Matt Duchene, Daniel Briere, David Backes
Defense
Pairing 1 - Nicklas Lidstrom, Zdeno Chara
Pairing 2 - Dan Boyle, Brent Burns
Pairing 3 - Dustin Byfuglien, Erik Karlsson
Goalies
Period 1 - Carey Price
Period 2 - Tim Thomas
Period 3 - Henrik Lundqvist
What Happened During the Draft
Coming in, I had only one plan: get Chara. My feeling was that he was the one guy, even more than Stamkos, who was a cut above the rest of the guys at his position. Had Eddie taken Chara first, I'd have obviously settled on the goal-scorer extraordinaire Stamkos, but I was glad that Chara fell.
Of course, after I saw how the first two picks went for Eddie, I immediately questioned my selection of Chara. I mean, Chara's great, but Stamkos, Ovechkin, and Staal or Kesler creates a pretty impossible matchup for even the best opponents. I had to trust my gut, and hope I had planned correctly.
I had been hoping to get both Sedins, but I didn't pay attention to the fact that Eddie already had two centers when I took Henrik. Had I taken Daniel, maybe I'd have been able to snag Henrik the following round. Or maybe it wouldn't have mattered. I'm a big fan of Brad Richards, so I'm okay with how things turned out there.
I really liked the guys in the middle of my draft. Perry, Byfuglien, Toews, Boyle, and Duchene were all guys I had hoped to get. I took Tim Thomas and Henrik Lundqvist a little earlier than I had to, because I didn't want to get backed into having to take Marc-Andre Fleury. Fleury can be great, but he can also single-handedly lose games for you.
In the last few picks, I was really just looking for guys to fill out the roster. Havlat's a nice veteran, and Stasny showed during the Olympics that he has the capability to shine on a big stage. David Backes is on my fantasy hockey team, and he's putting up great numbers for me. Also, I heard somewhere that if he got picked last, he'd start knocking heads at the All-Star game. Both Eddie and I agreed that this was reason enough to let him slip to the last pick.
Laying the Lines
Picking the lines was more art than science, in that I didn't really have much in the way of a "valid" reason to partner up certain guys; I just went with my gut mostly.
On the first forwards line, I wanted to make sure I had enough firepower to compete with what would inevitably be a more talented line on the other side. I hear Corey Perry is kind of a bastard to play against, so I like him on that line. Sedin and St. Louis are megastars. I tried to pair up teammates where I could, putting Toews and Kane on one line, Richards and Eriksson on another.
On defense, I tried to make sure that each pairing had at least one rough and tumble type player. That's why Chara, Burns, and Byfuglien are each on different lines (although the idea of putting Chara and Byfuglien on the same line was briefly very appealing). I know you're technically not supposed to "hit" in the All-Star game, but come on. Somebody's gonna get chippy.
I knew I wanted Lundqvist to finish out the game, so he was a no-brainer for the third. I feel like Carey Price is a well-liked player, and certainly exciting, so I chose him to open the game. I put Tim Thomas in the middle to keep the pressure low on him, but also because a good second period can put your team in great shape. And his numbers this year are just phenomenal.
It's a shame that Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin weren't able to participate this year. The only thing I really know is that the Caps and Pens don't like each other, and it would've been interesting to see how that manifested itself in this draft. Though maybe we'll still get some snark between Kris Letang and Ovechkin...
Dare to dream.
Team Awesome
Eddie’s Team of Awesome
LW: Alex Ovechkin C: Eric Staal RW: Rick Nash
LW: Daniel Sedin C: Steven Stamkos RW:Claude Giroux
LW: Patrick Sharp C: Ryan Kesler RW: Phil Kessel
LW: Patrick Elias C: Anze Kopitar RW: Jeff Skinner
D: Kris Letang D: Duncan Keith
D: Mike Green D: Marc Staal
D: Shea Weber D: Keith Yandle
1st Period G: Cam Ward
2nd Period G: Marc-Andre Fleury
3rd Period G: Jonas Hiller
Going into the draft I was looking for speed and offense. With the lack of hitting in the all-star game I thought the key to victory was to have quick and mobile defensemen that could jump into the offense and stay in front of big, quick and powerful forwards. I think I did a great job doing this by drafting two of the top offensive D-men in Letang and Keith to go along with assistant captain Mike Green.
In addition with the game played in Carolina I wanted to get as many Hurricanes to get the crowd behind Team Awesome. That is another reason why I elected to start Cam Ward. I am looking for a quick start out of the gate with the young players of team Awesome feeding of the energy of the fans. Also a player like Ovechkin loves to impress and play to the crowd. I am looking for him to have a huge presence and affect on the game. Finally as little of an effect it may have on the game I tried to match opposite handed defensemen together. This will allow them to keep pucks in the offensive zone.
The results are this team is Legan... wait for it... dary. Team Fantastic is lame. I hope Backes gets chippy... Nash and Ovi will drop him.
What are your thoughts? Think I overpaid for any player? Think Loui Eriksson is as hot as I do? Think the Sedin twins will drop the gloves?
2011 NHL All-Star Mock Draft
The NHL is making a twist on their All-Star game once again. This year's game hearkens back to schoolyard hockey (which I've never played, but I hear it's wild. You apparently just play hockey for an extended period of time). Two captains, along with two assistant captains per team, go back and forth selecting players until all 36 players have been assigned to a team. It's got the potential to be really fun TV, and I'm hopeful it pans out that way.
This year's teams set up as follows:
Team Staal
Captain - Eric Staal, C, Hurricanes
Assistant Captain - Ryan Kesler, C, Canucks
Assistant Captain - Mike Green, D, Capitals
Team Lidstrom
Captain - Nicklas Lidstrom, D, Red Wings
Assistant Captain - Patrick Kane, RW, Blackhawks
Assistant Captain - Martin St. Louis, RW, Lightning
So, naturally, my brother and I decided to conduct our own mock draft and see how the teams shake up. My brother took control of Team Staal, I took over for Team Lidstrom. We did a coin flip, and Team Staal won the flip, so they drafted first. Here are the results:
This year's teams set up as follows:
Team Staal
Captain - Eric Staal, C, Hurricanes
Assistant Captain - Ryan Kesler, C, Canucks
Assistant Captain - Mike Green, D, Capitals
Team Lidstrom
Captain - Nicklas Lidstrom, D, Red Wings
Assistant Captain - Patrick Kane, RW, Blackhawks
Assistant Captain - Martin St. Louis, RW, Lightning
So, naturally, my brother and I decided to conduct our own mock draft and see how the teams shake up. My brother took control of Team Staal, I took over for Team Lidstrom. We did a coin flip, and Team Staal won the flip, so they drafted first. Here are the results:
- Team Staal - Steven Stamkos, C, Lightning
- Team Lidstrom - Zdeno Chara, D, Bruins
- Team Staal - Alex Ovechkin, LW, Capitals
- Team Lidstrom - Henrik Sedin, C, Canucks
- Team Staal - Daniel Sedin, LW, Canucks
- Team Lidstrom - Brad Richards, C, Stars
- Team Staal - Kris Letang, D, Penguins
- Team Lidstrom - Corey Perry, RW, Ducks
- Team Staal - Duncan Keith, D, Blackhawks
- Team Lidstrom - Dustin Byfuglien, D, Thrashers
- Team Staal - Rick Nash, RW, Blue Jackets
- Team Lidstrom - Tim Thomas, G, Bruins
- Team Staal - Shea Weber, D, Predators
- Team Lidstrom - Henrik Lundqvist, G, Rangers
- Team Staal - Marc-Andre Fleury, G, Penguins
- Team Lidstrom - Jonathan Toews, C, Blackhawks
- Team Staal - Cam Ward, G, Hurricanes
- Team Lidstrom - Dan Boyle, D, Sharks
- Team Staal - Jonas Hiller, G, Ducks
- Team Lidstrom - Carey Price, G, Canadiens
- Team Staal - Claude Giroux, RW, Flyers
- Team Lidstrom - Matt Duchene, C, Avalanche
- Team Staal - Anze Kopitar, C, Kings
- Team Lidstrom - Danny Briere, RW, Flyers
- Team Staal - Keith Yandle, D, Coyotes
- Team Lidstrom - Brent Burns, D, Wild
- Team Staal - Marc Staal, D, Rangers
- Team Lidstrom - Loui Eriksson, LW, Stars
- Team Staal - Patrick Sharp, LW, Blackhawks
- Team Lidstrom - Erik Karlsson, D, Senators
- Team Staal - Phil Kessel, RW, Maple Leafs
- Team Lidstrom - Martin Havlat, RW, Wild
- Team Staal - Patrick Elias, LW, Devils
- Team Lidstrom - Paul Stasny, C, Avalanche
- Team Staal - Jeff Skinner, C, Hurricanes
- Team Lidstrom - David Backes, RW, Blues
Rollercoaster Tycoon
As a lot of you probably know, I spend a lot of time playing computer games. As some of you don't know, I also like Disney World a lot. And pretty much every time I go to Disney World, I come home and start playing Roller Coaster Tycoon again.
This year, I actually didn't start playing right away. I got back into World of Warcraft, and played some NHL '09, and even revived MLB Front Office Manager and League of Legends. But when the huge storm hit on Wednesday and we lost internet, I lost my two big computer game time sinks (WoW and LoL). Roller Coaster Tycoon was the inevitable beneficiary.
This blog post is for RCT fans. Here's some of my own discoveries, for your edification:
This year, I actually didn't start playing right away. I got back into World of Warcraft, and played some NHL '09, and even revived MLB Front Office Manager and League of Legends. But when the huge storm hit on Wednesday and we lost internet, I lost my two big computer game time sinks (WoW and LoL). Roller Coaster Tycoon was the inevitable beneficiary.
This blog post is for RCT fans. Here's some of my own discoveries, for your edification:
- The first thing you should do when you start a level is go to your research screen and do the following: bump research up to maximum, disable Ride Improvements and Scenery and Theming, disable roller coasters if you already have the Steel Roller Coaster (see below), and disable shops and stalls if you've already got the following: any food, any drink, information kiosk, bathroom.
- The Steel Roller Coaster's pre-made track called Shuttle Loop is a great money-maker. It's cheap to build, takes up a small area on your map, and doesn't require you to try to work out the intricacies of banking turns and minimizing nausea. There are other small tracks in the other versions of the Steel Roller Coaster. I recommend them as well.
- Go Karts has the highest potential excitement of any ride. Seriously. It seems like as long as you don't have too many level straightaways, the excitement just goes up and up with each block of track you add.
- People like the Log Flume more than the excitement level would make you think they do. It's inexplicable, but it's true.
- Charging admission to the park rather than for each individual ride is almost always the best way to go. It keeps your rides popular, and I think you make more money anyways. You can also still charge a small price for roller coasters and other similar rides.
- The desert parks are the best, because you don't usually have many trees to get around, and you don't have to worry about whether or not you should let your handymen get distracted by mowing the grass (answer: you should not let them).
Friday, January 21, 2011
Disney World 2011
This year's Disney World trip was great, despite the fact that I was under the weather for the duration of the trip. My mom, my youngest brother Kevin, and I took Amtrak's AutoTrain. It was interesting enough that I'll devote a separate post to it, but for here, we'll say that it got us down there, and I didn't get much sleep in either direction.
My other brother Eddie and his wife Rachel came with the three of us, creating our own little Party of Five...except without Neve Campbell...or Matthew Fox...okay, it's nothing like that show, it was just a reference to the number of people.
Our accommodations were at Old Key West. It was a very nice, very quiet area, with a restaurant, a couple pools, and We got a three bedroom villa, which was big, but lacked a little on community areas. Also, the seating wasn't particularly comfortable, but hey, you're in Disney World. Get off your ass and go do stuff.
The one big disappointment on this trip was that several of my favorite rides were closed for refurbishment/repairs: Star Tours, Kali River Rapids, and my favorite ride, Splash Mountain. Lesson learned, though. Next time, we'll be planning our trip on short notice, and making sure that the important rides are open.
I went on a couple new rides, including finally trying out Space Mountain. Now, I apparently misspoke about the ride. I told Rachel that I thought Space Mountain was the fastest ride at Disney World; I wasn't even close. Space Mountain tops out at 28 miles per hour. I have no idea where I got it in my head that it was the fastest.
As I did last year, I'll give you ratings on the rides I went on for the first time:
Maelstrom Adventure Cruise (Epcot) (3/5)
This is an attraction in the Norwegian portion of Epcot. It's basically a short boat ride with a couple of tiny drops. I think if Splash Mountain wasn't closed, this would've gotten two stars, but it was closed, so three stars.
Space Mountain (Magic Kingdom) (4/5)
It may not be as fast as I thought, but it's definitely fun. My only qualm with it is that the ride is perhaps TOO dark. Still, it's a fun ride with a lot of twists and turns. I'm glad I finally checked it out.
Yep, that's it. Just two new rides for me. But I've got big plans for my next trip to Lake Buena Vista. First, Splash Mountain will be open the next time I head down there, and I'll be getting my fill of it. Second, it sounds like Star Tours is getting a dramatic overhaul that includes incorporating 3D video; that should be a lot of fun. I also want to go on the Silly Safari in Magic Kingdom; I wanted to go this year, but it closes at night. So, next time.
Who's in?
My other brother Eddie and his wife Rachel came with the three of us, creating our own little Party of Five...except without Neve Campbell...or Matthew Fox...okay, it's nothing like that show, it was just a reference to the number of people.
Our accommodations were at Old Key West. It was a very nice, very quiet area, with a restaurant, a couple pools, and We got a three bedroom villa, which was big, but lacked a little on community areas. Also, the seating wasn't particularly comfortable, but hey, you're in Disney World. Get off your ass and go do stuff.
The one big disappointment on this trip was that several of my favorite rides were closed for refurbishment/repairs: Star Tours, Kali River Rapids, and my favorite ride, Splash Mountain. Lesson learned, though. Next time, we'll be planning our trip on short notice, and making sure that the important rides are open.
I went on a couple new rides, including finally trying out Space Mountain. Now, I apparently misspoke about the ride. I told Rachel that I thought Space Mountain was the fastest ride at Disney World; I wasn't even close. Space Mountain tops out at 28 miles per hour. I have no idea where I got it in my head that it was the fastest.
As I did last year, I'll give you ratings on the rides I went on for the first time:
Maelstrom Adventure Cruise (Epcot) (3/5)
This is an attraction in the Norwegian portion of Epcot. It's basically a short boat ride with a couple of tiny drops. I think if Splash Mountain wasn't closed, this would've gotten two stars, but it was closed, so three stars.
Space Mountain (Magic Kingdom) (4/5)
It may not be as fast as I thought, but it's definitely fun. My only qualm with it is that the ride is perhaps TOO dark. Still, it's a fun ride with a lot of twists and turns. I'm glad I finally checked it out.
Yep, that's it. Just two new rides for me. But I've got big plans for my next trip to Lake Buena Vista. First, Splash Mountain will be open the next time I head down there, and I'll be getting my fill of it. Second, it sounds like Star Tours is getting a dramatic overhaul that includes incorporating 3D video; that should be a lot of fun. I also want to go on the Silly Safari in Magic Kingdom; I wanted to go this year, but it closes at night. So, next time.
Who's in?
2011 NFL Playoffs - Conference Championships
Anybody can get 3/4 right; it's one pick off of a coin flip's chance. The conference championships are, I think, the hardest round to pick. You've got two games, and you really only get credit if you get both right. At least with the Super Bowl you just have the one game, and lots of people get it wrong. And you can always explain away a miscalculation: "Oh, well if so-and-so hadn't gotten hurt," or "I don't know why the coach changed them from what they'd done all season." But conference championships? It's win or go home for predictors, too.
So let's win. Or go home.
NFC Championship Game
#6 Green Bay Packers at #2 Chicago Bears
Pretty much every year, I've tried to convince myself that there's a way to predict the Packers will go to the Super Bowl. I always talk myself out of it, but this year's team is better than any has been since Favre was in town. As I talked about last week, the defense has caught up with one of the league's most potent offenses to create maybe the best team in football. Yes, better than the Patriots, or the Steelers, or the Falcons.
Meanwhile, the Bears seem to yet be winning games with smoke and mirrors. They took a quick lead on the Seahawks, then seemed to think the game was over in the fourth quarter (which it mostly was, but still), when they gave up three touchdowns to Matt Hasselbeck in garbage time. Did they need to hammer down on Seattle at that point? No. But I think it says something about your team when you close out the other guys.
The biggest concern here is that it was the defense that seemed to lose focus. The defense is the only reason the Bears have come this far. They sport the fourth-best points defense and ninth-best yardage defense in football, which is good, because they have the third-worst yardage offense at 289.4 yards per game. That puts them behind such offensive juggernauts as the Buffalo Bills, St. Louis Rams, and Miami Dolphins.
In the end, I think things will bear out as expected, and Green Bay will be the NFC's representative in the Super Bowl. I don't think home-field or weather or "fate" will stop these Packers from playing in Dallas. And honestly, I don't think it'll be close.
Prediction: Packers 42, Bears 20
AFC Championship Game
#6 New York Jets at #2 Pittsburgh Steelers
As some of you know, I really don't like the Steelers. It's not an assessment of their talent, as you saw me pick them to beat the Ravens last week in a nail-biter (which it was). And as I've said, I think Troy Polamalu is one of the few guys in football you simply can't overrate. But having to deal with out-of-town Pittsburgh fans, between the Penguins and Steelers, it gets obnoxious.
(Conspicuously absent are any mentions of the Pirates by Maryland's "Pittsburgh" fans; hey, Neil Walker is a nice story!)
What you might not know, however, is that I actually like the Jets. I worked in a liquor store back in 2001, and we had one of those candy machines that sold miniature football helmets for fifty cents. One of our customers bought a couple, and he didn't want the Jets helmet, so he offered to me. I've had a little Jets helmet at my desk either at home or at work ever since. I embraced the Jerricho Cotchery years (to my own demise). I cheered on Curtis Martin's end-of-career revival. And I've always had a soft spot for Chad Pennington.
And now this new group is, I think, even more likable. Rex Ryan seems like the kind of coach who can get guys to go to battle for him, and his willingness to be the focal point of trash talk and controversy is refreshing. Darrelle Revis is one of the elite players in football today (another guy like Polamalu, who is simply as good as advertised), and Mark Sanchez, while young and unpolished, is an exciting quarterback to watch when his confidence is up.
That's what makes it so hard to pick the Steelers, but it's what I've got to do. I think the Pittsburgh offense is too good at spreading the ball around to be stifled by Revis and the rest of a very good defense. And the Pittsburgh defense is going to make sure that the Jets' running game is stuffed, forcing Sanchez to win the game. He's good, and he's growing, but I don't think he's ready for that yet. Should be a good game, though.
Prediction: Steelers 26, Jets 21
So let's win. Or go home.
NFC Championship Game
#6 Green Bay Packers at #2 Chicago Bears
Pretty much every year, I've tried to convince myself that there's a way to predict the Packers will go to the Super Bowl. I always talk myself out of it, but this year's team is better than any has been since Favre was in town. As I talked about last week, the defense has caught up with one of the league's most potent offenses to create maybe the best team in football. Yes, better than the Patriots, or the Steelers, or the Falcons.
Meanwhile, the Bears seem to yet be winning games with smoke and mirrors. They took a quick lead on the Seahawks, then seemed to think the game was over in the fourth quarter (which it mostly was, but still), when they gave up three touchdowns to Matt Hasselbeck in garbage time. Did they need to hammer down on Seattle at that point? No. But I think it says something about your team when you close out the other guys.
The biggest concern here is that it was the defense that seemed to lose focus. The defense is the only reason the Bears have come this far. They sport the fourth-best points defense and ninth-best yardage defense in football, which is good, because they have the third-worst yardage offense at 289.4 yards per game. That puts them behind such offensive juggernauts as the Buffalo Bills, St. Louis Rams, and Miami Dolphins.
In the end, I think things will bear out as expected, and Green Bay will be the NFC's representative in the Super Bowl. I don't think home-field or weather or "fate" will stop these Packers from playing in Dallas. And honestly, I don't think it'll be close.
Prediction: Packers 42, Bears 20
AFC Championship Game
#6 New York Jets at #2 Pittsburgh Steelers
As some of you know, I really don't like the Steelers. It's not an assessment of their talent, as you saw me pick them to beat the Ravens last week in a nail-biter (which it was). And as I've said, I think Troy Polamalu is one of the few guys in football you simply can't overrate. But having to deal with out-of-town Pittsburgh fans, between the Penguins and Steelers, it gets obnoxious.
(Conspicuously absent are any mentions of the Pirates by Maryland's "Pittsburgh" fans; hey, Neil Walker is a nice story!)
What you might not know, however, is that I actually like the Jets. I worked in a liquor store back in 2001, and we had one of those candy machines that sold miniature football helmets for fifty cents. One of our customers bought a couple, and he didn't want the Jets helmet, so he offered to me. I've had a little Jets helmet at my desk either at home or at work ever since. I embraced the Jerricho Cotchery years (to my own demise). I cheered on Curtis Martin's end-of-career revival. And I've always had a soft spot for Chad Pennington.
And now this new group is, I think, even more likable. Rex Ryan seems like the kind of coach who can get guys to go to battle for him, and his willingness to be the focal point of trash talk and controversy is refreshing. Darrelle Revis is one of the elite players in football today (another guy like Polamalu, who is simply as good as advertised), and Mark Sanchez, while young and unpolished, is an exciting quarterback to watch when his confidence is up.
That's what makes it so hard to pick the Steelers, but it's what I've got to do. I think the Pittsburgh offense is too good at spreading the ball around to be stifled by Revis and the rest of a very good defense. And the Pittsburgh defense is going to make sure that the Jets' running game is stuffed, forcing Sanchez to win the game. He's good, and he's growing, but I don't think he's ready for that yet. Should be a good game, though.
Prediction: Steelers 26, Jets 21
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
2011 NFL Playoffs - Divisional Weekend
I won't spout off too much about my performance last week, but it was pretty good: three out of four correct, and I really wanted to pick the Seahawks. Let's get to this week's matchups.
NFC Playoffs
#6 Green Bay Packers at #1 Atlanta Falcons
I love this game. I'm a big fan of Aaron Rodgers, and you may remember that I've been supportive of Matt Ryan since day one. In addition to those elite quarterbacks, you've got maybe the best wide receiver in football on one side (Roddy White), and maybe the best linebacker in football on the other (Clay Matthews). At 8:00 Saturday night, all hell is going to break loose.
So who'll win? That's a tough call. The Packers lost 20-17 in Atlanta over Thanksgiving weekend on a Matt Bryant field goal with 9 seconds left. I expect this game to be just as hard fought as the first, and it'll likely come down to last-minute heroics by one side or the other. I think I'll go with the Packers, though. The defense showed what it could do against the Eagles last week, and I expect them to be up to the task again.
Prediction: Packers 28, Falcons 25
#4 Seattle Seahawks at #2 Chicago Bears
Leave it to the NFL to create a situation where the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks could make it to the Super Bowl. Last week's game put them up against a team without two starting RBs. This week finds them facing a quarterback whose up and down year has found him on the wrong side of a TD/INT ratio five times this season. Furthermore, the Seahawks actually beat Chicago in week 6.
That said, the Bears won seven of their last nine games to finish the season, and Jay Cutler seemed to hit a bit of a stride, posting QB ratings above 100 four times in weeks 12-17. The hope in Chicago is that Matt Forte's lightened load this year (thanks to free agent acquisition Chester Taylor) will leave him with fresh legs for these playoffs. I like the Bears to end the dream for Seattle.
Prediction: Bears 27, Seahawks 13
AFC Playoffs
#5 Baltimore Ravens at #2 Pittsburgh Steelers
I'd like to give you a long explanation about this game. I'd like to feel justified telling you that it's a bitter divisional rivalry that will likely only get nastier. But the reality is, I made my pick a while ago on this one, based on a simple rule:
Unless it's the Patriots, the Steelers don't lose games with a healthy Troy Polamalu. There are some other great safeties in the league; hell, there's another in this game. But no defensive player has a greater impact on the outcome of games than Polamalu. He's playing (he's listed as questionable, but come on, he's playing), so I'm taking Pittsburgh. Should be a mean game, though, if you're into that sort of thing.
Prediction: Steelers 30, Ravens 20
#6 New York Jets at #1 New England Patriots
So, this is kind of the other matchup that everyone was hoping to see in these playoffs. The Jets and Patriots clearly do not like each other, from the top of the organizations all the way down. Those kinds of sentiments often make for entertaining pregame drama, but once the ball gets kicked off, it's all about football.
Lucky for us viewers, both of these teams play interesting football. There's plenty of talent on both sides of the ball for both teams, on and off the field. I'm going to go with the Patriots, though, for two reasons. First, the Patriots' most talented player is at quarterback, the best possible position to have an advantage. Second, the Jets seem to be really concerned with the Patriots right now. I understand that it's a rivalry, and that you have strong feelings, but I feel like it's better to channel that aggression into your game-planning and execution. It feels like the Patriots are doing that a lot better than New York.
Prediction: Patriots 20, Jets 9
NFC Playoffs
#6 Green Bay Packers at #1 Atlanta Falcons
I love this game. I'm a big fan of Aaron Rodgers, and you may remember that I've been supportive of Matt Ryan since day one. In addition to those elite quarterbacks, you've got maybe the best wide receiver in football on one side (Roddy White), and maybe the best linebacker in football on the other (Clay Matthews). At 8:00 Saturday night, all hell is going to break loose.
So who'll win? That's a tough call. The Packers lost 20-17 in Atlanta over Thanksgiving weekend on a Matt Bryant field goal with 9 seconds left. I expect this game to be just as hard fought as the first, and it'll likely come down to last-minute heroics by one side or the other. I think I'll go with the Packers, though. The defense showed what it could do against the Eagles last week, and I expect them to be up to the task again.
Prediction: Packers 28, Falcons 25
#4 Seattle Seahawks at #2 Chicago Bears
Leave it to the NFL to create a situation where the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks could make it to the Super Bowl. Last week's game put them up against a team without two starting RBs. This week finds them facing a quarterback whose up and down year has found him on the wrong side of a TD/INT ratio five times this season. Furthermore, the Seahawks actually beat Chicago in week 6.
That said, the Bears won seven of their last nine games to finish the season, and Jay Cutler seemed to hit a bit of a stride, posting QB ratings above 100 four times in weeks 12-17. The hope in Chicago is that Matt Forte's lightened load this year (thanks to free agent acquisition Chester Taylor) will leave him with fresh legs for these playoffs. I like the Bears to end the dream for Seattle.
Prediction: Bears 27, Seahawks 13
AFC Playoffs
#5 Baltimore Ravens at #2 Pittsburgh Steelers
I'd like to give you a long explanation about this game. I'd like to feel justified telling you that it's a bitter divisional rivalry that will likely only get nastier. But the reality is, I made my pick a while ago on this one, based on a simple rule:
Unless it's the Patriots, the Steelers don't lose games with a healthy Troy Polamalu. There are some other great safeties in the league; hell, there's another in this game. But no defensive player has a greater impact on the outcome of games than Polamalu. He's playing (he's listed as questionable, but come on, he's playing), so I'm taking Pittsburgh. Should be a mean game, though, if you're into that sort of thing.
Prediction: Steelers 30, Ravens 20
#6 New York Jets at #1 New England Patriots
So, this is kind of the other matchup that everyone was hoping to see in these playoffs. The Jets and Patriots clearly do not like each other, from the top of the organizations all the way down. Those kinds of sentiments often make for entertaining pregame drama, but once the ball gets kicked off, it's all about football.
Lucky for us viewers, both of these teams play interesting football. There's plenty of talent on both sides of the ball for both teams, on and off the field. I'm going to go with the Patriots, though, for two reasons. First, the Patriots' most talented player is at quarterback, the best possible position to have an advantage. Second, the Jets seem to be really concerned with the Patriots right now. I understand that it's a rivalry, and that you have strong feelings, but I feel like it's better to channel that aggression into your game-planning and execution. It feels like the Patriots are doing that a lot better than New York.
Prediction: Patriots 20, Jets 9
Almost Guilty Until Proven Guilty
The chatter on Facebook/Twitter/the blogosphere has been pretty uniform today: Auburn had better enjoy their title while it lasts. There appears to be a consensus that the NCAA will eventually find additional information that will be enough to declare him to have acted improperly, and that Auburn will have to vacate their title victory from last night.
I find that unlikely. First off, an investigation was conducted and completed. Cam Newton was declared ineligible for a couple hours, then, after Auburn filled out the proper paperwork, was reinstated. The end result was that the NCAA investigated cleared Newton to play.
The reasoning I've heard is that, with regards to a parent or third party requesting illegal benefits, there are three circumstances for which a player can be suspended:
Do I think something improper went down that actually involved Cam Newton? It's possible. I operate under the assumption that pretty much every star college athlete gets some kind of improper benefit or preferential treatment. There's too much money in college sports, and the elite players are too valuable to their schools not to get some kind of extra cheese on their pizzas. But based on everything we've heard, Newton was okay to play, and Auburn was fine to play him.
If new information comes out, then the NCAA will react to that as necessary. But right now, I don't see things going that way. So I extend my congratulations to Auburn on the national title they deserved to win in 2004.
I find that unlikely. First off, an investigation was conducted and completed. Cam Newton was declared ineligible for a couple hours, then, after Auburn filled out the proper paperwork, was reinstated. The end result was that the NCAA investigated cleared Newton to play.
The reasoning I've heard is that, with regards to a parent or third party requesting illegal benefits, there are three circumstances for which a player can be suspended:
- The parent or third party accepts benefits.
- The parent or third party asks for benefits with the player's knowledge.
- The parent or third party asks for benefits, then the player attends the solicited school, regardless of whether or not the player knew.
Do I think something improper went down that actually involved Cam Newton? It's possible. I operate under the assumption that pretty much every star college athlete gets some kind of improper benefit or preferential treatment. There's too much money in college sports, and the elite players are too valuable to their schools not to get some kind of extra cheese on their pizzas. But based on everything we've heard, Newton was okay to play, and Auburn was fine to play him.
If new information comes out, then the NCAA will react to that as necessary. But right now, I don't see things going that way. So I extend my congratulations to Auburn on the national title they deserved to win in 2004.
Monday, January 10, 2011
A Fitness Challenge
For those of you interested, I've started a fitness challenge with my cousin. It's basically a head-to-head competition between us, a Biggest Loser grudge match. If you want more details, or want to follow the action, you can go to the link below:
http://psychotronvsgargantuar.blogspot.com/
I'm Psychotron, obviously.
http://psychotronvsgargantuar.blogspot.com/
I'm Psychotron, obviously.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
MARSHAWN LYNCH?
I'm not going to say I predicted the Seahawks to win, because as you read just below, I didn't. I told you it was going to be a game, and that's honestly as much as I could've told you and felt comfortable doing. I wanted to pick the Seahawks, but who in their right mind would've? Nobody.
And most of all, nobody could've told you that this would happen.
And most of all, nobody could've told you that this would happen.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
2011 NFL Playoffs - Wild Card Weekend Preview
Wild Card Weekend always offers some of the most exciting football of the whole playoffs, and I'm not just saying that because that seems to be the only time the Redskins have shown up recently. The elite teams aren't involved, and everybody has a shot in every game.
You're 7-9 Seattle, going up against the defending Super Bowl Champion Saints? Well, Drew Brees had a career high 22 interceptions this year, and New Orleans is now missing their top two threats on the ground, with Chris Ivory and Pierre Thomas going on injured reserve. Everybody's got a chance to come out of this weekend a winner. And while for some that just means the opportunity to get steamrolled in the second round, it's a playoff win nonetheless, a currency that's often used to justify keeping a head coach (or the lack of which is used to justify firing a head coach).
So let's look at the games!
NFC Playoffs
#5 New Orleans Saints (11-5) at #4 Seattle Seahawks (7-9)
As I said, Brees' season was much less close to perfect than he has been in previous seasons. And the losses of Thomas and Ivory aren't inconsequential; Reggie Bush is dynamic, but he's less effective when he has to be the focal point of the running game. And Seattle is a tough place to play.
The problem, of course, is that the team that plays home games in Seattle is the Seahawks. They beat the Rams in a playoff-type game last week, and I think that's all they've got in them. I do think they'll keep it close, and the Saints won't be able to put the hammer down without a strong running game, but New Orleans should pull it out.
Prediction: Saints 24, Seahawks 14
#6 Green Bay Packers at #3 Philadelphia Eagles
Coming into the season, the Packers seemed like the logical choice for the NFC champions. Their offense was clicking on all cylinders, and while Kurt Warner and the Cardinals gashed them in last year's playoffs, we saw the makings of a potent defense. The defense was right on, with Clay Matthews leading them to top five finishes in both points and yards allowed. And the offense is still good, putting up 24 points a game. Their only real weakness is a lack of a consistent running game, precipitated by the loss of Ryan Grant early in the season.
The Eagles, meanwhile, have been the toast of the league, and Michael Vick will deservedly garner MVP consideration. Their defense isn't as stout as the Packers', but their offense is well-balanced...or so it seems. Remember that a good portion of the Eagles' run production is from Vick himself on scrambles. That's good, but it doesn't work as a late game clock-eating face-pounding running game. I think, like pretty much everyone else, it'll come down to Green Bay's defense, and how they're able to counter Vick's dynamic abilities. I expect them to be up to the task.
Prediction: Packers 38, Eagles 24
AFC Playoffs
#6 New York Jets at #3 Indianapolis Colts
Maybe the coolest thing about this matchup is that the Jets, on top of trying to get to the Super Bowl, really do have something to prove against the Colts. Last year, the Jets ended the Colts' perfect season...after the Colts pulled half their starters. Then, in the AFC title game, the Colts proved to be the better team. This is the Jets' chance to show that they've grown, specifically Mark Sanchez, who's shown he at least has the capacity for great games. Will they show it?
I think so, yes. This Colts team is much more susceptible to bad games than last year's was, and they went down to the wire just to get into the playoffs. As the saying goes, these aren't your father's Colts. This is a chance for Rex Ryan and the Jets to put their money where their loud mouths are, and Ryan seems like the kind of guy who can legitimately make a difference on the field. There aren't a lot of coaches like that; my money's on the one who is.
Prediction: Jets 26, Colts 21
#5 Baltimore Ravens at #4 Kansas City Chiefs
Initially, I thought this would be the toughest game to predict. Both the Ravens and the Chiefs have dynamic offensive players, as well as noteworthy holes. But when you look at actual game day performance, it's not close.
The Ravens have four losses this year by an average of four points. Three of their four losses were to eventual #1 or #2 seeds in these playoffs (New England, Pittsburgh, Atlanta). The Chiefs, meanwhile, went 2-2 against playoff teams from 2009, and lost to pretty much every team that showed some semblance of an offense against them. I expect the Ravens, who didn't play a bad game all year, to show up to play, and to put an end to Kansas City's dream season.
Prediction: Ravens 40, Chiefs 17
See you in a few days, when I have to explain how the Ravens let Jamaal Charles beat them, and what I was thinking when I said the Packers could stop Vick.
You're 7-9 Seattle, going up against the defending Super Bowl Champion Saints? Well, Drew Brees had a career high 22 interceptions this year, and New Orleans is now missing their top two threats on the ground, with Chris Ivory and Pierre Thomas going on injured reserve. Everybody's got a chance to come out of this weekend a winner. And while for some that just means the opportunity to get steamrolled in the second round, it's a playoff win nonetheless, a currency that's often used to justify keeping a head coach (or the lack of which is used to justify firing a head coach).
So let's look at the games!
NFC Playoffs
#5 New Orleans Saints (11-5) at #4 Seattle Seahawks (7-9)
As I said, Brees' season was much less close to perfect than he has been in previous seasons. And the losses of Thomas and Ivory aren't inconsequential; Reggie Bush is dynamic, but he's less effective when he has to be the focal point of the running game. And Seattle is a tough place to play.
The problem, of course, is that the team that plays home games in Seattle is the Seahawks. They beat the Rams in a playoff-type game last week, and I think that's all they've got in them. I do think they'll keep it close, and the Saints won't be able to put the hammer down without a strong running game, but New Orleans should pull it out.
Prediction: Saints 24, Seahawks 14
#6 Green Bay Packers at #3 Philadelphia Eagles
Coming into the season, the Packers seemed like the logical choice for the NFC champions. Their offense was clicking on all cylinders, and while Kurt Warner and the Cardinals gashed them in last year's playoffs, we saw the makings of a potent defense. The defense was right on, with Clay Matthews leading them to top five finishes in both points and yards allowed. And the offense is still good, putting up 24 points a game. Their only real weakness is a lack of a consistent running game, precipitated by the loss of Ryan Grant early in the season.
The Eagles, meanwhile, have been the toast of the league, and Michael Vick will deservedly garner MVP consideration. Their defense isn't as stout as the Packers', but their offense is well-balanced...or so it seems. Remember that a good portion of the Eagles' run production is from Vick himself on scrambles. That's good, but it doesn't work as a late game clock-eating face-pounding running game. I think, like pretty much everyone else, it'll come down to Green Bay's defense, and how they're able to counter Vick's dynamic abilities. I expect them to be up to the task.
Prediction: Packers 38, Eagles 24
AFC Playoffs
#6 New York Jets at #3 Indianapolis Colts
Maybe the coolest thing about this matchup is that the Jets, on top of trying to get to the Super Bowl, really do have something to prove against the Colts. Last year, the Jets ended the Colts' perfect season...after the Colts pulled half their starters. Then, in the AFC title game, the Colts proved to be the better team. This is the Jets' chance to show that they've grown, specifically Mark Sanchez, who's shown he at least has the capacity for great games. Will they show it?
I think so, yes. This Colts team is much more susceptible to bad games than last year's was, and they went down to the wire just to get into the playoffs. As the saying goes, these aren't your father's Colts. This is a chance for Rex Ryan and the Jets to put their money where their loud mouths are, and Ryan seems like the kind of guy who can legitimately make a difference on the field. There aren't a lot of coaches like that; my money's on the one who is.
Prediction: Jets 26, Colts 21
#5 Baltimore Ravens at #4 Kansas City Chiefs
Initially, I thought this would be the toughest game to predict. Both the Ravens and the Chiefs have dynamic offensive players, as well as noteworthy holes. But when you look at actual game day performance, it's not close.
The Ravens have four losses this year by an average of four points. Three of their four losses were to eventual #1 or #2 seeds in these playoffs (New England, Pittsburgh, Atlanta). The Chiefs, meanwhile, went 2-2 against playoff teams from 2009, and lost to pretty much every team that showed some semblance of an offense against them. I expect the Ravens, who didn't play a bad game all year, to show up to play, and to put an end to Kansas City's dream season.
Prediction: Ravens 40, Chiefs 17
See you in a few days, when I have to explain how the Ravens let Jamaal Charles beat them, and what I was thinking when I said the Packers could stop Vick.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Dead Rising 2 Review - Part Two
As a precursor to my upcoming 2010 Game of the Year blog posts, I'd like to offer you part two of my three-part review of Dead Rising 2 and its complementary titles (prologue and epilogue). This portion of the review will cover the actual full-size Dead Rising 2 game.
The story is similar to the original: you're a guy who was present for a zombie outbreak in a contained area (this time, it's several malls and casinos, along with an outdoor plaza area). In DR2, you've got the added pressure of caring for your daughter, who's been bitten, and is essentially a zombie time bomb waiting to go off. While taking care of your other main missions and countless side missions (mostly involving rescuing other survivors from their inevitable demises), you've also got to scrounge up doses of Zombrex, the drug that keeps your daughter from having a change in appetite.
The story is a little deeper than the original, but unfortunately (at least in my opinion), it seems a little light on the "good guys." There's one big twist in the story that I won't ruin for you, but you'll likely be able to see it coming a mile away, despite the fact that it really does come out of nowhere.
It should be noted that this sequel shows very high fidelity to the original Dead Rising. The gameplay, the "working against the clock" system, the sense of humor, and the expansive, secret-filled world all hearken back to the cult classic. And it's absolutely safe to say that if you enjoyed the original, you're going to love Dead Rising 2. That said, though, if you weren't a big fan of the original, it's tough to see you doing a 180 on the series with this title.
However, I would like to address a few of the concerns I've heard from friends regarding the original game, and how they've been (somewhat) addressed in the sequel.
Overall, I was very happy with my Dead Rising 2 experience. I definitely see myself getting back into it at some point (after I finish up some of the 25 or so games I bought off Steam over the past 20 days), mostly to get into the cooperative mode. I played it briefly with a complete stranger, and it was fun, but I'm hoping to convince someone (cough, Tommy, cough) to spring for a copy of the game the next time it goes on sale, and join me for long-term zombie mashing.
The story is similar to the original: you're a guy who was present for a zombie outbreak in a contained area (this time, it's several malls and casinos, along with an outdoor plaza area). In DR2, you've got the added pressure of caring for your daughter, who's been bitten, and is essentially a zombie time bomb waiting to go off. While taking care of your other main missions and countless side missions (mostly involving rescuing other survivors from their inevitable demises), you've also got to scrounge up doses of Zombrex, the drug that keeps your daughter from having a change in appetite.
The story is a little deeper than the original, but unfortunately (at least in my opinion), it seems a little light on the "good guys." There's one big twist in the story that I won't ruin for you, but you'll likely be able to see it coming a mile away, despite the fact that it really does come out of nowhere.
It should be noted that this sequel shows very high fidelity to the original Dead Rising. The gameplay, the "working against the clock" system, the sense of humor, and the expansive, secret-filled world all hearken back to the cult classic. And it's absolutely safe to say that if you enjoyed the original, you're going to love Dead Rising 2. That said, though, if you weren't a big fan of the original, it's tough to see you doing a 180 on the series with this title.
However, I would like to address a few of the concerns I've heard from friends regarding the original game, and how they've been (somewhat) addressed in the sequel.
- The bosses are too difficult. While the bosses are still a challenge, your potential arsenal of created weapons helps to counter this. The knife gloves are a particular favorite of mine.
- The survivors are idiots. It wasn't until I played Dead Rising 2 that I realized just how bad the AI was in the original. Nobody in this game has anything remotely close to the death wish that half of the survivors had in the original, and the ones who can wield weapons are still pretty handy with a 12 gauge.
- GOD DAMN CONVICTS AND THE GOD DAMN JEEP FUCKING FUCK! I won't lie to you; there is a similar game mechanic in the sequel, where the central area is patrolled by psychopaths. However, this situation doesn't come up until much later in the game, when you've had time to develop your levels/skills/weaponry. They're still a pain, but they're easier to navigate around this time.
Overall, I was very happy with my Dead Rising 2 experience. I definitely see myself getting back into it at some point (after I finish up some of the 25 or so games I bought off Steam over the past 20 days), mostly to get into the cooperative mode. I played it briefly with a complete stranger, and it was fun, but I'm hoping to convince someone (cough, Tommy, cough) to spring for a copy of the game the next time it goes on sale, and join me for long-term zombie mashing.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Dave Steckel is not a dirty player.
I've watched the clip a few dozen times, and I can't believe that there are still people out there who think that Dave Steckel was head-hunting Sidney Crosby on Saturday's Winter Classic matchup between the Washington Capitals and the Pittsburgh Penguins.
A friend referred me to this article that talks about how the Penguins, and Crosby specifically, come across as whiners for their reaction to the hit. I read the article, and it starts off on the right foot. However, it seemed to get off on a tangent about how Crosby got away with a slash earlier in the period (he did), and about how if he's going to play hockey, he has to expect to get hit (he does).
To me, that's not the most important point. If you watch the clip (at the top of that article), you can actually see Steckel angle his shoulder to get around Crosby to try to get up ice. Crosby was watching the puck go behind him, and had no idea where his path on the ice was taking him. It took him directly into the path of Steckel. If it had taken him into a net, would the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review be talking about how the nets should be made of a plastic polymer instead of metal, because he clanked his head on it?
Please. When you're on the ice, you're responsible for where you send your body. If you weren't, people could just lead with their heads and draw penalties and suspensions for their opposition. Remember this classic Simpsons clip? Do any of us think he's not responsible for eating that pie?
The most frustrating part of the Tribune-Review's article is the hint at retribution by Brooks Orpik at the end. The whole Penguins squad seemed to rally behind Crosby's assessment of the hit, and that's okay. I get standing behind your guy. And I get Crosby's reaction; to him, it was a blindside hit in a chippy game, and he's the one who actually got hurt. But at some point, logic has to prevail, doesn't it? Don't you have to look at the clip and say, "Gee, that doesn't look as sinister as it felt"?
That's my biggest problem with Crosby's reaction. As perhaps the league's biggest star and his team's captain, he sets the tone for his team. He needs to be bigger than revenge, bigger than calling Steckel a dirty player when he's clearly not. He needs to corral his team, not let them chirp to local media about it being a cheap shot. And his own response to the media needs to be, "Hockey is a physical game. I got hit, I'm over it. We're looking forward to our next game, and you can bet your ass we'll be ready for our next game against the Caps."
Of course, if 5'11" Crosby wants to tangle with 6'5" Steckel, I imagine the big fella would oblige.
A friend referred me to this article that talks about how the Penguins, and Crosby specifically, come across as whiners for their reaction to the hit. I read the article, and it starts off on the right foot. However, it seemed to get off on a tangent about how Crosby got away with a slash earlier in the period (he did), and about how if he's going to play hockey, he has to expect to get hit (he does).
To me, that's not the most important point. If you watch the clip (at the top of that article), you can actually see Steckel angle his shoulder to get around Crosby to try to get up ice. Crosby was watching the puck go behind him, and had no idea where his path on the ice was taking him. It took him directly into the path of Steckel. If it had taken him into a net, would the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review be talking about how the nets should be made of a plastic polymer instead of metal, because he clanked his head on it?
Please. When you're on the ice, you're responsible for where you send your body. If you weren't, people could just lead with their heads and draw penalties and suspensions for their opposition. Remember this classic Simpsons clip? Do any of us think he's not responsible for eating that pie?
The most frustrating part of the Tribune-Review's article is the hint at retribution by Brooks Orpik at the end. The whole Penguins squad seemed to rally behind Crosby's assessment of the hit, and that's okay. I get standing behind your guy. And I get Crosby's reaction; to him, it was a blindside hit in a chippy game, and he's the one who actually got hurt. But at some point, logic has to prevail, doesn't it? Don't you have to look at the clip and say, "Gee, that doesn't look as sinister as it felt"?
That's my biggest problem with Crosby's reaction. As perhaps the league's biggest star and his team's captain, he sets the tone for his team. He needs to be bigger than revenge, bigger than calling Steckel a dirty player when he's clearly not. He needs to corral his team, not let them chirp to local media about it being a cheap shot. And his own response to the media needs to be, "Hockey is a physical game. I got hit, I'm over it. We're looking forward to our next game, and you can bet your ass we'll be ready for our next game against the Caps."
Of course, if 5'11" Crosby wants to tangle with 6'5" Steckel, I imagine the big fella would oblige.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Sorry About That
For the four of you who kept on top of this blog week-to-week, I apologize for hanging you out to dry from early November through today. It was a combination of despair for the Redskins, disappointment in the Wizards, and the end of baseball season that got me out of a sports mindset for a while. Then, when the Capitals went on that extended losing streak, I though our window had closed, and we would be a bad sports town again.
We might still be a bad sports town, but the Caps have bounced back enough to give us something to cheer for, and now that the Redskins' season is thankfully over, we can turn our attention to hockey and baseball and fantasy baseball, things that have an innate ability to make me happy. I'm not going to make any promises or anything, but my goal for this year is to offer you at least one blog post every week. I don't know if I'll be going back to the Redskins Report Card; the wounds are so deep. But I liked the Twi-Night Doubleheader feature, and I'll be looking to bring that back. Any input on it or any other stuff you'd like me to write about is appreciated.
We might still be a bad sports town, but the Caps have bounced back enough to give us something to cheer for, and now that the Redskins' season is thankfully over, we can turn our attention to hockey and baseball and fantasy baseball, things that have an innate ability to make me happy. I'm not going to make any promises or anything, but my goal for this year is to offer you at least one blog post every week. I don't know if I'll be going back to the Redskins Report Card; the wounds are so deep. But I liked the Twi-Night Doubleheader feature, and I'll be looking to bring that back. Any input on it or any other stuff you'd like me to write about is appreciated.
The Year of the Blog
So after writing and re-reading my last blog post, I feel like I ought to be able to put interesting content up here and on my other blog with some regularity. I get distracted, or disillusioned, or bored sometimes, but I bet I can focus myself long enough to post content at least once or twice a week.
As a result, one of my "resolutions" this year will be to make at least one blog post every week. If you're one of those people who sees me regularly (and let's face it, if you're not, you're probably not reading this), hold me to it. Say, "Hey Joe, where's that blog post? Been a quiet week so far." I'll need your help to keep me honest.
Thanks in advance. :)
As a result, one of my "resolutions" this year will be to make at least one blog post every week. If you're one of those people who sees me regularly (and let's face it, if you're not, you're probably not reading this), hold me to it. Say, "Hey Joe, where's that blog post? Been a quiet week so far." I'll need your help to keep me honest.
Thanks in advance. :)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Commercialization of Christmas
There's always a lot of talk around Christmas about how the holiday has been commercialized, and how people are missing the true meaning of Christmas, and how people should have a stronger appreciation for the religious basis for the holiday. If that's important to you, that's fine. I don't have a problem with anyone's priorities on any subject, as long as it doesn't affect my day.
I'm not religious. Like, at all. And I like Christmas. Is it wrong for me to enjoy the "bastardization" of a holiday that I don't celebrate as it was originally designed? I don't think so; I certainly don't feel bad about it.
When I buy a video game for my sister, or mittens for my mom, or a poster for my brother, I don't feel like I'm disparaging anyone's religious beliefs. I'm not trying to spit in the face of anyone who has a different view on Christmas. I'm just trying to make them happy, and let them know that I care about them. Is it wrong to try to make people happy by spending money on them? We do it all the time:
And that's the other aspect of Christmas, the part that me and the pious can get together on. Christmas is a time to appreciate each other. It's a time when families come together, kids come home from college, people from out of town fly in to spend a few days with their cousins/siblings/parents/children. Commercialized or not, we all still recognize Christmas as a time of year to spend with the people who matter the most to us. And on Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day, we sit around a table with our family and closest friends. We break bread with the people who've shaped our lives, these people for whom we've expressed love, through words and actions and, yes, gifts.
Sounds pretty meaningful to me.
I'm not religious. Like, at all. And I like Christmas. Is it wrong for me to enjoy the "bastardization" of a holiday that I don't celebrate as it was originally designed? I don't think so; I certainly don't feel bad about it.
When I buy a video game for my sister, or mittens for my mom, or a poster for my brother, I don't feel like I'm disparaging anyone's religious beliefs. I'm not trying to spit in the face of anyone who has a different view on Christmas. I'm just trying to make them happy, and let them know that I care about them. Is it wrong to try to make people happy by spending money on them? We do it all the time:
- Buying a beer for a buddy
- Giving money to a charity
- Paying for dinner on a date
And that's the other aspect of Christmas, the part that me and the pious can get together on. Christmas is a time to appreciate each other. It's a time when families come together, kids come home from college, people from out of town fly in to spend a few days with their cousins/siblings/parents/children. Commercialized or not, we all still recognize Christmas as a time of year to spend with the people who matter the most to us. And on Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day, we sit around a table with our family and closest friends. We break bread with the people who've shaped our lives, these people for whom we've expressed love, through words and actions and, yes, gifts.
Sounds pretty meaningful to me.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Dead Rising 2 Review - Part One
As you may or may not remember, Dead Rising was my personal game of the year for 2009. I poured hours and hours of time into the game, beating it in six different ways, and it's actually snuck back into my rotation on occasion this summer.
Right up until August 31st. On August 31st, Xbox Live released a Dead Rising 2 prequel game for 400 Microsoft points ($5.00), called Dead Rising 2: Case Zero. To an average gamer, I don't know what they would think of the game. But to me, a big fan of the original game and someone who was jacked for the sequel, I thought the prequel game was a lot of fun. To me, it accomplished everything that Capcom could've wanted:
Part 2 of my Dead Rising 2 review will discuss the actual, full-sized game. And I have no idea when I'll post it, so don't ask.
Right up until August 31st. On August 31st, Xbox Live released a Dead Rising 2 prequel game for 400 Microsoft points ($5.00), called Dead Rising 2: Case Zero. To an average gamer, I don't know what they would think of the game. But to me, a big fan of the original game and someone who was jacked for the sequel, I thought the prequel game was a lot of fun. To me, it accomplished everything that Capcom could've wanted:
- It gave players an opportunity to preview the new game in a method that was more interesting than a simple gameplay demo.
- It offered a preview of the new features of the game, specifically the crafting system where you use duct tape to combine two items into awesome weapons, like the paddlesaw or boomstick.
- It bridged some of the plot gap between the original and its sequel, and helped to develop the two new main characters.
- It gave players the chance to get a jump start on the real game, allowing them to carry over a couple levels and some cash from the prequel.
- It generated buzz for the actual game, and brought in money.
Part 2 of my Dead Rising 2 review will discuss the actual, full-sized game. And I have no idea when I'll post it, so don't ask.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Poetry?
I've never really understood poetry.
I don't mean to say that I don't understand what poetry is; I think I've at least got a grasp on that. I mean that I don't understand what's appealing about poetry over regular writing. What's the advantage of communicating using less forthright means? How does it serve anyone to try to convey your message using innuendo and metaphors, when actual discussion is more complete and easier for the average person to understand?
Let me qualify my standpoint here for a moment. There is poetry out there that isn't bad. There's poetry that, while still more vague than regular conversation, has its own value, by eliciting an emotional response, or offering a general starting point, rather than trying to actually make a point. But these pieces of poetry are few and far between, and aren't the poetry you encounter from day to day.
That poetry is written by some boner friend of yours who thinks he's complex. Or by some girl who thinks her poetry tells you how she's got all these layers. Or, overwhelmingly, by a random internet person, full of doubt and angst, like the rest of us, but "able" to express themselves through twitchy, broken phrases.
So who is it that actually likes all this poetry that's out there?
I ask that question, but I know the answer. I haven't met a single person who likes poetry that doesn't also write their own poetry. And they get their poetry-writing skills reinforced by other people who like poetry and write their own poetry. It's like there's some kind of quietly understood agreement that if you appreciate my poetry, I'll appreciate yours, and we can both seem profound.
It's a clever little way to seem like an artist, which we all want to be (me included). We'd all like to be able to create something that outlives us, some work that people look at/listen to/read and say, "What an amazing piece of work." Poets just seem to have figured out how to accomplish that, without having to actually, you know, be talented.
I don't mean to say that I don't understand what poetry is; I think I've at least got a grasp on that. I mean that I don't understand what's appealing about poetry over regular writing. What's the advantage of communicating using less forthright means? How does it serve anyone to try to convey your message using innuendo and metaphors, when actual discussion is more complete and easier for the average person to understand?
Let me qualify my standpoint here for a moment. There is poetry out there that isn't bad. There's poetry that, while still more vague than regular conversation, has its own value, by eliciting an emotional response, or offering a general starting point, rather than trying to actually make a point. But these pieces of poetry are few and far between, and aren't the poetry you encounter from day to day.
That poetry is written by some boner friend of yours who thinks he's complex. Or by some girl who thinks her poetry tells you how she's got all these layers. Or, overwhelmingly, by a random internet person, full of doubt and angst, like the rest of us, but "able" to express themselves through twitchy, broken phrases.
So who is it that actually likes all this poetry that's out there?
I ask that question, but I know the answer. I haven't met a single person who likes poetry that doesn't also write their own poetry. And they get their poetry-writing skills reinforced by other people who like poetry and write their own poetry. It's like there's some kind of quietly understood agreement that if you appreciate my poetry, I'll appreciate yours, and we can both seem profound.
It's a clever little way to seem like an artist, which we all want to be (me included). We'd all like to be able to create something that outlives us, some work that people look at/listen to/read and say, "What an amazing piece of work." Poets just seem to have figured out how to accomplish that, without having to actually, you know, be talented.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Redskins Report Card - Week 10 vs. Philadelphia Eagles
Eagles 59, Redskins 28
Offense: See me.
Defense: See me.
Overall: SEE ME.
Offense: See me.
Defense: See me.
Overall: SEE ME.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
2010 Redskins Report Card - Week 8 vs. Detroit Lions
Lions 37, Redskins 25
I'm not sure we could've seen something worse than this happening on the way into the bye week. Really, really terrible. And I don't just mean the loss.
Offense: R
As in, vulgar. Donovan McNabb really did have a terrible game. His two big pass completions to Anthony Armstrong seemed like mistakes, where Armstrong had to adjust his route to the errant pass by McNabb (kudos to Armstrong on that, by the way). The biggest problem was an inability to string together positive plays to extend drives. The Redskins punted nine times on Sunday, way too much. You need more of those drives to end in scores.
The offensive line seemed overwhelmed a lot of the time, though, so you can't put it all on McNabb. You can't give up six sacks just from the QB taking too long to get rid of the ball; some of those are on line play. We knew coming into this season that the Redskins' offensive line was going to be a point of concern, and we're reaping what we sow. First round pick Trent Williams still has some work to do to become the blind side tackle that Mike Shanahan foresaw when he drafted him.
Speaking of, I also have to put a little of the blame here on the shoulders of Shanahan. He had only two running backs on the active roster, so when Ryan Torain suffered a hamstring injury, the Redskins had Keiland Williams. Period. I don't like the idea of Larry Johnson or Willy Parker in the backfield, but it would've been nice to have somebody. My friend was right when she said, "We're going to miss Rock Cartwright," but who knew it would be as a running back?
The lack of a running game and the constant sacks put the Redskins into a lot of bad 3rd down situations, which is probably why they went just two of fourteen on third down conversions. This problem hasn't gone away, and I hope the coaching staff does some research into how to resolve it, because it's killing the team's chances at victory.
Defense: B
I don't blame the defense for this week's loss. Could they have played better? Sure. But when your offense goes three-and-out on seven different drives, you're not being put in a position to win. The Redskins' longest drives were two that went three minutes, twenty-eight seconds. When you're constantly being sent back onto the field in no better shape than where you left, you get tired, and you get disheartened.
Furthermore, something that may have been lost in the heartbreak is that the Redskins actually held the Lions to just 4.3 yards per play, less than even our own pitiful offense. Add to that a big interception deep in Redskins territory by DeAngelo Hall, and you can't really fault the defense for the way this game played out.
Overall: C-
I really wish Shanahan hadn't benched McNabb at the very end of the game. Is it possible that Grossman gave the Redskins a better chance to win the game at that point? Sure, it's possible. I don't know the extent of McNabb's hamstring injuries, and I don't honestly know very much about Grossman's skill set or comfort level with this offense.
But by pulling McNabb, you've ensured that the next two weeks will be marred with quarterback talk, which is like poison to a town's football fans. Now we hear that the Redskins have brought in JaMarcus Russell for a workout, and in our minds, we're wondering if he might be a starter for Washington sometime this season. One of the things that McNabb's presence was supposed to provide was stability, the knowledge that, no matter what, if he's healthy, he's the quarterback. Now? Who knows.
I'm not sure we could've seen something worse than this happening on the way into the bye week. Really, really terrible. And I don't just mean the loss.
Offense: R
As in, vulgar. Donovan McNabb really did have a terrible game. His two big pass completions to Anthony Armstrong seemed like mistakes, where Armstrong had to adjust his route to the errant pass by McNabb (kudos to Armstrong on that, by the way). The biggest problem was an inability to string together positive plays to extend drives. The Redskins punted nine times on Sunday, way too much. You need more of those drives to end in scores.
The offensive line seemed overwhelmed a lot of the time, though, so you can't put it all on McNabb. You can't give up six sacks just from the QB taking too long to get rid of the ball; some of those are on line play. We knew coming into this season that the Redskins' offensive line was going to be a point of concern, and we're reaping what we sow. First round pick Trent Williams still has some work to do to become the blind side tackle that Mike Shanahan foresaw when he drafted him.
Speaking of, I also have to put a little of the blame here on the shoulders of Shanahan. He had only two running backs on the active roster, so when Ryan Torain suffered a hamstring injury, the Redskins had Keiland Williams. Period. I don't like the idea of Larry Johnson or Willy Parker in the backfield, but it would've been nice to have somebody. My friend was right when she said, "We're going to miss Rock Cartwright," but who knew it would be as a running back?
The lack of a running game and the constant sacks put the Redskins into a lot of bad 3rd down situations, which is probably why they went just two of fourteen on third down conversions. This problem hasn't gone away, and I hope the coaching staff does some research into how to resolve it, because it's killing the team's chances at victory.
Defense: B
I don't blame the defense for this week's loss. Could they have played better? Sure. But when your offense goes three-and-out on seven different drives, you're not being put in a position to win. The Redskins' longest drives were two that went three minutes, twenty-eight seconds. When you're constantly being sent back onto the field in no better shape than where you left, you get tired, and you get disheartened.
Furthermore, something that may have been lost in the heartbreak is that the Redskins actually held the Lions to just 4.3 yards per play, less than even our own pitiful offense. Add to that a big interception deep in Redskins territory by DeAngelo Hall, and you can't really fault the defense for the way this game played out.
Overall: C-
I really wish Shanahan hadn't benched McNabb at the very end of the game. Is it possible that Grossman gave the Redskins a better chance to win the game at that point? Sure, it's possible. I don't know the extent of McNabb's hamstring injuries, and I don't honestly know very much about Grossman's skill set or comfort level with this offense.
But by pulling McNabb, you've ensured that the next two weeks will be marred with quarterback talk, which is like poison to a town's football fans. Now we hear that the Redskins have brought in JaMarcus Russell for a workout, and in our minds, we're wondering if he might be a starter for Washington sometime this season. One of the things that McNabb's presence was supposed to provide was stability, the knowledge that, no matter what, if he's healthy, he's the quarterback. Now? Who knows.
Monday, November 1, 2010
2010 MLB Awards
Joe and Joe Sports is proud to announce our award winners for the 2010 Major League Baseball season:
AL Most Valuable Player
NL Most Valuable Player
AL Cy Young
NL Cy Young
AL Rookie of the Year
NL Rookie of the Year
AL Manager of the Year
NL Manager of the Year
Comments? Arguments? Outrage? Let's hear it!
AL Most Valuable Player
- Josh Hamilton, OF, Rangers
- Jose Bautista, OF, Blue Jays
- Miguel Cabrera, 1B, Tigers
NL Most Valuable Player
- Joey Votto, 1B, Reds
- Albert Pujols, 1B, Cardinals
- Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Rockies
AL Cy Young
- Felix Hernandez, SP, Mariners
- David Price, SP, Rays
- CC Sabathia, SP, Yankees
NL Cy Young
- Roy Halladay, SP, Phillies
- Adam Wainwright, SP, Cardinals
- Josh Johnson, SP, Marlins
AL Rookie of the Year
- Neftali Feliz, RP, Rangers
- Austin Jackson, OF, Tigers
- Brian Matusz, SP, Orioles
NL Rookie of the Year
- Buster Posey, C, Giants
- Jason Heyward, OF, Braves
- Jamie Garcia, SP, Cardinals
AL Manager of the Year
- Ron Washington, Rangers
- Joe Maddon, Rays
- Ron Gardenhire, Twins
NL Manager of the Year
- Bobby Cox, Braves
- Bruce Bochy, Giants
- Bud Black, Padres
Comments? Arguments? Outrage? Let's hear it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
I've had very little nice to say about LaVar Arrington since about three years into his tenure as a Washington Redskin. He was a disapp...
-
Some of these aren't the best cards you can hope to open, and some of them are. But most decidedly, these are my favorite cards to play ...
