"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." - Oscar Wilde.

Wikipedia defines decadence with ... well, you read it. To me, decadence is a nice description of the finer things in life, the ones that you can't or shouldn't do every day, but the experience of which adds a richness. We don't eat nightly at the finest restaurants, but there's some organic avocados and a recipe for guacamole. We don't have a case of Bordeaux in the cellar, but there's a nice Spanish Grenacha that will go well with the guac. There's a VW, not a Bugatti in the driveway and one turbo is enough. I am not, nor do I aspire to be, Paris Hilton or one of her friends.

Life is to be lived, to be experienced and savored. Over the last six months, I've spent far too much time wondering why my mother's death seemed so meaningless. I have visions of the end, but few from the good times. I do, however, remember taking her on the last Mother's day she had to Sullivan's, a steakhouse. She didn't really care for steakhouses and would never have gone had I not virtually required it. She dressed up a bit and if you didn't know the cancer was eating her away, you wouldn't have known it. She smiled. She ate the prime rib, rare, and never gave any indication that she was ill. Today nearly a year later, I know that it's that memory that will hold while the sight of her sliding away in her hospital bed will fade.

One special occasion is simply not enough. Birthdays and anniversaries don't happen often enough and every day is special. Is it decadent to have fresh avocados delivered to my home in the hopes that I can fashion some guacamole? Yes, yes it is. I'm still looking forward to trying that out. Decadent to spend a couple dollars extra to have the grass-fed, dry-aged steak or to drink the microbrew from my local tavern rather than the swill normally called beer? Yes, yes it is. Johnny Walker is good enough to drink and to enjoy, but a Macallan 18 is decadent enough to be needful. My MacBook Air is two pounds lighter than my old MacBook. Worth it? To me, yes.

It's not about being the smartest or the richest, about the latest gadget or the newest trend. Decadence is about the experience. Crash Davis reminded Nook LaLoosh that he didn't need a quadraphone Blaupunkt, but there's nothing wrong with having it once you have the curveball. Your decadence might be leaping out of a plane, surfing in Hawaii, or finding out how a $4,000 hooker earns her pay. Mine isn't, but there's nothing inherently wrong with yours, aside from the questionable legality and moral issues of the last one. You might disagree on the feeling I get dropping the top and driving, of sliding the virtual switch on the iPhone, or of anything I find decadent, but it's the personal experience.

You might not like my cigar. You might see me sitting in the corner with a beer, watching the game and talking too loudly and rightly think me obnoxious, but just politely tell me to dial it back a bit; you deserve your own enjoyment too. Just don't tell me I'm wrong just because we have different ways of experiencing things. Simple decadence is not something to be looked down on. You can use whatever terms you want, have whatever experience you want, and find your own path to fulfillment. I'm not an ascetic and my inner Buddha hasn't expressed itself yet. I can't stand silence or even quiet. I will look on things with lust and admiration. I will smile at the pretty girl. I will have a cool bluesman nickname. I'll help the old lady across the street. I'll scalp tickets to get the good seats. I will tip well for good service and very well for great service. I will pay extra to taste the ham that only ate acorns. I will wear a Sea Island cotton shirt for no other reason than James Bond did. I can pronounce Balenciaga. I'll always ask for the free upgrade.

Napoleon Solo once said he had an "elegant air of decadence." I want people to say that about me, admiringly, not grudgingly. I will live the life my parents dreamed I would.

My guess is that those who gravitate towards writing blogs are politically similar to those who are journalists or those who have chosen to go into to into the entertainment field. (actors, screenwriters, musicians, etc.) When you choose to go into a creative field, I don't think it's a stretch to say that you are someone with a large ego---someone who thinks that their talents need to be consumed by a larger audience. By being filled with such an ego, these creative types are less likely to want to be part of a large group or subscribe to some type of religious or political dogma. When you are of the persuasion I listed in the sentence before, you are usually pretty liberal politically.

I have come to these conclusions because it not only seems to be a pretty logical step, but also because I fit the hypothesis I have offered up. Where I differ with most of my creative, outsider types is that I have not fallen in love with the candidacy of Barack Obama. Before I get into why I haven't fully embraced him, let me discuss how I believe the majority of the blogosphere, mainstream media, and Hollywood left has given Obama a mostly free-ride during his meteoric rise.

There has been a steady clamor from the traditional and non-traditional media that Hillary Clinton has run a bad campaign. I disagree, as Barack Obama appeals almost perfectly to the 3 largest groups of Democratic primary voters. Far-left liberals, White elites, and Blacks. The first 2 groups have always had a tortured relationship with the Clinton's, as Bill's Presidency was marked by many moderate politcal positions. Along comes Barack Obama, a Black candidate for President who can assuage the White guilt for the first 2 groups, while nearly getting almost every tally from Black voters. Considering that these 3 groups are the most powerful blocs on the state and national level, it is not surprising that Obama has dominated the states that have caucuses.

The 2008 Democratic campaign started off perfectly for Obama, as Iowa is a caucus state which borders Illinois. It is not a state like most in the Midwest, which is economically-driven by manufacturing jobs and thus it's economy isn't doing that badly, as Ethanol has been a big boon for Iowa coffers. Obama also had the advantage of having John Edwards in the race, at the time, who I think took more voters away from Hillary. (I say this because the majority of populist voters have went Clinton's way since Edwards dropped out of the race.) When Obama won so decisively in Iowa and Hillary finished 3rd, it was a sign to Black voters that if he could dominate in a lily-White state, he could win the Democratic nomination. After Iowa, Hillary's support in the Black community went in free-fall, to the point now where Hillary is getting voting totals from Blacks like Dubya received versus Kerry in 2004.

The mainstream and non-mainstream media has spent most of the Democratic campaign being much tougher on Hillary. I understand this, as she was seen pretty invincible by the political experts and in the role of front-runner, you generally will take the most shots. Not until the race was for almost over, Ohio, did the mainstream press start to really dig into Obama's past and expose some issues about him that will definitely be key facets of the General campaign. Before this though, the MSM pundits and blogosphere spent most of it's time ripping the Clinton's for running a horrible campaign.

Ever since the first time the topic of would Hillary Clinton end up being the next President, I was always of the opinion that she couldn't win the General election. I just never thought she was likable enough and had too high of negatives. At the beginning of the race for the Democratic nomination, I was an Edwards supporter, as I felt he spoke most honestly about the issues I care about and was the candidate who I thought could most easily win the General. Considering the makeup of voters in the Democratic primary/caucus, he stood no chance against the well-funded campaigns he lost to, though. When Edwards bowed out, my super-delegate vote window reopened.

Obviously, Obama is the far superior speaker, but I have been impressed for the most part in the way Hillary has stayed within herself, rarely succumbing to the natural reaction at political rallies of raising her voice over a cheering crowd. (Better known as the Dean-scream.) Hillary is at her most likable when she smiles and offers up her cackle for a laugh, as it humanizes her and makes her seem less like the ice queen she has been portrayed as. Sure the whole beer and shot appearance she made in NW Indiana recently seemed less than genuine, but I think it was a positive for her, as for a core group of voters it made her appear less like an elitist. I know this stuff shouldn't matter, but just like seeing Obama fail so miserably bowling, it does make an unconscious impression on undecided voters. Considering that Hillary and Obama have very few policy differences, these type of personal qualities mean a lot more than you might hope they do.

Until Saturday Night Live did their debate parody of Tim Russert and Brian Williams fawning all over Obama and being much tougher on Hillary, there was little discussion of how much of free-ride Obama had gotten during this campaign. Still, the majority of the political blogosphere made little of it and nothing like how apeshit they went when Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous went hard at Obama. The liberal left doesn't have someone with the power of a Limbaugh or Hannity, but the closest they do have are Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, Markos Mousilitas (Daily Kos), Air America radio hosts, etc. All of them have been strongly supporting Obama since his Iowa primary victory. I can't name one major political pundit who has publicly supported Hillary. They have used many of the same arguments against the Clinton's that the right-wing conspiracy types did in the past. It has been really amazing to me that they have been this strident in their support and condemnation of the Clinton's, especially since the 2 candidates policies are practically the same.

These liberal media figures have claimed that the Clinton's have run a dirty campaign against Obama. This is where I strongly disagree. Considering how close the race has been and what is at stake, I think the tone has been mild. This is where the political correctness of the Left really hurts the Democratic party. When Bill Clinton mentioned after the South Carolina primary that Jesse Jackson had won it in the past, it was a legitimate point. The reason Obama won the state was because of Black voters. Sure Obama has won the majority of states, but I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that his victories have come in states like South Carolina where the Dems have little chance of winning. Considering that John McCain has appealed greatly to moderate voters in the past, states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida will be even more important than usual.

Obama's detached style is cool to the hipsters, but for people in the Industrial Midwest, who have seen there standard of living plummet, it has a hard time registering. Despite her claims to the contrary, it is hard to see how Hillary will really try to fix the problems of free-trade agreements considering that it was her husband's administration who were their biggest champions in the Democratic party. Even with this fact on his side, populist voters have shunned Obama for the most part as he just doesn't offer up much in the way of concrete plans on the subject. If you like it or not, these type voters will determine who become President. They have went strongly for Hillary, in almost every key swing state. I believe this has happened because despite the NAFTA-like agreements the Clinton administration pushed through, 1992-2000 was a lot better time for the middle-class than what they have experienced over the last 8 years.

The biggest joke to me has been the concept that Bill Clinton has hurt Hillary's campaign. Let's first establish that major reason she is a Senator and the only reason she was the Democratic front-runner for this election was because she was married to Bill. I've always thought of the Clinton's with this analogy. Have you ever had a party and when you were considering who to invite you were on the fence in inviting a couple because let's say the guy was the life of the party, but if you wanted him there, you had to take his not so fun wife as well. This is how I've always looked at the Clinton's. I always respected Hillary's intellect, but not until the past couple of months did I see much human warmth. Bill Clinton has gotten Hillary to this point, as his charm and charisma opened doors that I doubt she could have went through by herself.

Hillary's main message has been that she is most ready to takeover the job. I thnk it is completely legitimate. She does have a better idea of what the job entails than anyone running and she has the benefit of Bill being there as her Co-President. This is the biggest reason I have been swayed towards her. Considering the absolute disaster that the past 8 years have been, our country doesn't have the time for on the job training. While I don't agree with all of the Clinton's policies, I am confident in their track record and have a good idea of what Hillary's cabinet would look like.

While the concept of what Barack Obama would bring to the White House is exciting, I have a lot more questions with him. The idea that he would bring less partisanship to Washington is empty from my point of view, as his political record is more liberal than Hillary and he has done little in connecting with Republican politicians. This does not seem like a good recipe for bringing people together, especially when you add that many of these Senators see him as someone who has risen to stardom without having earned his political tenure. I don't think that should be a prerequisite, but I do think it will hamper him from the beginning in pushing through any real major policy changes.

It does seem like Obama will end up getting the nomination, but the race is close enough that Hillary has had every right to push the process through until all the states get a chance to vote. Unless McCain pulls back some from his Hawkish stance on Iraq, I just don't see the Democrat losing this election. Now if McCain did offer some type of plan which included a sensible exit strategy, I think he could be tough to beat, especially in these swing states where Obama has not connected with Hispanics, older voters and single moms.

I've been waiting for Obama to sell me on why I should want to support him, but as stirring as some of the rhetoric he offers up, I just can't get past the feeling that his coronation might be 4 to 8 years too early. I'm sure I will still vote for him, as McCain's war politics and keeping the Bush tax cuts permanent I believe will keep us going on the disastrous path we have been going towards this whole decade. I just think that in the place our country finds itself, Hillary Clinton provides a better bet to put us back on the right track. I guess this declaration will keep me from hainging out at Hollywood parties or get a gig writing for the Huffington Post, but I have to follow what my head tells me is right. I have a lot of elitist traits and have no problem being called on them, but I guess my childhood growing up the son of a poor millworker (oops, that is John Edwards stump speech) poor factory worker has left me with a populist spirit.

You know, it's one thing to see Tony Gwynn Jr or Eric Young Jr, guys who I remember watching their fathers play. Cutter Dykstra (I mean, that name, seriously) is about to be a top pick. But that's not the most disturbing thing I've seen recently. Tonight, I was flipping around and saw a blonde wrestler putting another girl in a Sharpshooter. A SHARPSHOOTER! I mean, the last guys that used that were these guys --

Yeah, I grew up hoping to be Jim "The Anvil" Neidhardt. Ok, not very long, but it was reasonable for a 13 year old. Of course, I turned out a bit more like Jimmy Hart ...

but the girl doing the Sharpshooter? She's a new WWE Wrestler called "Natalya" ... and she's Anvil's daughter!

I think we're going to have a tequila review up here after that ...

This film, much like the Pulitzer-winning story about Joshua Bell in the subway, is heartbreaking.

I'm more surprised by Bell. In the video in the story, you can see the people who simply HAVE to hear the music. For the art, it's just there. With ubiquitous advertising, people can tune things out and it doesn't exactly "pop." Keith Haring's work is some of my favorite and it began as graffiti.

Yes, I can enjoy the stilted arty people getting their noses rubbed in it, but to make a broader commentary on it is harder to do. Do people just not notice? Too busy to stop and smell the roses? Late for a meeting? So inured of any beauty in their daily life that they can ignore the best the world has to offer? (YMMV, of course.) I'm just not sure.

Which brings me around to the term "elitism." It's a pejorative now and without going too poltical, I want someone to stand up and own it. "Damn right I'm an elitist. I want the best," Obama could say. "I want people to demand the best from themselves and our society. I want my kids to go to the best schools, but I also want your kids to have the best schools or at least give you the opportunity to afford the best schools." I could go on and on, but I won't and it's not strictly an Obama issue, so don't make it one. Just an example.

It's in stark contrast to what I do and what I believe baseball analysis should do, which is work for the masses. I have to explain what the world's best doctors are doing to the world's best athletes in terms that non-medical people can understand. I want to figure out how to explain the amazing work the rest of the BP team is doing so that people can go "Oh, okay" and understand a little more about the game, but not do it in such a way that you can't just go and have a beer and enjoy the game.

I feel like so much of life for so many people is just a missed opportunity. What about you?

I've saved up some notes over the last couple weeks and even though I didn't get a lot of response on the last one, I'm doing it again. I hope to have more on why later this week. I'm knee deep in what might be the hardest piece I've ever done, in the sense that it's being actively a bitch to get quotes for. I'll have it finished soon ... or else Aaron Schatz might kill me.

Ok, the reviews:

* Another CI Legend, this time "Green", which is the Rolando Reyes version. Reyes makes Puros Indios, which is kind of like the Buick of cigars. This one was a cigar for people that want to smoke cigars but don't like them. There was virtually no flavor to the first half, but there was a lot of smoke. If you were making a movie about playing poker or someone wanted to get that dramatic effect of light in smoke, this one would work great. It's not bad, but it's so innocuous as to seem a prop. Worse, it was described in the catalog as "intense and flavorful." I'm very curious what kind of cigars Robin smokes on How I Met Your Mother. Has Barney blogged about this? The show is so detailed that someone probably knows.

* The next to last Legend in the sampler was "Grey," by Cusano. I like Cusano's though they're far from a first choice. The double Connecticut wrapper was solid and held up the best of any of the Legends so far. I was worried because for the first inch, it was very mild and I was worried that the Green might have been prelude. Then a big hit of cedar hit. It stayed mild, but pleasant. The construction was flawless and the draw and feel were top notch. If you like Cusano but want a bit cheaper stick, this one's definitely worth trying.

* I love Gurkhas. Seeing one of their more recent blends at my local store at a reasonable price made it a no brainer. The Ancient Warrior is much darker than I normally go for and with a Brazilian wrapper, it looked different as well. It was kind of mottled, not in a bad way, but something like marbling in a steak. It started out very much like a strong CAO (that's a compliment) with initial pepper and leather, but at the halfway point, a sharp change brought in vanilla and cedar. It was very warm and stayed all the way to the nub. Good cigar, but not so good that I'd pick it over a Centurian.

* And then the big one. Not in size, but certainly in quality. A Greycliff Professional might be the best smoke I've ever had. Beautifully constructed, I really didn't want to like it knowing that the price (about $20 per) wasn't something I wanted to get used to. Problem is, I really, really could. The smoke stayed consistent despite some subtle changes. It went from a mild spice at the start to a very warm wood about an inch in. At just before the halfway point, it slid from woody to peaty, not drastic, but like a Springbank Scotch. At the end -- and I took this thing until I couldn't hold it -- there was some coffee there. Again, the price is insane, but I can understand why it is what it is. I'm told they age well, so I'm going to try holding the rest I got in this batch for a couple months. I'm not sure I can wait.

Keith Law might do cooking on a different level than I do, but I can do good food that reasonable people can do. If you don't think you can cook, you're wrong. If you're reading this, you can already read and that's half the battle. The other half is being able to taste. Do a little bit more Yogi-math and there's a small bit of fresh, local ingredients, knowing what you like, and being able to improvise.

Here's a very simple recipe that looks a lot harder than it is. We'll call it baked chicken with apples, but feel free to come up with some French or other fancy sounding name if you're really wanting to impress your significant other.

To start with get GOOD CHICKEN. I buy mine at The Goose, a local market here in Indianapolis. Find a place like this with people you know and trust. They only use local produce, which is important because it's fresher and better for the environment to boot. I hate breaking down chicken, so I'll buy boneless, skinless chicken when possible.

Lay out the chicken in a baking pan (8x8 works) and line it with aluminum foil. Put a little salt and pepper on them. One tip -- don't go from the fridge to the oven. Let the meat come out and come up in temp a little bit. Keep it covered, but you're going to cook it well anyway, so don't freak about germs. Preheat the oven to 375.

Chop up three good sized apples. Size doesn't matter here and you can peel the apple if you wish, though I leave the skin on for a bit more crispy texture. I'm using Pink Lady apples. They're very sweet and crisp, which gives them good bite if you're eating them and they'll stand up to baking without turning into mush.

Place the apples over the chicken. There's no style points here, just make sure there's some air so the heat can circulate. Once those are in place, sprinkle some cinnamon over the top. Don't use too much - cinnamon is a stronger taste than most people realize and very tough to cover with something else. It's possible to add more later.

Here's what it should look like:

The oven should be up to speed by now, so pop it in there and set the timer for 20 minutes. Go read Baseball Prospectus and try to make some sense of the new "blood spatter" charts on the PECOTA cards. About the time your brain starts to cramp, you'll be ready for the final step. Everyone should have some maple syrup on hand, for whatever reason, so grab that and pour a bit lightly over the top of the apples. Not much, just some. There's already sugar in the apples that will seep out, so don't pour like you're soaking the french toast at the IHOP. Put it back in the oven for another 15-20 minutes.

You'll have to take it out at the 15 minute (35 total) mark and check the chicken. Move the apples aside and use a meat thermometer to check for doneness. What's the temp you're looking for? Poultry is safely cooked at 180. If you don't have a thermometer, cut into the chicken and make sure you see no pink at the thickest portion and the juices run clear. Then go get yourself a meat thermometer. Seriously, you'll need it once we get the grill out anyway.

The apples should be crinkling slightly at this stage. What you don't want to see is the apples breaking up. If one breaks, it's not bad, but get it out of there when you can. It will bake unevenly and tend to go mushy very quick. At 35 minutes, I checked mine and the chicken was at 160. Check the pan by tilting it. You should see some clear juices run to the corner, but they shouldn't be too syrupy. Pop it back in .... tick tick .. check and when done, get it out and get your plate ready.

Simple works well here. Chicken and apples on one side, then drizzle a little syrup on the other. It looks good and helps the taste if you want a bit more sweet. Add in a salad and you're golden. See? Not so hard.

Finished product:

The phrase "full of life" was first uttered about someone who was like John Marzano. That he's gone, passed on at age 45, is just a ... there's no words. "Tragedy" isn't something that should be said about John's life, because we'll remember the comedy and the drama much more. I met him only briefly, working with him last October while I was doing MLB.com for the playoffs. John, Vinny Micucci, and I did the "Hot Corner" together twice and each time, I laughed and learned more than I can ever put into words. Most of his jokes were childish and crass, but it was that laugh that let you know he lived life like he was letting you in on the joke.

At one point, we were watching Roger Clemens warm up and I turned to him and said "What did you look for when you were catching Clemens in the pen?" I certainly had no idea what he'd say, but how many men in the world even HAVE an answer for that? He launched into one of the most amazing monologues about how a catcher prepares his pitcher for the game. I can remember asking him afterwards, off air I think, about how he saw all that while still catching a ball coming at him at nearly 100mph. He paused and said "I dunno. I just did." He was never more than what he was, but he was willing to think about those things.

I came in a no one to him. He was a major league player, a guy who had been in playoff games. I was some writer, but he never said "who is this geek?" without a playful tone. He asked me about something I said about pitching mechanics and somehow it got turned around to a discussion about how catchers were never taught what to look for, but that they ended up master reverse engineers, looking for inconsistencies.

John Marzano taught me about baseball in our brief encounters. From what I know of him and what his friends say, he lived a life most of us only dream of. Godspeed, Johnny Marz. I still owe you a beer.

Baseball tends to skip generations. Maybe not if you're a Boone or a Griffey, but when it comes to technology, teams tend to make advances in leaps, not steps. When I started -- which wasn't that long ago -- teams dealt in phone calls and faxes. Like most people, I didn't have a home fax machine, but I did have email. It was very annoying that they'd take one, but ignored the other.

Then mobile phones became ubiquitous and scouts discovered the Blackberry. Texting quickly became the new way of touching base. Over the last two years, it's become significantly easier to get a text response than it is to email or even get someone to pick up a call. I know of at least one GM that conducted almost all of a trade via text, using that to once say to the media that he hadn't spoken to his counterpart. He wasn't lying.

So what's next? Players are beginning to blog (though I have ideas about why this won't work in this form) and things like Twitter and Pownce are getting some traction in the tech world. I still haven't found a way to use these in my work. I tried using Pownce, mostly because a friend begged me to try the service, during the spring. I wasn't doing UTK but there were updates and I wanted to get them out there. It worked, but ... not great and not high enough adoption rate. I'm no Scoble ... yet. Facebook? Same thing. So far, I've only found ways to be more connected to my readers, which I was already doing a pretty good job of through email. It's actually "spread my attention" - instead of one inbox kept on a GTD plan, now I have an inbox, Facebook, and more.

What are you using, how could you see it used, and why? Hit it in comments.

Next time, I'll tell you why I think. GPS is the key to the next generation.

The phone rings. Currently, my ringtone is Tenacious D's 'The Metal.' It's beginning to annoy me.

Will Carroll: Will Carroll.
FOT: Hey, it's A. Nonymous. What's up?
WC: Working and working. Wednesday's a pretty big media day for me and this Bedard thing is a pain in my ass.
FOT: I hear you. Read your thing about [PLAYER.] You know what it is.
WC: What is it?
FOT: PLAYER misses his needle.
WC: *sigh*
FOT: You know that guy was using. It shouldn't surprise you that he's [EXPERIENCING SYMPTOM.]
WC: He's never tested positive.
FOT: But you know it.
WC: I suspect it, but even with something more, I can't write it.
FOT: Why not?
WC: Because according to one guy or another, I could write it about half the players in the league and I'd be wrong about half, I just couldn't tell which half.
FOT: So?
WC: I can't be wrong half the time. I can't be wrong and not get a flood. Look at the Bedard thing.
FOT: Looking.
WC: Golden source and still the M's won't comment. Actually, won't even return my call, but that's not so much a surprise.
FOT: Silent confirm?
WC: I don't know. I don't even like the concept. I wouldn't comment on anything I said if I was a team. We've had this conversation about how I'd handle media if I was with a team.
FOT: Yes.
WC: So besides the idea that I'd be furthering speculation without evidence and giving false impressions, not to mention the de facto slander ...
FOT: Libel.
WC: Whatever. I always mix those up.
FOT: You'd have learned that in J-school.
WC: I didn't go, thanks for the reminder.
FOT: But you know I'm right.
WC: I don't *know* you're right. It wouldn't surprise me if you're right. But let's say he did. Is he so good that you want to hold him up as some paragon of steroid efficacy?
FOT: No, I want to explain why he's {EXPERIENCING SYMPTOM.]
WC: Positive test?
FOT: I heard he has a strike on greenies.
WC: Really? That actually surprises me, though I have no idea why.
FOT: He plays baseball. It shouldn't surprise you.
WC: But still no positive for steroids or anything like it.
FOT: No but ...
WC: There's no 'but' here. He's not getting some BALCO secret sauce and we're talking about a difference between this year, which is tested, and last year, which was tested. If he was using last year, why isn't he using this year?
FOT: *pause*
WC: No good answer?
FOT: I still bet he's missing his needle.
WC: Do we have to have the conversation about most steroids being taken orally?
FOT: I have to get back to work. Heard anything about Sabathia being hurt?
WC: No, but he's killing my fantasy team and he'd better look better tonight or I'm going to do something rash.
FOT: I hear you. Later.
WC: Late.

This is a paraphrase of an actual conversation. Names and details have been changed to provide plausible deniability.

There's few things in life more boring than hearing someone talk about their fantasy team. First, we need shorthand for it. Next time someone calls in to a show I'm doing and spends more time explaining their rule set than their actual problem, I'm going to call Leon. Second, most questions seem to come from people in leagues I've never seen. 4 team Mixed Leagues that look like All-Star teams or a guy who's trying to decide whether to drop Jimmy Rollins or Hanley Ramirez because he has Jeter already. Finally, most questions only seem to matter to the caller. Give me something, anything, that someone else can take something away from it and I'm ok.

So I'm going to bitch about my team. 10 Team Mixed League with five keepers. I kept Pujols, Russell Martin, Ichiro, Manny and C.C. Two of those have tanked hard in two weeks. The problem is my pitching, starting with Sabathia, who's been crap.

Sabathia (crap)
Gallardo (injured, coming back this weekend, but I knew he was hurt when I picked him and got value)
Wang (decent, about as expected, but he's the only one)
Phil Hughes (stunk so far)
Scott Kazmir (uh-huh)
Matt Garza (same thing)
Dustin McGowan (picked up off waivers, decent enough)

So the starters have stunk or been injured. That looks like enough -- Sabathia, Wang, Gallardo, Kazmir -- and it should be, with depth. Except it hasn't been. The bullpen is no better.

Broxton (decent enough, but not as many Ks as I expected)
Betancourt (sucked like CC, but could get some saves now)
Riske (grabbed him late as a Gagne play)
Mariano Rivera

Ok, Rivera's fine, but I had to trade Justin Upton to get him. I was stacked in the OF (Ichiro, Fukudome, Manny, Carlos Gomez, and Josh Hamilton with Rick Ankiel on the bench) so it made sense, but I'd punted saves in the draft but made a quick U-turn on that strategy when faced with the chance to get Rivera who should on his own put me mid-pack in saves.

I'm hitting well, so I'll save you that discussion. At least I'm doing well in the Experts League I usually tank in.

"How do you expect me to alt-tab and check the chat at work if it's audio?" was one response. "There's no sound card on my work computer," said another. Aside from the concept that people are surfing the net during their jobs rather than, you know, working, it surprises me that people resist new technologies.

When I got my first computer, it had a friggin' cassette tape drive. Seriously -- cassettes, just like what you play music on. It was a TRS-80, Model 3, if I remember correctly. It worked in BASIC and had 16k of memory. 16k! I had a Commodore Vic-20 later and even once I got into Macs, my first one had the expensive and unthinkably huge 40 megabyte harddrive. Earlier today, I was listening to a lecture on Buddhism that was just over 40 megs.

Before broadband, YouTube wasn't possible. Today, I'm not sure what the next step is, though I'm still unconvinced by lifecasting, though I enjoy the work of Justine Ezarik and Robert Scoble. So why do baseball fans, or at least BP readers, resist something as low-tech as sound?

Simple. Convenience and comfort.

Sound doesn't work for most because they don't think they can use it and it's a bit outside their comfort range. The problem is that until you work out the kinks of something, there's no way to get it comfortable for people. Video is the same as sound in this way, but to me, besides the impulse to innovate and push forward things, I think it's the choice. I doubt that people would listen to a chat in the same numbers that they read chats today, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't end up being 50-50, especially if we could get more questions in and get better answers. If there was a way to do both the audio chat and a transcription in near-real-time, all the better, but I don't have a way to do that, let alone a cost-effective way to do it.

At the leading edge of "new" technologies, there's a resistance that's difficult to overcome, both internal and external. Why do you resist? Discuss in comments ...

UPDATE: Rights issues are something that I often run into. It's illegal to do secondary comments, even post-broadcast, and to run videos using MLB property. Yes, I know a lot of people are doing it, but they tend to be too small to attract notice.

Cigars are bad for you.

Ok, that fact aside, they're also one of those simple pleasures that, if you so choose, should be experienced. Not so much that they're addictive. Just like any simple decadence, moderation is the key. (I'll have more on this in the Decadence Manifesto, which I'm at work on, once I clear everything else off the deadline list.) I never understood cigarettes, despite both parents being smokers. One every week isn't a bad pace, which makes the sampler pack of Cigar International Legends I got a nice treat. The idea is that CI, one of the largest Internet cigar dealers, got some of the top cigar makers to put together a cheap blend. One size, one price, and may the best smoke win.

The two I tried were Copper (Drew Estate) and Blue (Matasa.) Drew Estate is known for it's Acid line, a series of oh-so-hip cigars made with infused flavors. The Copper is no different. If you're new to cigars, this might not be a bad one, though you're in for a shock. The initial taste is pure cherry, so sweet it's like someone dipped it in koolaid. The sweet shock stays for about the first inch of this 5 3/4 inch cigar and while I can't say I liked it, it was different enough to keep me interested. Deeper in, there was more of a classic cigar taste with a bit of pepper and some nutty flavor to the smoke. It was never overpowering and is clearly on the mild end of cigars, but it was pleasant. I tend to smoke outside, sitting on my patio, and it was never too much or too strong. I had to relight once, which was my fault -- I was yapping on the phone and left it for a couple minutes without a puff. It's not a great cigar, but it's certainly well worth the price. I'm a bit more likely to try some of the Drew Estate product after this introduction.

The Blue Legend is from Matasa, best known for their Fonseca brand. I hadn't smoked one of theirs since a Romeo y Julieta a couple years ago, so I wasn't expecting much. The sampler was 8 cigars, so this was one of those "well, I gotta pick one and I want to save the Cusano for another time" kind of picks. It was a tight draw (which means suck harder) through the first inch. I use a punch rather than a cutter, so this is probably more an issue for me and others that prefer a punch than it is for the traditional cut. The wrapper, a sun-grown Ecuadorian, was one I hadn't had before and I can't say I'm a fan. It was brittle for me despite keeping my humidor near 70% and unraveled a bit as it burned. At the halfway point, it got very woody, something others have described as cedar, but which I experienced more as an intrusive ... something. Cedar - maybe, I just can't say. It wasn't mesquite either, but if you like your steak very woody, you might like this more than I did.

The Copper was a nice cigar for the price. The Blue wasn't bad, but I wouldn't buy one on it's own. The Orange Legend isn't even worth writing about, so I won't. I'm not going to give stars or ratings, because decadence is about the experience.

When it comes to baseball, I believe the tenets of the sabermetrical approach are holy...except for relief pitching. I have watched enough guys blow leads in the 8th and 9th innings to realize that the last 2 frames of a game are the toughest to have success. I know many sabermetricians believe that you can run a bullpen by committee and it can be successful. I don't. Some guys have the sack to do it and others don't. Losing a lead and then the game in the last 2 innings are worse than losing them in the first 7. I know mathematically this makes little sense, as a computer sees a loss as a loss. Well in my time watching the dynamics of a team, blowing games at the end wrecks a team's confidence faster than anything else. There have been plenty of great hitting teams who couldn't get over the .500 mark. While it is less the case, the same could be said for teams who had a better than an average starting pitching, I would argue that over the past decade, if you had a top-notch bullpen, you were going to be a playoff competitive team at worst and most likely a division winner or better.

The 2 top bullpens in the AL are the Red Sox and Angels, which I believe to also be the best 2 teams in baseball. Sure they have excellent starting pitching and hitting, as well, but it is their ability to close-out the last 2 or 3 innings that put them ahead of their competitors. The Indians went from being underachievers to nearly winning the AL Championship because their bullpen had an inspired year in 2007. I think the Indians are the best team in baseball, if you don't include the bullpen, but a team which counts on Joe Borowski to get them through the 9th inning is insane.. Another bullpen that pitched out of their minds in 2007 was the Mariners. I suspect they will come back down to earth this year, which will make them a team who struggles to be much more than a .500 club.

When you judge teams over the past decade on the category of who has had the most results on a cost/production scale, the A's and Twins battle each other for the top spot. While they have used very different approaches on building competitive clubs, the one thing they have shared is possessing excellent bullpens. Sure they've had good starting pitching and defense, but it was the consistency of their relief pitching that was their unsung hero. The Angels have also been lights out from the 7th inning on, givng them a leg up on every team the past few years. I would argue that the MVP of the Yankees over the past decade has been Mariano Rivera. Having the greatest closer in baseball history has been the stabilizing force for the Bronx Bombers, when the rest of franchise was going through one media-hyped crisis after another.
Many touted the Tigers as being right there with the Red Sox and Angels, but their bully was a huge question mark. Remember the days when Todd Jones was the 3rd or 4th best option for Detroit, even though he was their closer? Not anymore, as he is the best healthy relief pitcher they have.

Name me a American League team that was a playoff team without a good bullpen during this decade? The only one I could find was the 2003 Red Sox. Remember them, the team that followed the idea that closer by committee would work? Even with Bill James in the front office, the Red Sox quit that idea after one year, bringing in Keith Foulke the following season. I know that you can't make a concrete conclsion off of one example, especially by a team that had Byung-Hyun Kim as their top save leader, but I'm telling you closer by committee won't work. Some guys can't handle the final 3 outs, some can. You can say it is BS, but ask major league relievers if they don't perform better when they know what their roles are in the pen.

Put this last statement under the category of please do the research for me, but my guess would be that teams that strongly under perform or over perform their Pythagorean record are almost always most affected by their bullpen. If you look at my pre-season picks, you will notice that bullpen performance is the biggest factor why I think a team will have final success. This is why the optimistic predictions of a winning season by the Rays I find very unlikely. That's all I have for now.

Be forewarned. I'm back.

Blogging will commence when I get a good idea.

Until then, read this.

The World's greatest rock band, Muse, just put out a great live disc with bonus DVD last week. The show demonstrates the amazing talents of the band. They rock Wembley Stadium like they are QUeen during their prime. Check out Knights of Cydonnia.

**********************

I can't explain why this makes me laugh so hard, but it does. Unicorns....Ambrosia....yummy.

**********************

Steve Stone and Ed Farmer share the White Sox radio broadcasting booth. They are the best duo I have ever heard cover a game.

**********************

David Cook is my favorite contestant in American Idol history. The show has 6 contestants better than anyone on last season's show.

**********************

Considering what is on my plate, I can understand how this might happen.

In my last season preview, I thought there was only one superior team and that was the Red Sox. Well, this year I think it is more wide open than that, as I believe Boston has fallen off just enough to join the pack of flawed, but potential world champion teams. Below is the way I see it, with predicted wins next to each club.

AL East

Boston 92
NY Yankees 89
Toronto 85
Tampa Bay 75
Baltimore 67

It has been awhile since a World Champ has repeated, so expect that the Red Sox will have a tougher time of it this year. Their depth of pitching, especially in the bullpen, will make the difference.
The Yankees starting pitching is a mystery to me and their aging hitters are on the downhill slope. I suspect they will make a move at tte trade deadline that will bring in a key component to ensure the wildcard.
If you could promise me that Roy and A.J. would make all their starts, I would probably pull the trigger on the Blue Jays. These injury concerns and the difference of who closes the games gives the Wild Card to the Yanks.
Too many people are out ahead of the D-Rays, as their bullpen will continue to kill them. (See a theme here?)
Camden Yards is a great place to watch a game, unless you are an Orioles fan.

Cleveland 92
Detroit 84
Chicago 83
Minnesota 78
Kansas City 75

The Indians are the best team in baseball...except that they have decided to stick with Borowski to close out games. Time to move someone up or get someone to take care of that serious flaw.
The Tigers have a bunch of aging hitters coming off big, if not career years, and a pathetic bullpen. Does that scenario remind you of someone? (2007 White Sox). No team has a bigger high/low possibility than Detroit.
Last season the bullpen was as bad as a gets for about a 3 month stretch. Outside of Jenks, the pen was awful. One more starting pitcher and they could climb back into the Wild Card picture.
The Twins and A's seem to both be in a transitional phase, but they have enough pitching to be more competitive than expected.
The Royals have a better chance of making the playoffs in the next 5 years than the D-Rays. They are no longer an easy mark.

Los Angeles 89
Oakland 78
Seattle 78
Texas 75

No team has an easier walk to the playoffs than the Angels, as the rest of the West wll battle it out for last place. Last year they went into the playoffs with serious injury problems. If they are healthy this year, they can win it all.
The A's are better than they are being given credit for. If they still had Haren and Swisher, they might have had a chance at the Wild Card.
Last season was a fluke year, with the Mariners' bullpen coming out of nowhere to he a force for them. The pen in 2008 will come back to earth some and so will the team's record.
I have no idea what the Rangers gameplan is, as they seem to have no ability to develop young pitchers. Sadly, many of their talented young hitters seem to have atrophied as well.

Post-Season

The Indians are the most talented team in baseball, except for their questionable bullpen. Unless they find someone who can do for them what Rodriguez, Paplebon, and Rivera, I just don't see them winning consistently in the playoffs. It is nearly impossible to repeat, so I won't predict the Red Sox to win it all, like I did during my 2007 preview. The Yankees are really hard to read, counting on so many young starters and past theit prime hitters. I'm going with Angels, as they have the easiest road to post-season and the pitching and defense to thrive in October. I made these pickc before I had heard about Escobar's injury. I'm sticking with them, as it is the fair thing to do. considering I'm 3 days late posting my choices.