If anyone's going to try and take on Baseball Reference, it will be a
Wiki that does it. I still have the copy of Total Baseball that I was
given in high school somewhere, but it's dusty and unused. Lee Sinins'
SBE is pretty friggin' amazing, but doesn't work on Mac -- it may be
the one thing I miss from the PC World.
* I make my living as an "expert." Does it worry me that this book
proves that I'm not likely to make better predictions that anyone else?
If you didn't realize my predictions suck, then you haven't been paying
attention. I admit they suck, know they suck, and make them anyway.
Know why? Because the debate is interesting. It's funny that someone
like me that hates, hates, hates blog commenting on most stories really
likes the idea of a web-based debate. If things happened like they did
recently with the "Ten Good Bloggers" discussion, I'd change my mind
about comments. Until then, I'll continue to think that they're the
talk radio of the web.
* While the Blue Jays spent the most and the rest of the AL East is
getting all the attention, no one is noticing the very quiet job of
restructuring that Josh Byrnes and Peter Woodfork are orchestrating in
Arizona. The signing of Eric Byrnes (no relation) finishes off a great
winter where they off-loaded older and unhappy players and opened up
slots for their young players. Luis Gonzalez remains and he's likely to
be a nice acquisition for someone at the deadline -- unless the D-Backs
are running away with a very winnable division. With a great minor
league system in place, the D-Backs could be a very, very good team for
the latter part of the decade.
* 24 is back soon, but not soon enough. There's some amazing additions
to the cast, I'm told, and perhaps the return of Elisha Cuthbert. Peter
Weller? Julian Sands? Holy cow, that's a casting dream from my teenage
days. Please tell me there's some sort of wink towards Buckaroo Bonzai or Gothic!
Err, corrections. How do we deal with corrections on the web? Do we
take the "it posted, so treat it like print" model or do we acknowledge
an initial error with a strikethru -- or do we fix things when they
don't affect the outcome of the story? I'll give an example - if I said
that Juan Pierre strained his left hamstring in UTK, but it was the
case that it was his right hamstring, should that be changed? To me, I
think it gets changed if it's caught quickly and doesn't change the
story materially. In this example, Pierre would have the same problem
no matter which leg and it wouldn't change how fantasy players would
react. (Yes, I know who my core market is.) If it turned out that my
source was incorrect and that Pierre in fact had a knee problem, then I
would correct it in the next column, because that changes things and
*The new iPod rules. Flat out rules. The video capabilities aren't as
mind-altering as carrying around a couple thousand songs, but they're
nice. I can see watching a show or movie while sitting in the airport
or waiting at the doctor's office. It has an amazing "oooh" factor as
well. A broader selection from the iTunes store would help, but then
again, if you really want movies, you go to Blockbuster and rip a DVD
or hit up Bit Torrent.
* I may be sick, but this Dick Clark thing might be the best NYE
marketing gimmick since dropping a ball. (By the way, I only learned
this year that Times Square is named after the New York Times. I
thought it was because that's where we marked the passage of time. I
should have checked the Wikipedia.)
* I'm soooooo done with the Cubs. Seriously. I mean it this time.
* I'm debating an interesting writing project. More on this soon. The
big question now is structure and if it's something that can safely run