I'm not really up for anything big today, so I'm going to hand you a Sporcle quiz or two.
For the North American readers, there are seven baseball statistics you'll need to keep track of: hits, home runs, RBI, runs, stolen bases, walks and strikeouts. Those are all stats for batters; no pitchers involved here. There are 30 teams in the league.
For the regular season just concluded, you are to name the team leader- or leaders- in each of the seven stats. You've got 20 minutes.
For the international readers, here's three soccer clubs from each of 40 countries. You have to name the countries. You have 10 minutes, though given the fact that I'm trying to get a book about club soccer published, of course I ran through the thing in 2:53.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Wow! Old News Is So Exciting!
I assume you're familiar with the concept of those old-timey newsreels. Before the days of television, one way people got their news was from news clips played before movies- the place where you now see the previews, celebrity anagrams, and warnings to turn off your damn cell phone already.
But that was a long time ago. You may be familiar with the concept, but the newsreels YOU'VE seen have most likely all been parodies of the concept, created for modern media, such as that episode of Futurama where Bender gets into pro wrestling. You've probably never actually seen the real, actual newsreels.
Well, that changes today, because I'm linking you to an online archive of newsreels. The hub site for such a thing is, naturally, the Newsreel Archive. They in turn link out to archives of specific newsreel companies, such as Universal Newsreels, Hearst Metrotone (as archived by UCLA), and British Pathe (movies didn't stop with Hollywood).
For instance, here's the newsreel from 1945 announcing Japan's surrender to the United States at the close of World War 2. (As an aside, if you recall the thing about Obama using 22 pens to sign the healthcare bill into law and wondered why he did that... well, you'll see here that it's not a new thing.)
One man you'd be likely to hear doing newsreels- though not the one above- is Ed Herlihy, longtime newsreel anchor for Universal. He was also heard doing TV, radio, decades worth of ads for Kraft cheese, and just about everything right on up to a 'Newscaster' credit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. These days, think Don Pardo.
Here's Herlihy, alongside fellow anchor Ben Grauer (who would go on to be one of NBC's early and longtime voicemen), on a slightly slower news day in 1947.
But that was a long time ago. You may be familiar with the concept, but the newsreels YOU'VE seen have most likely all been parodies of the concept, created for modern media, such as that episode of Futurama where Bender gets into pro wrestling. You've probably never actually seen the real, actual newsreels.
Well, that changes today, because I'm linking you to an online archive of newsreels. The hub site for such a thing is, naturally, the Newsreel Archive. They in turn link out to archives of specific newsreel companies, such as Universal Newsreels, Hearst Metrotone (as archived by UCLA), and British Pathe (movies didn't stop with Hollywood).
For instance, here's the newsreel from 1945 announcing Japan's surrender to the United States at the close of World War 2. (As an aside, if you recall the thing about Obama using 22 pens to sign the healthcare bill into law and wondered why he did that... well, you'll see here that it's not a new thing.)
One man you'd be likely to hear doing newsreels- though not the one above- is Ed Herlihy, longtime newsreel anchor for Universal. He was also heard doing TV, radio, decades worth of ads for Kraft cheese, and just about everything right on up to a 'Newscaster' credit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. These days, think Don Pardo.
Here's Herlihy, alongside fellow anchor Ben Grauer (who would go on to be one of NBC's early and longtime voicemen), on a slightly slower news day in 1947.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Sex! Now That I Have Your Attention...
One kind of book that will never, ever wind up on my shelf is a romance novel. You already know what's going to happen; the only question is how many times. (Answer: so many times.) Their only literary purpose is to be swiftly burned through so you can get to the next one. It's like trying to pretend you read Playboy for the articles.
And that's assuming their main purpose is even literary.
In 1966, a group of 24 journalists from Newsday, headed by Mike McGrady, banded together to test a theory as to just how much bad writing you could get away with as long as you threw in enough sex. Each writer took one chapter, written as deliberately badly as possible and including as much sex as possible, with an enforced minimum of two sex scenes per chapter. According to the outline McGrady provided the group, "True excellence in writing will be blue-penciled into oblivion. There will be an unremitting emphasis on sex." (And quite a bit of good writing did in fact get blue-penciled into oblivion.) The result, published in 1969, was the book 'Naked Came The Stranger', credited to "Penelope Ashe", the part of Penelope played by McGrady's sister-in-law. And of course people bought it, enough so that the Newsday crew eventually outed themselves out of guilt over how much money they were making.
So of course people stopped buying it. In fact, so many people stopped buying it that it hit the New York Times Best-Seller List and McGrady wrote a sequel the next year called 'Stranger Than Naked or How To Write Dirty Books For Fun'.
Fast-forward to 2012, the year of Fifty Shades of Grey, which you have undoubtedly heard of, and which a lot of you bought. You also bought a lot of other books just like it, so many that the best-seller list on iTunes is filled with random 'erotic fiction novels', which is the more pleasant way of saying 'books where all anyone does is just have sex all the time'. A couple guys, Brian Brushwood and Justin Young, hosts of the NSFW Podcast, saw this best-seller list and decided to reprise the Naked Came The Stranger concept. They didn't have professional journalists at their disposal, but they didn't need them.
They had the Internet. Which is full of bad writing, badder than the baddest banana in the bad tree bunch and then all the tree bunches had sex.
Brushwood and Young opted to crowdsource their project, which they called 'The Diamond Club'. They gave an outline of what they were looking for to anyone that wanted to try their hand at contributing a chapter. (They wanted sex and a lot of it. Also it would help if there were a main character or something. Other than that, they weren't picky.) They took their favorites, slapped them together without having contributed a single word of their own aside from the words on the carefully-designed cover, and called it a book. Needless to say, because none of the writers were working with one another, the chapters are disjointed, and because they just grabbed writing from random denizens of the Internet, they took in a lot of bad writing. Brushwood and Young described the end product as "a rambling incoherent mess", but published it under the name "Patricia Harkins-Bradley".
It hit the iTunes best-seller list, of course, partially due to the fact that they asked their helpers to buy a copy themselves to help get some momentum started. The reviews were terrible, but of course by that point the reviewers had already handed over their money. And of course, once they outed themselves, the hey-look-at-the-trainwreck factor kicked in for them too, meaning more money.
They do not feel anywhere near as guilty as the Newsday staff.
And that's assuming their main purpose is even literary.
In 1966, a group of 24 journalists from Newsday, headed by Mike McGrady, banded together to test a theory as to just how much bad writing you could get away with as long as you threw in enough sex. Each writer took one chapter, written as deliberately badly as possible and including as much sex as possible, with an enforced minimum of two sex scenes per chapter. According to the outline McGrady provided the group, "True excellence in writing will be blue-penciled into oblivion. There will be an unremitting emphasis on sex." (And quite a bit of good writing did in fact get blue-penciled into oblivion.) The result, published in 1969, was the book 'Naked Came The Stranger', credited to "Penelope Ashe", the part of Penelope played by McGrady's sister-in-law. And of course people bought it, enough so that the Newsday crew eventually outed themselves out of guilt over how much money they were making.
So of course people stopped buying it. In fact, so many people stopped buying it that it hit the New York Times Best-Seller List and McGrady wrote a sequel the next year called 'Stranger Than Naked or How To Write Dirty Books For Fun'.
Fast-forward to 2012, the year of Fifty Shades of Grey, which you have undoubtedly heard of, and which a lot of you bought. You also bought a lot of other books just like it, so many that the best-seller list on iTunes is filled with random 'erotic fiction novels', which is the more pleasant way of saying 'books where all anyone does is just have sex all the time'. A couple guys, Brian Brushwood and Justin Young, hosts of the NSFW Podcast, saw this best-seller list and decided to reprise the Naked Came The Stranger concept. They didn't have professional journalists at their disposal, but they didn't need them.
They had the Internet. Which is full of bad writing, badder than the baddest banana in the bad tree bunch and then all the tree bunches had sex.
Brushwood and Young opted to crowdsource their project, which they called 'The Diamond Club'. They gave an outline of what they were looking for to anyone that wanted to try their hand at contributing a chapter. (They wanted sex and a lot of it. Also it would help if there were a main character or something. Other than that, they weren't picky.) They took their favorites, slapped them together without having contributed a single word of their own aside from the words on the carefully-designed cover, and called it a book. Needless to say, because none of the writers were working with one another, the chapters are disjointed, and because they just grabbed writing from random denizens of the Internet, they took in a lot of bad writing. Brushwood and Young described the end product as "a rambling incoherent mess", but published it under the name "Patricia Harkins-Bradley".
It hit the iTunes best-seller list, of course, partially due to the fact that they asked their helpers to buy a copy themselves to help get some momentum started. The reviews were terrible, but of course by that point the reviewers had already handed over their money. And of course, once they outed themselves, the hey-look-at-the-trainwreck factor kicked in for them too, meaning more money.
They do not feel anywhere near as guilty as the Newsday staff.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Just A Precaution
According to the UK Press Association, a group from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland is going to try to create something analogous to a black hole using laser pulses, without actually creating a black hole. I'm not even going to begin to pretend I know the first thing about how this is supposed to work.
But just in case, I think we should all take a moment to go over this instructional piece on how to escape a black hole. Remember to make sure you're stocked up on canned goods and water, stay away from windows, and don't open the cellar door until you know the coast is clear and the black hole has passed. Unless I'm thinking about tornadoes.
But just in case, I think we should all take a moment to go over this instructional piece on how to escape a black hole. Remember to make sure you're stocked up on canned goods and water, stay away from windows, and don't open the cellar door until you know the coast is clear and the black hole has passed. Unless I'm thinking about tornadoes.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Have You Managed To Tick Off A Foreign Government?
In the past, you might find out about this via your computer being mysteriously nonfunctional, or perhaps far away from you because the government in question busted into your country and spirited you from your house in the dead of night to a place the existence of which is officially denied.
But now, it is possible to just Google that information. Back in June, Google launched a warning system for users that it pegged as under siege by state-sponsored attacks, in response to several such attacks over the previous few years, chiefly the doing of China and Iran. (Google has had a frosty relationship with China, having been hacked themselves, noting search terms on the Hong Kong search engine that may result in censorship, and recently shuttering their local music service.) Another such attack was seemingly detected on Tuesday, apparently the work of an assortment of Middle Eastern states, though Google isn't naming names in this instance. Google is also not going to say how they determine who's deemed to be under threat, the reason being that if they did, whoever's launching the attack is going to overhear and try to dodge the warning system, which has turned out to be getting a much more strenuous workout than they anticipated when they launched it.
If it should ever happen to you, it will come in the form of a red banner above the search bar, accompanied by a link to information you can use to help protect yourself. Changing your passwords would be an obvious first step; instituting a two-step authentication would also be a good idea.
Another thing not to do would be to bring up the fact that the Chinese government is pulling Ai Weiwei's business license for some reason or other that in practice just boils down to Flimsy Excuse To Screw With The Political Dissident Again. China wouldn't like if you mentioned the name Ai Weiwei. Really don't say Ai Weiwei. That name you shouldn't say is Ai Weiwei.
Nor should you say Liu Xiaobo, whose Nobel Peace Prize win so angered the Chinese government that they went and made their own peace prize, with blackjack, and hookers. Last year their peace prize went to Vladimir Putin, which tells you just how much stock to put into that thing.
And you really shouldn't bring up Tibet, where the Australian government has recently been refused permission to visit the parts where people are setting themselves on fire in protest of Chinese rule.
Folks, I haven't had a pageview from China since August and I'm clearly not angling to have that little streak broken anytime soon.
Ai Weiwei.
But now, it is possible to just Google that information. Back in June, Google launched a warning system for users that it pegged as under siege by state-sponsored attacks, in response to several such attacks over the previous few years, chiefly the doing of China and Iran. (Google has had a frosty relationship with China, having been hacked themselves, noting search terms on the Hong Kong search engine that may result in censorship, and recently shuttering their local music service.) Another such attack was seemingly detected on Tuesday, apparently the work of an assortment of Middle Eastern states, though Google isn't naming names in this instance. Google is also not going to say how they determine who's deemed to be under threat, the reason being that if they did, whoever's launching the attack is going to overhear and try to dodge the warning system, which has turned out to be getting a much more strenuous workout than they anticipated when they launched it.
If it should ever happen to you, it will come in the form of a red banner above the search bar, accompanied by a link to information you can use to help protect yourself. Changing your passwords would be an obvious first step; instituting a two-step authentication would also be a good idea.
Another thing not to do would be to bring up the fact that the Chinese government is pulling Ai Weiwei's business license for some reason or other that in practice just boils down to Flimsy Excuse To Screw With The Political Dissident Again. China wouldn't like if you mentioned the name Ai Weiwei. Really don't say Ai Weiwei. That name you shouldn't say is Ai Weiwei.
Nor should you say Liu Xiaobo, whose Nobel Peace Prize win so angered the Chinese government that they went and made their own peace prize, with blackjack, and hookers. Last year their peace prize went to Vladimir Putin, which tells you just how much stock to put into that thing.
And you really shouldn't bring up Tibet, where the Australian government has recently been refused permission to visit the parts where people are setting themselves on fire in protest of Chinese rule.
Folks, I haven't had a pageview from China since August and I'm clearly not angling to have that little streak broken anytime soon.
Ai Weiwei.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
You Kidding Me? Playoffs?
It's almost baseball playoff time, which can only mean one thing: someone somewhere is whining about the very existence of playoffs in baseball. I have seen fans that, no matter how many thrilling playoff races and playoff games there are, still are of the mind that there ought to only be two teams in the postseason: the team with the best AL record and the team with the best NL record. (Many of these same people will then go on to argue that the Astros not be the ones going to the AL next season to even things out at 15 apiece, but rather the Brewers on the grounds that they were there before and should be marched right back. That, or Major League Baseball ought to just contract all the way back to the classic 16 franchises that were around prior to 1961. But then, some of us are under 60 years old.)
But let's humor these people today. After all, the NHL and MLS give special recognition to the best regular-season records above and beyond simple playoff seeding. Let's go back as far as 1969- the first year with proper playoffs- redo things without them, and see what the World Series matchups would have been under the pre-1969 format of best-record-only. We're not interested in who would have won the World Series, just who would have gotten there.
The first matchup listed for each year is the one pitting the regular-season champions of each league. The second one, the one in parentheses, is the matchup that actually happened. In all cases, the American League representative is listed first.
You will also note three sets of asterisks; these denote instances where there were ties in the regular season. At the bottom, you'll see how each eventual representative was determined; thankfully, all three were able to be settled pretty easily.
1969: Orioles vs. Mets (Orioles vs. Mets)
1970: Orioles vs. Reds (Orioles vs. Reds)
1971: Orioles vs. Pirates (Orioles vs. Pirates)
1972: Athletics vs. Pirates (Athletics vs. Reds)
1973: Orioles vs. Reds (Athletics vs. Mets)
1974: Orioles vs. Dodgers (Athletics vs. Dodgers)
1975: Athletics vs. Reds (Red Sox vs. Reds)
1976: Yankees vs. Reds (Yankees vs. Reds)
1977: Royals vs. Phillies (Yankees vs. Dodgers)
1978: Yankees vs. Dodgers (Yankees vs. Dodgers)
1979: Orioles vs. Pirates (Orioles vs. Pirates)
1980: Yankees vs. Astros (Royals vs. Phillies)
1981: Athletics vs. Reds (Yankees vs. Dodgers)
1982: Brewers vs. Cardinals (Brewers vs. Cardinals)
1983: White Sox vs. Dodgers (Orioles vs. Phillies)
1984: Tigers vs. Cubs (Tigers vs. Padres)
1985: Blue Jays vs. Cardinals (Royals vs. Cardinals)
1986: Red Sox vs. Mets (Red Sox vs. Mets)
1987: Tigers vs. Cardinals (Twins vs. Cardinals)
1988: Athletics vs. Mets (Athletics vs. Dodgers)
1989: Athletics vs. Cubs (Athletics vs. Giants)
1990: Athletics vs. Pirates (Athletics vs. Reds)
1991: Twins vs. Pirates (Twins vs. Braves)
1992: Athletics* vs. Braves (Blue Jays vs. Braves)
1993: Blue Jays vs. Braves (Blue Jays vs. Phillies)
1994: Yankees vs. Expos (no World Series)
1995: Indians vs. Braves (Indians vs. Braves)
1996: Indians vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Braves)
1997: Orioles vs. Braves (Indians vs. Marlins)
1998: Yankees vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Padres)
1999: Yankees vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Braves)
2000: White Sox vs. Giants (Yankees vs. Mets)
2001: Mariners vs. Astros** (Yankees vs. Diamondbacks)
2002: Yankees vs. Braves (Angels vs. Giants)
2003: Yankees vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Marlins)
2004: Yankees vs. Cardinals (Red Sox vs. Cardinals)
2005: White Sox vs. Cardinals (White Sox vs. Astros)
2006: Yankees vs. Mets (Tigers vs. Cardinals)
2007: Red Sox*** vs. Diamondbacks (Red Sox vs. Rockies)
2008: Angels vs. Cubs (Rays vs. Phillies)
2009: Yankees vs. Dodgers (Yankees vs. Phillies)
2010: Rays vs. Phillies (Rangers vs. Giants)
2011: Yankees vs. Phillies (Rangers vs. Cardinals)
*- The Blue Jays and Athletics had identical records. Game 1 of the ALCS was used as the theoretical one-game tiebreaker, which the Athletics won 4-3 in Toronto.
**- The Astros and Cardinals had identical records. The Astros were awarded the NL Central title over the Cardinals based on their season series. The two did not meet in the playoffs.
***- The Red Sox and Indians had identical records. Game 1 of the ALCS was used as the theoretical one-game tiebreaker, which the Red Sox won 10-3 in Boston.
So what does this all say? Well, first off, the Cubs' curse of never making the World Series again would have been broken in 1984. In fact, it would have been broken three times over, with Steve Bartman having been bypassed completely. (Contrary to popular belief, the curse prevents the Cubs from merely making the World Series, not winning it outright. The former naturally prevents the latter, but if they got in, hey, who knows.) Second, boy would the Braves have been better off in the 90's.
The playoffs rendered the same result as a non-playoff setting in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1986, 1995 and 1999. 1992 would be there as well had the theoretical one-game playoff gone the other way.
Overall, though, what does this say? Who would have benefited the most from a lack of playoffs, and who has been hurt the most by their presence? For that, we're simply going to take how many times a team has made the World Series in real life, and subtract the number of times they would have made the World Series in a non-playoff alternate reality. The higher the resulting number, the more the team has benefited from the playoffs' existence. (We'll remove 1994, which wouldn't have had a World Series either way.)
Phillies: 5-3= +2
Red Sox: 4-2= +2
Giants: 3-1= +2
Marlins: 2-0= +2
Padres: 2-0= +2
Rangers: 2-0= +2
Cardinals: 6-5= +1
Dodgers: 5-4- +1
Royals: 2-1= +1
Twins: 2-1= +1
Rockies: 1-0= +1
Yankees: 11-11= 0
Reds: 5-5= 0
Mets: 4-4= 0
Blue Jays: 2-2= 0
Indians: 2-2= 0
Tigers: 2-2= 0
Angels: 1-1= 0
Brewers: 1-1= 0
Diamondbacks: 1-1= 0
Rays: 1-1= 0
Expos/Nationals: 0-0= 0
Athletics: 6-7= -1
Astros: 1-2= -1
Mariners: 0-1= -1
Orioles: 5-7= -2
White Sox: 1-3= -2
Pirates: 2-5= -3
Cubs: 0-3= -3
Braves: 5-9= -4
You'll first note that 29 out of the 30 clubs have a stake in the discussion (though the Brewers are arguable, because either way they'd only have 1982 against the Cardinals), and the 30th may be only days away from having one as well. 11 clubs have made more Fall Classics than they would have without a playoff; 8 have made fewer. The Marlins, Padres, Rangers and Rockies would not have made the World Series without the playoffs, while the Mariners and Cubs- especially the Cubs- have been rendered Series-less by the playoffs. Only one club has been zeroed out both ways- the Expos/Nationals- and they're the unofficial NL champs of 1994, and potentially this year's regular-season NL champs. They enter today tied with the Reds with two games to go; the Rangers lead the AL with the Orioles, Yankees and Athletics still capable of taking the title.
Well, capable of taking it after the playoffs get underway, at least. They and the Tigers, Braves, Giants, and either the Dodgers or Cardinals.
But let's humor these people today. After all, the NHL and MLS give special recognition to the best regular-season records above and beyond simple playoff seeding. Let's go back as far as 1969- the first year with proper playoffs- redo things without them, and see what the World Series matchups would have been under the pre-1969 format of best-record-only. We're not interested in who would have won the World Series, just who would have gotten there.
The first matchup listed for each year is the one pitting the regular-season champions of each league. The second one, the one in parentheses, is the matchup that actually happened. In all cases, the American League representative is listed first.
You will also note three sets of asterisks; these denote instances where there were ties in the regular season. At the bottom, you'll see how each eventual representative was determined; thankfully, all three were able to be settled pretty easily.
1969: Orioles vs. Mets (Orioles vs. Mets)
1970: Orioles vs. Reds (Orioles vs. Reds)
1971: Orioles vs. Pirates (Orioles vs. Pirates)
1972: Athletics vs. Pirates (Athletics vs. Reds)
1973: Orioles vs. Reds (Athletics vs. Mets)
1974: Orioles vs. Dodgers (Athletics vs. Dodgers)
1975: Athletics vs. Reds (Red Sox vs. Reds)
1976: Yankees vs. Reds (Yankees vs. Reds)
1977: Royals vs. Phillies (Yankees vs. Dodgers)
1978: Yankees vs. Dodgers (Yankees vs. Dodgers)
1979: Orioles vs. Pirates (Orioles vs. Pirates)
1980: Yankees vs. Astros (Royals vs. Phillies)
1981: Athletics vs. Reds (Yankees vs. Dodgers)
1982: Brewers vs. Cardinals (Brewers vs. Cardinals)
1983: White Sox vs. Dodgers (Orioles vs. Phillies)
1984: Tigers vs. Cubs (Tigers vs. Padres)
1985: Blue Jays vs. Cardinals (Royals vs. Cardinals)
1986: Red Sox vs. Mets (Red Sox vs. Mets)
1987: Tigers vs. Cardinals (Twins vs. Cardinals)
1988: Athletics vs. Mets (Athletics vs. Dodgers)
1989: Athletics vs. Cubs (Athletics vs. Giants)
1990: Athletics vs. Pirates (Athletics vs. Reds)
1991: Twins vs. Pirates (Twins vs. Braves)
1992: Athletics* vs. Braves (Blue Jays vs. Braves)
1993: Blue Jays vs. Braves (Blue Jays vs. Phillies)
1994: Yankees vs. Expos (no World Series)
1995: Indians vs. Braves (Indians vs. Braves)
1996: Indians vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Braves)
1997: Orioles vs. Braves (Indians vs. Marlins)
1998: Yankees vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Padres)
1999: Yankees vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Braves)
2000: White Sox vs. Giants (Yankees vs. Mets)
2001: Mariners vs. Astros** (Yankees vs. Diamondbacks)
2002: Yankees vs. Braves (Angels vs. Giants)
2003: Yankees vs. Braves (Yankees vs. Marlins)
2004: Yankees vs. Cardinals (Red Sox vs. Cardinals)
2005: White Sox vs. Cardinals (White Sox vs. Astros)
2006: Yankees vs. Mets (Tigers vs. Cardinals)
2007: Red Sox*** vs. Diamondbacks (Red Sox vs. Rockies)
2008: Angels vs. Cubs (Rays vs. Phillies)
2009: Yankees vs. Dodgers (Yankees vs. Phillies)
2010: Rays vs. Phillies (Rangers vs. Giants)
2011: Yankees vs. Phillies (Rangers vs. Cardinals)
*- The Blue Jays and Athletics had identical records. Game 1 of the ALCS was used as the theoretical one-game tiebreaker, which the Athletics won 4-3 in Toronto.
**- The Astros and Cardinals had identical records. The Astros were awarded the NL Central title over the Cardinals based on their season series. The two did not meet in the playoffs.
***- The Red Sox and Indians had identical records. Game 1 of the ALCS was used as the theoretical one-game tiebreaker, which the Red Sox won 10-3 in Boston.
So what does this all say? Well, first off, the Cubs' curse of never making the World Series again would have been broken in 1984. In fact, it would have been broken three times over, with Steve Bartman having been bypassed completely. (Contrary to popular belief, the curse prevents the Cubs from merely making the World Series, not winning it outright. The former naturally prevents the latter, but if they got in, hey, who knows.) Second, boy would the Braves have been better off in the 90's.
The playoffs rendered the same result as a non-playoff setting in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1986, 1995 and 1999. 1992 would be there as well had the theoretical one-game playoff gone the other way.
Overall, though, what does this say? Who would have benefited the most from a lack of playoffs, and who has been hurt the most by their presence? For that, we're simply going to take how many times a team has made the World Series in real life, and subtract the number of times they would have made the World Series in a non-playoff alternate reality. The higher the resulting number, the more the team has benefited from the playoffs' existence. (We'll remove 1994, which wouldn't have had a World Series either way.)
Phillies: 5-3= +2
Red Sox: 4-2= +2
Giants: 3-1= +2
Marlins: 2-0= +2
Padres: 2-0= +2
Rangers: 2-0= +2
Cardinals: 6-5= +1
Dodgers: 5-4- +1
Royals: 2-1= +1
Twins: 2-1= +1
Rockies: 1-0= +1
Yankees: 11-11= 0
Reds: 5-5= 0
Mets: 4-4= 0
Blue Jays: 2-2= 0
Indians: 2-2= 0
Tigers: 2-2= 0
Angels: 1-1= 0
Brewers: 1-1= 0
Diamondbacks: 1-1= 0
Rays: 1-1= 0
Expos/Nationals: 0-0= 0
Athletics: 6-7= -1
Astros: 1-2= -1
Mariners: 0-1= -1
Orioles: 5-7= -2
White Sox: 1-3= -2
Pirates: 2-5= -3
Cubs: 0-3= -3
Braves: 5-9= -4
You'll first note that 29 out of the 30 clubs have a stake in the discussion (though the Brewers are arguable, because either way they'd only have 1982 against the Cardinals), and the 30th may be only days away from having one as well. 11 clubs have made more Fall Classics than they would have without a playoff; 8 have made fewer. The Marlins, Padres, Rangers and Rockies would not have made the World Series without the playoffs, while the Mariners and Cubs- especially the Cubs- have been rendered Series-less by the playoffs. Only one club has been zeroed out both ways- the Expos/Nationals- and they're the unofficial NL champs of 1994, and potentially this year's regular-season NL champs. They enter today tied with the Reds with two games to go; the Rangers lead the AL with the Orioles, Yankees and Athletics still capable of taking the title.
Well, capable of taking it after the playoffs get underway, at least. They and the Tigers, Braves, Giants, and either the Dodgers or Cardinals.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Not That This Makes My Screwup Okay
Okay. So I messed up and had to issue a correction yesterday. It's not the first time I've had to do so. I hate having to do that, but it's part of the game. You screw up, you fess up. In fact, I have an entire book of New York Times corrections on my shelf, called Kill Duck Before Serving.
The whole point behind a correction, though, is twofold: to provide the correct information, and to resolve to try not to do it again. (For example, I am now fully awake.) This will become important shortly.
One of the more common ways of screwing up these days is to mistake an article from the Onion as real, and to use it as a legitimate source. As the Onion writes its articles in the style of actual news reports, sometimes an article looks real enough to fool someone. There's a site, called Literally Unbelievable, that fires up anytime someone is caught out by an Onion article.
Among the recent victims was Fars, the Iranian state news service. On Friday, Fars got fooled by the piece 'Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama'. Which is embarrassing enough. But then Fars had to go and plagiarize the darned thing. That screenshot comes courtesy of the Onion (Fars had deleted the article), who twisted the knife by referring to Fars as one of their subsidiaries.
Remember that part about resolving not to do it again?
Fars, after being pointed and laughed at by the entire journalist population of Earth, has now managed to dig itself even deeper with its eventual correction.
Click on the link at 'referring' and the AP article attached will surrender this line at the end:
Now, let's go to the Fars correction, which turned into a long article about other news agencies' screwups (and yes, I recognize the irony in pointing that out):
If you notice the lack of the 'not the first time' part, don't worry. That popped up three paragraphs earlier. That's right. Fars- who you really shouldn't be counting on for quality news in the first place- has not only plagiarized an Onion article, they have then gone on to plagiarize the correction. Word for word. That is so bad it's actually kind of impressive. I've never seen that before.
Hopefully I won't see it again.
The whole point behind a correction, though, is twofold: to provide the correct information, and to resolve to try not to do it again. (For example, I am now fully awake.) This will become important shortly.
One of the more common ways of screwing up these days is to mistake an article from the Onion as real, and to use it as a legitimate source. As the Onion writes its articles in the style of actual news reports, sometimes an article looks real enough to fool someone. There's a site, called Literally Unbelievable, that fires up anytime someone is caught out by an Onion article.
Among the recent victims was Fars, the Iranian state news service. On Friday, Fars got fooled by the piece 'Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama'. Which is embarrassing enough. But then Fars had to go and plagiarize the darned thing. That screenshot comes courtesy of the Onion (Fars had deleted the article), who twisted the knife by referring to Fars as one of their subsidiaries.
Remember that part about resolving not to do it again?
Fars, after being pointed and laughed at by the entire journalist population of Earth, has now managed to dig itself even deeper with its eventual correction.
Click on the link at 'referring' and the AP article attached will surrender this line at the end:
It's not the first time a foreign news outlet has been duped by The Onion. In 2002, the Beijing Evening News, one of the Chinese capital's biggest newspapers, picked up a story from The Onion that claimed members of Congress were threatening to leave Washington unless the building underwent a makeover that included more bathrooms and a retractable dome.
Now, let's go to the Fars correction, which turned into a long article about other news agencies' screwups (and yes, I recognize the irony in pointing that out):
In 2002, the Beijing Evening News, one of the Chinese capital's biggest newspapers, picked up a story from The Onion that claimed members of Congress were threatening to leave Washington unless the building underwent a makeover that included more bathrooms and a retractable dome.
If you notice the lack of the 'not the first time' part, don't worry. That popped up three paragraphs earlier. That's right. Fars- who you really shouldn't be counting on for quality news in the first place- has not only plagiarized an Onion article, they have then gone on to plagiarize the correction. Word for word. That is so bad it's actually kind of impressive. I've never seen that before.
Hopefully I won't see it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)