Hear the Hurd

100 Bands Better than Green Day Update (2020 version)

In 2015, Green Day was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Till this time, I'm still not sure why when so many other deserving acts had better resumes. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate the band. Perfectly serviceable in the post grunge era and had a fine pseudo-punk sound (though I will never agree with any idea of pop punk - those two things do not go together.) They are a good band and maybe they were inducted because the HoF wanted to get better views, but they did not deserve it when compared to so many others over the years.

I spent some few hours over some many weeks with some friends in 2015 compiling a list of 100 bands (artists) that deserved it far more than Green Day. Today I revisit that list. Here is where we stand:

[Note this list is in no particular order]

Jethro Tull

Yes (inducted in 2017)

Soundgarden

Eurythmics

The Cure (inducted in 2019)

The Smiths

The Zombies (inducted in 2019)

Mott the Hoople

Adrien Belew

The Cars (inducted in 2018)

Blue Oyster Cult

UFO

Deep Purple (inducted in 2016)

Iron Maiden

Iggy Pop

Willie Nelson

Warren Zevon

Phil Collins

Graham Parker

Townes Van Zandt

Steve Earle

Emmie Lou Harris

Herbie Hancock

Judas Priest

The Misfits

Dead Kennedys

Motorhead

Ozzy Osborne

Duane Allman

Bjork

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds

Joy Division

MC5

King Crimson

David Crosby

Stephen Stills

Dire Straights (inducted in 2018)

The Replacements

Indigo Girls

Huey Lewis and the News

Janes Addiction

Journey (inducted in 2017)

Meatloaf

Sinead O'Connor

Harry Nilsson

New York Dolls

Tears for Fears

XTC

Jeff Buckley

The Pogues

Ted Nudgent

Henry Rollins

Peter Frampton

Ministry

Steppenwolf

NWA (inducted in 2016)

Joe Cocker

Chicago (inducted in 2016)

The Doobie Brothers (inducted 2020)

Black Flag

Roxy Music (inducted in 2019)

New Order

Steve Miller Band (inducted in 2016)

The Moody Blues (inducted in 2018)

Cheap Trick (inducted in 2016)

Def Leppard (inducted in 2019)

X

John Lydon

Sonic Youth

Pat Benetar

LL Cool J

Pavement

Rage Against the Machine

Thin Lizzy

The Commodores

ELO (inducted in 2017)

Jeff Lynne

Devo

Squeeze

Slayer

Anthrax

Roky Erickson

B-52s

Tina Turner

Blind Faith

Steve Winward

Annie Lenox

Robert Palmer

Nine Inch Nails (inducted in 2020)

Procul Harem

The Germs

The Go Gos

Tommy James and the Shondells

Danzig

Graham Parsons

Sting

Rick James

Husker Du

Tori Amos

 

In 5 years, 17 of these bands/artists have been finally given their due. AFTER Green Day. I am keeping a running tally and will continue to do so until these folks finally get their deserved day. I'm sure that there are many others that I and my friends forgot or failed to mention. Please feel free to offer your own suggestions. You need not complain about the Hall itself because that is a given. Since its inception in Cleveland, they have become worse and worse about who gets in and especially why. A Hall of Fame is itself a subjective thing these days and the music industry is one of the worst offenders. But I love music and would like to see those I love honored. I'm keeping tabs and will continue to do so. Billie Joe Armstrong has his when so many others are so much more deserving. I am never going to let that go. That is all.

The Supreme Court and Term Limits

I'm no legal scholar, but I do pay attention to the news and remain politically active. Thus, it should not come as a shock that I am fully aware of the death of Justice Ginsburg and the now fight over the Supreme Court. Great, right? We needed yet another political fight before an already overly political election (which one has not been for the last 40 years?) That said, the goal in this post is not to advocate for one side or the other, but rather to sense the tone of the latest rhetoric and discuss if it is reasonable or just merely another partisan (or personal) goal. First of all, let us consider the situation. Justice Ginsburg sadly passed at 87 years old after spending over 25 years on the Court. At the moment, the considered balance of the Court is 8 justices and many presume a 4-4 split (though really, it's more 5-3 if you value who appointed who.) To both right and left (such as they are these days) the balance is all important for myriad reasons. We can at least agree on that.

On a basic Constitutional level, President Trump now has the ability and duty to appoint a new Justice that the Senate can either vote upon or not. Advise and Consent. That last part is important. That it occurs right before an election makes it an even more contentious issue (which I'll speak to below.) This is not new in the history of our country but others are more knowledgeable than I at giving you that history (so see here.) What is slightly new is the tone of our politics these days and the recent seeming precedent of 2016 after Justice Scalia died at age 79 after nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court. I need not recount what happened then, but we can all agree on the facts. President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat and the GOP controlled Senate decided not to take action as there was a split between the two branches of government and it was stated that the voters should decide who should fill the seat. The debate on the rightness or wrongness of that has been had and need not be rehashed here other than how it applies to this situation. And even there, I'm not so much interested in that other than to say there is a difference. Under Obama, you had a different party controlling the Senate. In this case, it is the same party in the executive and the consenting Senate. This point will matter more below, but there is quite a lot of opinions from that time that have switched to the opposite this time. Does anyone think a Democrat controlled Senate in 2016 would not have pushed through Garland's nomination? If you are being honest (and have paid attention to politics over the last 40 plus years, you know that they would have done so.) Further, does anyone truly think that if the situation were opposite here with a Democratic President and the Democrats controlling the Senate just two months before an election, they would choose the high road (as they suggest) and take the chance that the other party might come into power and lose the power to appoint? If you think that, then you have not been paying attention.

Term Limits

So now we get to the beef of this post. We can be clear that we are in a political moment rather than a pure Constitutional or jurisprudence moment, and both sides are doing what we might expect that they might do. There can be little argument that what is being debated is more about power and less so about reasonable discussions over the highest court. That has not stopped some people trying to make (possibly) good faith arguments over the future of the court to possibly "cool the soup" as it were over these types of disagreements. I'll give you one example here from The Atlantic published not 3 days ago. If you search my post title on your favored search engine, you'll find many more that have been discussing such an idea since the death of Justice Ginsburg (and some before.) I don't recall much of these same arguments made after Scalia died, but such is the temper of the moment. Yet I think that is your first hint that politics drive this and not Constitutional concern.

I found it an interesting article but was struck by the final paragraph:

"The best argument for term limits is that they would make the Supreme Court more of a standard issue in presidential and Senate campaigns and thus less of a political football when the winners of those elections get to nominate and confirm justices."

How anyone can assume (or merely think) that ANY issue cannot be made into a political football is fooling themselves. So...fail. That said (and I am sorry that I cannot find it right now) but I read another article just a few days ago that made a similar argument for term limits that I did not disagree with entirely. The point was that a Justice would serve a certain term and then "retire" to a lower bench as a Judge Emeritus or something. That would keep the Constitutional charge since Article III of the Constitution states:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

The term "good behavoiur" can be debated (and see here for such an argument...that I don't find persuasive) but it has generally been interpreted as a lifetime appointment. It is suggested that such does not require an Amendment to alter such language, but there would be a fight over it. However, so be it. Any change to our founding document should be debated, fought over, written about to convince we the people and if valid enough, passed and instituted. It's not an easy process. It's not supposed to be. But I have no issue with the idea of changing it. I have issue with why NOW is the time to do it. To be sure, this is not a new idea (one way or the other) but I recall few major pushes to get something like this passed (or even changed) prior to this moment in time.

What about the Congress?

And this is what has lead me to make this post. As of today, I understand that the Democrats (some at least) in the House are prepared to offer a bill to institute an 18 year term limit on Supreme Court justices. Again, search the terms and you will find it but I'll give The Hill's reporting here. As above, I really do not have issue with the principle of such an idea. However, I find it quite...shall we say hypocritical? I would hold this same view if Republicans offered such an idea were they in the same position right now. It seems convenient and not principled. It appears to be an "arrow in the quiver" to quote the current Speaker of the House. It strikes me as not serious given that I think few of those that have spent years, some decades, as elected officials in both House and Senate would never vote for themselves what they now seem to think (again...some) would be appropriate for the highest court in the land. And before I go forward, let me say this...there is no word or even phrase in the Constitution that says a word about limits for Congressmen or Senators. They could pass that bill tomorrow...but you and I know that they will not.

Let me then add (see a simple wikipedia page here) that the longest serving member of Congress was John Dingell at just under 60 years! Second? The revered "heart and soul" of the Senate, Robert Byrd of West Virginia after 59 years (and also a racist and former member of the KKK.) Both of them Democrats. In truth, if you look at that list, 16 of the longest serving Congress members out of the top 20 all time are Democrats (and I'm not even counting Strom Thurmond...47 years in government and ran for President under the Dixiecrat Party in 1948!) Four of the current longest serving members remain in office as we speak...Don Young (R) from Alaska in the House at 47 years, Patrick Leahy (D) from Vermont in the Senate for 45 years, Chuck Grassley (R) from Iowa for 45 years between the House and Senate and Ed Markey (D) from Massachusetts for 45 years also between the House and Senate. After that? Chuck Schumer has been in Congress for nearly 40 years. Steny Hoyer for almost as long. Dick Durbin? Almost 38 years. Nancy Pelosi? Working on 33 years. Oh...and Joe Biden? 36 years in the Senate before he finally got into the White House via the Vice Presidency. I'd run the Republicans here, but they are not the ones putting up such a bill. Suffice to say, they have their own longstanding members and might want to consider that if they should ever push forward such an idea.

All of this is to say "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." I've no trouble seeing limits on the number of years a Supreme Court justice might serve, and there may be some truth that if it is known it is limited, maybe the politics might not be played up as much as it is now (and has since at least since Robert Bork) yet why then does that not also count for members of Congress? Senators already get 6 years...and unending after that if they can keep getting elected. A member of the House in a safe seat after constant redistricting can stay there forever. A President only has eight years at most decreed and amended into the Constitution (unless something odd happens like gaining it before election and then running twice and winning...which has never happened.) If this current Congress is so hell bent on making the current politics and tempers more important than the ultimate goal of defending the Constitution (that they sweared upon when first elected) then they (and sadly we) get what they deserve.

That is why we should vote. That is why we should pay attention. That is why we should read. It remains OUR republic. Not theirs. And if we finally get tired of how they act? Guess what? The Constitution has a remedy for that. We only need 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment and make term limits happen to them. We actually don't need them to vote for it. But we have to care and we need to know why we do. That is all.

It's 2020...and it's time to blow everything all to hell

It's been over 3 years since I have posted anything on this blog. Even then, I was posting about little ideas...college football or the Oscars. When I began this endeavor, I had a lot of things to say about politics and frankly got in on the ground floor of blogging as a concept. The idea that I could share my ideas on the internet, and especially include links so that any reader might investigate for themselves, seemed like an awesome use of this technological advance. Much has changed since the early aughts. I am nearly 20 years older and so is this country. What once was a limited internet presence for certain points of views has now grown to Youtube influencers, established newspapers and magazines that have moved most of their content to the internet, twitter (shudder) and facebook (among others) in which people can tell you what they think immediately without coming up with a full cogent argument in lieu of a meme or graphic. In short, things have certainly changed.

I still hold my opinions, but don't wish to so readily share them as politics has changed on me. So has any chance that one could share an idea with others in which it might be considered with intellectual honesty and either agreed upon or discarded...or just discussed. I've lived long enough that I remember the days where Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan could argue to the public and then still have a drink together after. The idea that Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump might do something like that is so far from my comprehension...is part of the problem.

We now live in a age in which an idea that differs from your own should be silenced. God forbid someone else see it and possibly agree. We live in a country that values click views rather than actual reporting by the media and so get fantastical headlines unsubstantiated by any actual and verifiable information. We get political moments in which your guy or gal can never be wrong and my guy or gal is entirely wrong entirely every time and all the time. If you are against candidate John Doe and John Dope says A, then the response is automatically B. No thought, no consideration...just wrong and B. That's it and that's all. No more discussion is required. I don't know about you...but that is not how I grew up. That was not how I was educated. That was not how I was taught to think for myself. I had awesome teachers that I sometimes disagreed with but never once was I told that I was wrong to think something. I was instead told to consider it further.

I won't get into a long dissertation here about this or that other subject bugging me (though I do not promise that I might or might not if I can sustain this revitalization of this blog) but I did want to post a message to say that I am still here. I still think. I still have a point of view and I still think mine...and yours...is valid and should be heard and considered. 2020 has been a hard year for many (maybe all??) and there is a lot of pent up tension due to health concerns, a political election, financial concerns and just day to day living (suicide is up these days...have you heard?)

And I want to say to everyone that might read this (my great two and a half readers, if they are still there) that I think we can move past this moment in history and still exist as a body politic, a great nation, as good friends and as a population that can live with one another in harmony even with disagreement. It is still possible, if you can allow it. We are still capable, if we can do the work. The basis of this republic remains, if we can move through the process each time and see a fair and peaceful transfer of power whether you like it or not without trying to blow it up when it does not go the way you or others desired.

I remain an optimist and a pragmatist. That may seem mutually exclusive, but it's not. The optimism allows me to move through periods when things aren't going so great. The pragmatism helps me step back and see things for what they are rather than what I may wish they were. And finally, I am (or hope I am) always willing to hear other points of view whether they agree with mine own or not. That's how you understand history. That's how you understand politics. That's how you understand other people. Full stop...that is the only way to navigate this year or any other.

If I can sustain this new attempt to blog, I'll likely move back to college football (if we get it) or baseball (depending if the Braves go far) but I may well make my point of view known on many other subjects. As was told to me some few days ago on facebook "My page...my rules." Well this IS my page, that I pay for and have for nearly 20 years. I can promise you that any comment you make will not be censored unless you cross a line (disrespectful to others, antisemitic or racist, misogynist or just plain full on nutter) and I value opinions that are different than mine. I also value those with which you agree. More importantly, what I have always hoped for with this work was a chance to share my opinion and if others had interesting discussion to offer in return, I welcome it. I do not believe in censorship, I do not agree with the idea of "cancelling" an opinion or person for that matter, and I do not think that we, as a public, can move forward safely and healthily if we don't start listening to one another as opposed to shutting off differing views.

So I guess I'm back. This is likely not all, but I have to use my historic tagline. That is all.

2017 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

For a baseball fan such as myself, today is a pretty big day as it is every year. Today we find out who gets inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Most years in the past (I think nearly every one since I started this blog in 2003) I have given my own personal picks even though I do not have a vote. No reason to change tradition, so what follows are this year's choices. As usual, while I would certainly vote for more than the 10 allowed to the current members of the BBWAA, I will keep that as a rule for myself. If nothing else, this proves why that rule is moronic and should change. We have certainly moved past the logjam of some years ago (that I blogged about here) but there remain many individuals on the ballot that deserve enshrinement, in my mind. For assistance, here is the ballot for this year (thanks to Baseball Reference as always.)

As I have done in the past, I will offer a few honorable mentions...players that have no shot but I recall with much appreciation. There are some ex-Braves on the list, so thank you for your time J.D. Drew, Derrek Lee and Edgar Renteria. As I recall each had a productive year or two with the organization (Lee less so than the others.) I should also highlight Tim Wakefield as a player that I remember fondly from his early years as a Pittsburgh Pirate during those NLCS games with the Braves in the early 90's as well as his later years with the Red Sox. An excellent knuckle ball pitcher, if not a Hall of Famer. Jason Varitek too spent some time with those Sox teams that finally won a championship again, as well as a stand out player for Georgia Tech. I'd also point to Jorge Posada who may have some credentials for enshrinement but would not find a place on my ballot and as it appears as of this posting, will likely fall off after failing to get the 5% needed from the voters (more on this below.) Much like Bernie Williams in a recent vote, being a stand out for those winning Yankees teams is not enough for consideration. One could consider it a shame, but one should also look once more to that 10 player restriction. Without that, both players would likely continue on the ballot at the least for further votes down the line.

So now, we start with the real candidates and by my count there are at most 18 players for which to vote (nineteen if you include Posada) all of which may be considered legitimate Hall of Fame players by many. I have ten slots so I look over the list and find my first choices...those no-doubt, inner-circle players. They are:

• Jeff Bagwell
• Roger Clemens
• Barry Bonds
• Ivan Rodriguez
• Manny Ramirez

For anyone reading, you may be able to see that I have little issue voting for PED using players, whether suspected or proven in the case of Ramirez. I will never say that the entire sport was using at the time, but so many were that it seems to me that the playing field was as level as it has ever been given the game's history. When you consider further that the Veterans Committee easily elected Bud Selig into the Hall late last year for this year's induction...I see no reason to punish the players if the Commissioner that oversaw that period does not also see the same amount of suspicion. You cannot have it both ways.

So we now have five and must cut down the remaining 13 players. The next choice is an easy one for me as I have listed him for some time:

• Tim Raines

Not only is this his last year on the ballot, but he has deserved it since his first. It took me a few years to support him initially, but once I came around there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves enshrinement. He may not be Henderson, but he comes in as a close second for that period of baseball.

To assist in culling the list, I will now cut out the closers. That means that Trevor Hoffman, Lee Smith and Billy Wagner will not be picked this year. I do so not to discount their contributions to the game, as each was a special player. But with such a stacked ballot, I cannot vote for one over the other and justify it in my mind. I have "voted" for Smith in the past when the ballot was not so stuffed and Hoffman and Wagner were different in their respective greatness while both specialists at their job. I would have no issue voting for any and all of the three had I an unlimited ballot. I do not. So they are off for now.

So that leaves us with 9 players left and I must cut that down to 4. I happen to think all nine are Hall of Fame players but I have to start gaming my ballot at this point. Thus, I will cut Vlad Guerrero. I thought him a special player when he played but I am unconvinced he is far better than others on this list and it is his 1st time on the ballot. I will cut Sammy Sosa as well as I still don't think he is a slam dunk candidate. Steroid use or not, he was one-dimensional. He could hit, no doubt. But he was abysmal in the field. With 7 players left, I have to look again and see three that must get a vote:

• Curt Schilling
• Mike Mussina
• Edgar Martinez

Much like the closers above, I could not vote for one and not the other between Mussina and Schilling. Especially after Smoltz waltzed into the Hall in his first year (I was very happy about that fact, but he remains a comparative player for both of these pitchers.) As for Martinez, I have stated my case for him often in past years and will not rehash it here. DH or not, his hitting prowess was far superior to Sosa's. He may not have had the home runs, but his average and overall OPS for his career remains a thing of beauty.

Now I am down to one player to choose from the lot of Fred McGriff, Jeff Kent, Larry Walker and Garry Sheffield. While it may seem hard to pick between them as they were all special in their own way, my choice is simple.

• Fred McGriff

I happen to think all four deserve enshrinement, but this is McGriff's 8th year on the ballot. Had I a vote, he would get mine. I have said it many times before, but he should not be penalized for not getting those last seven home runs to get to 500. Any team of the 90's would have loved to have him and he has been severely underestimated as the years have gone by. Perhaps he lacks in comparison with the stud home run hitters of the steroid era as his numbers were not as gaudy. Maybe he gets dinged because those Braves teams only won the one World Series. I'm not sure why he lacks a following among voters, but the other three players have more time for consideration.

As it appears now, maybe two if not five of these men will get elected this year. If you look at the great Voting tracker by Ryan Thibodaux, you can see that Bagwell and Raines seem a lock with over 50% of the ballots counted. Hoffman, Rodriguez and Guerrero are in range for a potential nod as well. I am happy about all of this. Posada looks to fall off though it could change once all the votes are counted. And most interesting (and appreciated) it seems Bonds and Clemens have gained several voters from years past. As has been stated by many (and myself above), the choice of Selig to enter in with this 2017 class has had a freeing effect on voters. I applaud it!

Argue with my choices if you wish. In fact, please do. I need all the comments I can get to keep this poor blog alive. I look forward to the announcement later today and certainly look forward to next year when one Larry Jones, Jr. gets his shot. Let's go, Chipper! That is all.

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 7

I'm late with my rankings this week for obvious reasons. Losing to Vanderbilt sucks. Thus, I have been on a self imposed ban of all things college football for most of the week. But now that we are about to get back into another weekend of games, it is better late than never. So here are this weeks rankings:

1. Alabama (7-0)
2. Ohio State (6-0)
3. Michigan (6-0)
4. Clemson (7-0)
5. Washington (6-0)
6. Texas A&M (6-0)
7. Louisville (5-1)
8. Nebraska (6-0)
9. West Virginia (5-0)
10. Baylor (6-0)
11. Boise State (6-0)
12. Western Michigan (7-0)
13. Florida (5-1)
14. Wisconsin (4-2)
15. Arkansas (5-2)
16. Tennessee (5-2)
17. South Florida (6-1)
18. Utah (6-1)
19. Navy (4-1)
20. Houston (6-1)
21. Auburn (4-2)
22. LSU (4-2)
23. Virginia Tech (4-2)
24. North Carolina (5-2)
25. Florida State (5-2)

Not much to say about these other than why the hell do these national polls have Houston, Florida State and even Ole Miss still ranked so high? And why drop Tennessee so far? I cannot answer for it, but I can rectify in my own top 25. Bye Ole Miss with your third loss (even if to ranked Arkansas - you will be the first 3 loss team I talk to next time), hello again Houston (at least until you lose to Louisville) and watch it FSU (you better do well vs. Clemson in two weeks.)

This weekend we do get some good games, namely Alabama/A&M and LSU/Ole Miss. And I got these off just in time as the VA Tech/Miami game is in progress as we speak. Spoiler - they are tied with 3 points each in the 2nd quarter. Yep...about right. Georgia won't be back until next season, likely. Or at least until we beat the Gators. Right? RIGHT? That is all.

 

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 6

At the outset, let me say that while most of us spent the weekend doing many things, among them watching football, some more important things were happening in our country. Those people effected by the Hurricane are in all of our prayers, I am sure. They are certainly in mine. I was at least happy to see the game still played between Georgia and South Carolina on Sunday. Not so with Florida and LSU. I was very tempted to ding both for their seeming refusal to play and use this natural disaster to avoid a potential loss (the way I see it) but in the end, I allowed the numbers to speak for themselves with a few wise corrections.

There was quite a bit of movement by the top 25 teams in my ranking, caused mainly by a slew of upsets and losses. One will be readily apparent once you see my list, so let's get to it:

1. Alabama (6-0)
2. Ohio State (5-0)
3. Clemson (6-0)
4. Michigan (6-0)
5. Washington (6-0)
6. Texas A&M (6-0)
7. Louisville (4-1)
8. Wisconsin (4-1)
9. Tennessee (5-1)
10. Nebraska (5-0)
11. Baylor (5-0)
12. West Virginia (4-0)
13. Boise State (5-0)
14. Arkansas (4-1)
15. Virginia Tech (4-1)
16. Florida (4-1)
17. Western Michigan (6-0)
18. Miami (4-1)
19. Mississippi (3-2)
20. Georgia (4-2)
21. North Carolina (4-2)
22. Florida State (4-2)
23. Auburn (4-2)
24. Arizona State (5-1)
25. Utah (5-1)

You may immediately notice that 5-1 Houston has fallen out completely. Why you may ask? Well, who have they beat? And who did they lose to? If you include Houston at 5-1, then don't you have to include Navy sitting at 4-1? And if you include Navy, then shouldn't 4-1 Air Force be included since they gave Navy their only loss? Head to head matters, especially when you have the same record at this point in the season. It is arguable that Navy's win this weekend is a better win than Houston's victory over Oklahoma so early on. It is clear the pollsters still look at that. I do not considering where Oklahoma is now. Beating Texas this weekend is nothing to write home about.

Of course, there was another sticky situation as the polls came out today and I began to compute the numbers. It is clear the pollsters are still very high on Ole Miss, and to some extant on Florida State, especially after they beat Miami on Saturday. But those teams are both sitting there at 2 losses each. In a perfect world, one would still have the Seminoles ranked higher. But they also lost North Carolina...who lost to Georgia...who lost to Ole Miss. I will admit that the order I placed them is not perfect, but I will repeat my thoughts from last week - I think Ole Miss is the best 2 loss team in the country. I then just allowed the head to heads follow on that. Auburn is in there only because the polls seem to like them. Their two losses do come from two top 10 teams, so perhaps I should have jumped them ahead of the rest. But their best victory is over LSU, who might still be high in the voters minds, but not so much in mine (especially after this weekend.)

This coming weekend will see some high profile match-ups with Alabama traveling to Tennessee and Ohio State going to Wisconsin. Our two loss teams will see some thinning hopefully with Arkansas/Ole Miss and Miami/North Carolina on the slate and there are some interesting Pac-12 games to watch (if you can stay up that late.) It's homecoming at Georgia so there is that as well. Back next week to try and sort it all out. That is all.

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 5

It was another showdown weekend and while no major upsets (well, a few) there was a lot of loss to go around. Teams that briefly found a spot in my rankings fell out, TCU finally ran out of my patience and the top fifteen did not change drastically, but their order most certainly did. This weekend promises more of the same. But before we get to that, let's check out how I have them ranked currently,

1. Alabama (5-0)
2. Ohio State (4-0)
3. Clemson (5-0)
4. Michigan (5-0)
5. Washington (5-0)
6. Houston (5-0)
7. Texas A&M (5-0)
8. Tennessee (5-0)
9. Louisville (4-1)
10. Wisconsin (4-1)
11. Miami (4-0)
12. Nebraska (5-0)
13. Baylor (5-0)
14. Stanford (3-1)
15. Arkansas (4-1)
16. Florida (4-1)
17. North Carolina (4-1)
18. Florida State (3-2)
19. Mississippi (3-2)
20. Boise State (4-0)
21. Colorado (4-1)
22. Virginia Tech (3-1)
23. West Virginia (4-0)
24. Georgia (3-2)
25. Oklahoma (2-2)

First things first to get this out of the way, yes Georgia actually gained one spot in the rankings even after losing. One play separates position #8 and position #24. (One could say the same thing last week somewhat with LSU as one play, or lack thereof, cost Les Miles his job.) The Dawgs looked vastly improved from the team that got gobsmacked by Ole Miss the week before. If Tennessee doesn't catch the Hail Mary pass with 4 seconds left, then Georgia is likely ranked around the middle of the pack. But the Vols did make the catch and now find themselves in the top 10. Further, I looked at other teams that should possibly be ranked ahead of Georgia and did not find myself too impressed.

Part of that goes back to Ole Miss. Once the day was over, I started looking at various two loss teams. I happen to think Mississippi is the best of that lot, but they actually fell in my rankings because they had to. We cannot forget that season opening loss to Florida State. That they now have the same record suggests the Seminoles should be ranked ahead of them, like it or not. Head to head matters. But North Carolina just beat Florida State and has a better record, so they must come first. And once you have done that, and consider that Georgia's only losses come from the consensus #9 team and a strong Ole Miss ranked ahead of Florida State in most polls, plus beat NC to start the season, their record doesn't look so bad after all. Why polls have Oklahoma ranked and not Georgia, I do not know. Their season record is simply not as strong, but still strong enough to get that last spot.

I dinged Louisville a bit harder than most polls, but not enough to drop from the top 10. They lost to a strong Clemson team after all. Likewise Wisconsin. The game was far too close for a drastic drop. Washington's beat down of Stanford does show up in this ranking as I have them above Houston and Stanford drops down to #14. And I strongly considered swapping Alabama and Ohio State. For now, no change. But I'll keep watching this.

Welcome Boise State, Colorado, Virginia Tech (who's only loss is to Tenn.) and West Virginia. Bye bye Michigan State, Utah, TCU, San Diego State, Arizona State and Texas (sorry Gantz.) Oklahoma State, UCLA, LSU, Western Michigan and Maryland are on my radar as are Utah, TCU and Arizona State still. That's the beauty of this game. Every week matters. And this week is no different as some prime SEC and ACC games take place, plus Oklahoma/Texas and UCLA/Arizona State. Since we are ranking things, let's rank the most important games this weekend:

1. Tennessee at Texas A&M
2. Miami vs. Florida State
3. Virginia Tech at North Carolina
4. Alabama at Arkansas
5. Florida vs. LSU

All teams are ranked other than LSU who came back strong this past weekend. The shake-up will continue and I will continue to follow it here. I am enjoying doing this again as I hope so too are you. Please feel free to agree or argue as you wish either here or on Facebook. Back next week with a new ranking. That is all.

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 4

It was a brutal weekend for fans of Michigan State, Florida, LSU, Arkansas and especially for me and my Dawgs. I threatened to drop my Dawgs from my ranking after that dismal performance but the numbers Gods gave them a brief respite...at least until next weekend. So after much crunching of numbers and plenty else that is involved with my oh so very scientific ranking method, I now have the latest top 25:

1. Alabama (4-0)
2. Ohio State (3-0)
3. Louisville (4-0)
4. Michigan (4-0)
5. Clemson (4-0)
6. Wisconsin (4-0)
7. Stanford (3-0)
8. Houston (4-0)
9. Texas A&M (4-0)
10. Tennessee (4-0)
11. Washington (4-0)
12. Florida State (3-1)
13. Nebraska (4-0)
14. Mississippi (2-2)
15. Miami (3-0)
16. Baylor (4-0)
17. Michigan State (3-1)
18. Utah (4-0)
19. Arkansas (3-1)
20. Florida (3-1)
21. TCU (3-1)
22. San Diego State (3-0)
23. Arizona State (4-0)
24. Texas (2-1)
25. Georgia (3-1)

I very nearly slotted 3-0 Boise State as the 25th team but I just couldn't once I looked at their schedule thus far. Georgia at least has a win over what was a ranked team and just lost to Ole Miss who is now ranked 16th in the current AP poll. But damn that loss stung. If Georgia can beat Tennessee in a week, all is forgiven. If not...bye bye. And it does beg a question...should a 2-2 Ole Miss be ranked that high? Considering the beat down they gave what was the 12th ranked team in the country and have only lost to top ranked Alabama and 12th ranked Florida State, I think the answer is yes.

As for that top ten bunching (11 really), more sorting will be done this coming weekend as we get these great match-ups:

• Louisville at Clemson
• Wisconsin at Michigan
• Stanford at Washington

Add in the aforementioned GA/Tenn game, plus a couple of key ACC match-ups between Florida State/NC and Miami/Georgia Tech with an extra interesting dollop of Texas/Oklahoma State and I'd say it should be yet another telling weekend. It's why I love college football. I'd love it a whole lot more after a win, but...well, maybe this coming Saturday. Go Dawgs! That is all.

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 3

Week 3 did not disappoint (unless you are a Florida State fan) and thus there has been a shake up in my poll. Obviously, Louisville had the statement game of the weekend. Hell, that might be the statement game of the season. But some others felt some pain, felt a loss or even a thrilling victory at the last minute after hours of gut wrenching, heart attack inducing football. Sorry Texas fans, Iowa fans, Oregon fans and yes, even Notre Dame fans (my heart is not that cold.) But your losses opened up a path for a few others and thus, let's break out the new rankings:

1. Alabama (3-0)
2. Ohio State (3-0)
3. Louisville (3-0)
4. Michigan (3-0)
5. Clemson (3-0)
6. Stanford (2-0)
7. Michigan State (3-0)
8. Houston (3-0)
9. Washington (3-0)
10. Wisconsin (3-0)
11. Florida State (2-1)
12. Texas A&M (3-0)
13. Georgia (3-0)
14. Tennessee (3-0)
15. Florida (3-0)
16. Miami (3-0)
17. LSU (2-1)
18. Arkansas (3-0)
19. Nebraska (3-0)
20. Baylor (3-0)
21. TCU (2-1)
22. San Diego State (3-0)
23. California (2-1)
24. Texas (2-1)
25. Utah (3-0)

Sorry Ole Miss and Oklahoma fans, I cannot rank a team with a losing record after three weeks of play (and this time, I am not sorry Notre Dame fans - maybe I am cold of heart.) Your playoff chances are over but with more wins, you could climb back in. And welcome Nebraska, San Diego St., Cal and Utah. TCU - you are on thin ice. Be thankful Arkansas is starting well.

You may also notice, as I did, two distinct groupings that I in no way intended. The top 10 has four Big 10 teams included. Right now, they may be having the best start of the year. This will not last. Next weekend sees Michigan State and Wisconsin face off. As the Big 10 round robin starts, eventually they will begin to eat each other as always.

The other thing noticeable is the bunch up of SEC teams right there in the middle, only broken up by Miami. But as above, the season has well and truly begun as these are the games to watch this weekend:

• Texas A&M vs. Arkansas
• Georgia at Ole Miss
• Tennessee vs. Florida
• LSU at Auburn

Six of the eight are in my rankings, and seven of the eight are nationally ranked. This coming weekend will begin to sort out the proper order. As it is, I ranked A&M and Georgia ahead of Tennessee and Florida because I think they have better wins on their resume. In truth, all four of those teams could swap up and I would still theoretically be fine with such. This order just seemed right at this particular moment.

Finally, the last few members show exactly how I tend to do these rankings. I was not going to drop Texas out just for losing to Cal, but it made me consider that I had to include Cal and ahead of the Longhorns due to this weekend's results. So, where to slot them? Well, San Diego State was going to be included somewhere and since they beat Cal already, they had to come first. Then Cal. And then Texas. I originally had TCU at #25 but then realized that their loss was to Arkansas who I have ranked at #18 (around where they are nationally.) So, TCU jumped all of them.

Agree or complain in the comments or on Facebook. I enjoy all comments from my two and a half readers. I'll be back next week after another full slate of games. Until then, that is all.

AL's Still Way Too Early 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 2

Entering a week in which most teams had a cake walk to walk away with - some did and some did not. I still don't understand why some teams are favored over others in polls if you simply look at what happened on the field but we will look at that in a moment. For now, let's jump into my still way too early top 25 teams:

1. Alabama (2-0)
2. Florida State (2-0)
3. Ohio State (2-0)
4. Michigan (2-0)
5. Clemson (2-0)
6. Houston (2-0)
7. Stanford (1-0)
8. Washington (2-0)
9. Wisconsin (2-0)
10. Michigan State (1-0)
11. Louisville (2-0)
12. Texas (2-0)
13. Tennessee (2-0)
14. Iowa (2-0)
15. Georgia (2-0)
16. Mississippi (1-1)
17. Oklahoma (1-1)
18. LSU (1-1)
19. Notre Dame (1-1)
20. Oregon (2-0)
21. Texas A&M (2-0)
22. Baylor (2-0)
23. Florida (2-0)
24. Arkansas (2-0)
25. Miami (2-0)

At least there are no teams under .500 this week. But if you pay attention to the larger polls (namely the AP and Coaches polls) you might notice a certain a different ordering of one loss teams in my polls vs. what they have listed. My top 12 is not that far different from theirs (give or take a spot or two) but they have Oklahoma as the top ranked one loss team. Why? They lost to the consensus #6/7 team. Where Ole Miss lost to Florida State, ranked 2nd in both major polls. In fact, they AP has Notre Dame ranked ahead of Ole Miss as well, even though the Fighting Irish lost to Texas, # 11 and 16 respectively. This makes no sense to me and thus why Notre Dame should come last of the ranked one loss teams. Who you lose to matters, as does how you lost.

I dinged Clemson again after a second so-so effort, as I did my own Dawgs after nearly losing to Nicholls. Tennessee got bumped up a bit for finding a second wind against VA Tech and Arkansas jumped into the poll after a nice win over TCU (who dropped out.) Florida too jumped a couple of spots for owning Kentucky in their SEC opener. (Not that this should be too hard a feat.) And to my Texas friends (you know who you are), Louisville jumped your Longhorns as I consider a win over Syracuse more impressive than one over UTEP. But hey, I still have you at #12 so enjoy it while it lasts.

Back next week as some real action finally gets going in earnest. As always, please feel free to chime in with any thoughts. Until then, that is all.

AL's 2016 Way Too Early College Football Rankings - Week 1

It's been a while since I did my college football rankings for you great masses that crave my writing (and my rankings.) I must get an email a day about why I don't do them anymore...or any other writing here these days. Well, maybe not per day. My two and half readers have busy lives after all. But a new season is upon us and things look exciting for a number of teams. So I thought why not try and revive at least this small aspect of ye olde blog. Otherwise, all you ever get are Oscar posts and you hardly get much of those these days. Maybe I will try a movie review sometime soon. But for now, let's dig back into this thing and put forth my WAY TOO EARLY top 25:

1. Alabama (1-0)
2. Florida State (1-0)
3. Clemson (1-0)
4. Ohio State (1-0)
5. Michigan (1-0)
6. Houston (1-0)
7. Stanford (1-0)
8. Georgia (1-0)
9. Washington (1-0)
10. Wisconsin (1-0)
11. Michigan State (1-0)
12. Texas (1-0)
13. Louisville (1-0)
14. Oklahoma (0-1)
15. Iowa (1-0)
16. Tennessee (1-0)
17. LSU (0-1)
18. Notre Dame (0-1)
19. TCU (1-0)
20. Mississippi (0-1)
21. Oregon (1-0)
22. Oklahoma State (1-0)
23. Baylor (1-0)
24. Texas A&M (1-0)
25. Florida (1-0)

I think the top 5 are pretty solid, though I was more impressed by FSU last night than I was by Clemson on Saturday, thus the switch there. And 8 thru 12 could go any way at this point. Houston and Stanford impressed a bit more with their wins. Yes, I still gave Oklahoma, LSU, Notre Dame and Ole Miss a chance to get back into the thick of things but it is thin ice right now. I was prepared to raise Texas A&M a bit higher, but the numbers just didn't work out. And Florida and Miami are statistically tied in my mind. Perhaps it was the SEC bias on my part, but I am rooting for The Reverend Mark Richt.

A slight note on my methodology - in the past, I always just used my own judgement but with an eye on the top polls to see if I was missing something. This year, I have actually included those polls (and not just the AP and Coaches) to see how the various rankings ought to play out. Call it my top secret formula which propriety rights compel me to keep top secret. We wouldn't want ESPN getting a hold of this, now would we? Further, I reserve the right at any time each week to make a personal call if the numbers just seem out of whack in any way. As the season progresses, I will hold head to head records pretty high in importance and will try to make the poll reflect such games. And a blow out against a no name will not mean as much as a squeaker against a ranked opponent. I do look at the lines for each game if only as a guide to how well expectations were met or not. And though I am an SEC homer I promise I will not let that reflect itself in these polls (unless Georgia is that close to a playoff spot and I feel I must politick!)

Anyway, enjoy these polls or allow them to enrage you. Comment if you agree or disagree. And hey, offer up your own if so inclined. Hopefully these posts can be seen both here and Facebook. We'll be back after this weekends games to see where we are next. That is all.

Results of 2016 GOP Super Duper Tuesday

While I have spent the majority (read - all) of my internet activity opposing Trump and championing Cruz on Facebook, this thought is simply too long and perhaps in depth to post that there. Plus, I always need to post something over here for my poor failing blog. With that thought, I wanted to really drill down on last night's election results.

Not that anyone needs a primer on this process at this point, but let us be clear. Statewide wins don't necessarily matter, but delegate count absolutely does. All things considered, it is quite clear that Donald Trump had a very good night on Tuesday. That does not mean he was the clear winner as he lost Ohio and nearly lost North Carolina and Missouri (still in the air as of this writing.) Trump clearly took Florida handily and did much better in Illinois than perhaps he should have considering the events of the last week. But thems the breaks. So let's drill down.

I'm looking at the Real Clear Politics average of polls and comparing them to the actual results. In doing so, I want to see who over-performs and who under-performs. So let's look at this state by state (Note that actual figures are subject to change as I take these numbers as of this morning and thus may change slightly up or down.) I will post the average from RCP and then the actual result showing who out performed their polls and who did not.

 

Ohio: Kasich - 38.8/46.8 (up) , Trump - 35.4/35.7 (up) , Cruz - 17.8/13.1 (down) , Rubio - 4.2/2.9 (down)

In this case, we can see Kasich was not wrong to say many times over that he would win Ohio. He is the sitting governor and is popular in the state. It is more than possible that calls from the Rubio campaign to vote for Kasich here helped when you look at Rubio's final tally. Perhaps even Cruz supporters played this game as Kasich's totals far outweighed his poll numbers. Trump slightly over-performed but that it is so close, I would call that a push. This state is an anomaly as it was needed to keep Trump from gaining steam and you do not see that support for Kasich anywhere else in the country. Nonetheless, Kasich won all 66 delegates from the state.

 

Florida: Trump - 43/45.8 (up) , Rubio - 24.7/27 (up) , Cruz - 18.4/17.1 (down) , Kasich - 9.1/6.8 (down)

Yet another state in which the winner take all stakes probably effected the outcome. Rubio out-performed (perhaps aided by early voters) and so did Trump, though not by much. Not much to take away from the state other than its typical issues with voting. Apparently Democrats tried to vote either for or against Trump and were surprised the could not do so in a closed primary. I would have expected Cruz to do better at this point, but perhaps due to the specifics of this state and candidates, there was a push for Rubio at the end. It did not work and now Rubio has rightly dropped out of the race. End result, Trump wins all 99 delegates.

 

Illinois: Trump - 36/38.8 (up) , Cruz - 29.5/30.3 (up) , Kasich - 18.5/19.7 (up) , Rubio - 13.5/8.7 (down)

And here you can see Rubio's total support failing and Kasich's support hurting the Cruz campaign. This was a state I saw Cruz over-performing, and he did. But so did Trump by twice as much. Illinois is not winner take all, but rather winner take most - most delegates are awarded by district. And looking at who won districts shows that Kasich cost both Trump and Cruz potential delegates. (See this for totals - scroll down to find the district voting.) That it was somewhat close does not matter. Trump did very well in Illinois winning more than the majority of delegates. By my count now, Trump got 49, Cruz got 9 and Kasich got 4. That Trump won the state he gets the statewide delegates as well as the at large delegates. It is difficult to say that if Rubio and Kasich were not in it, that things would have been wildly different. But this state more than any shows that supporting a failing campaign does not assist the challenger when there is such.

 

North Carolina: Trump - 41.3/40.2 (down) , Cruz - 29/36.8 (up) , Kasich - 11.3/12.7 (up) , Rubio - 8.7/7.7 (down)

Here we start to see the crack in the armor for Trump. Trump's polling was inflated and Cruz over-performed well. Trump had handily beat Cruz throughout the South excepting Texas. But as always, Cruz picked up delegates anyway excepting South Carolina. In this purely proportional state, Cruz effectively tied Trump. Trump got 29 delegates and Cruz got 27. But Kasich got 9 and Rubio got 4. Without them in the race, Cruz may very well have gained more delegates and more than that, could claim he won another southern state. I won't say we are seeing a pattern, but rather a causal relationship.

 

Missouri: Trump - 36/40.8 (up) , Cruz - 29/40.6 (up) , Rubio - 9/6.1 (down) , Kasich - 8/10.1 (up)

As of this writing, this contest is still contested. I've seen some giving Trump the state-wide delegates due to his seeming lead, but it is too close to call. It is another winner take most state and as I read it, Trump won 25 delegates to Cruz's 15. This suggests that Cruz will eventually win the state (again, scroll down for districts) but that is not certain as I assume a recount will effect the current totals. As of now, Trump is leading by roughly 1,700 votes. That would be another 12 delegates whoever wins it overall. Of all voting states yesterday, this one shows what Kasich and Rubio are doing trying to challenge Trump. They just cost Cruz 12 delegates if things remain as we see them now.

 

So the final tally is Trump wins 202 delegates, Kasich wins 75, Cruz wins 51 and Rubio wins 4 (and then drops out.) The remaining 12 statewide delegates from Missouri are possibly still in play (and let's not forget that the Northern Marianas Islands gave Trump another 9 yesterday.) So all told, of course Trump had a very good day in a four man race. Hopefully what I have shown above is sufficient suggestion that a two man race is preferred, at least if you do not want Donald Trump as the GOP nominee. Trump is over-performing in some races and under his poll numbers in others. Outside of the specific races in Florida and Ohio, Cruz has been over-performing for some time now (sometimes way over-performing.) With 7 winner take all states ahead, and many others that are winner take most, it is time for the GOP voters to get behind the anti-Trump candidate if they do not wish to see that in the general election. I am pleased that Rubio dropped out and have called for Kasich to do the same. But even if he does not, I hope voters know that votes for him are effectively wasted. I will always say that you should vote for the person you believe in. Hopefully you know what that votes means in the larger scheme. Vote smart! That is all.

2016 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

It's that time of year again to look at the Hall of Fame ballot. The vote is revealed today, and while there is at least one clear cut induction forthcoming, we may see a few others joining in on the festivities. Goodness knows we need it given the crowded ballot situation we have seen over the last few years. You can look back at some of my previous posts to see more thoughts on such so we won't consider it in much detail on this day. Instead, let us just consider the names we have, which you can find here (courtesy of Baseball Reference.)

At this point I should mention some honorable mentions as none of these men should be in the Hall, but I enjoyed them nonetheless. Thank you Nomar Garciaparra, Mike Hampton (worst contract ever?), Jason Kendall and especially Brad Ausmus. These were all special players even if their careers never reached Hall levels. I should also list two others that had their day but by the time they got to the Braves their talents had tailed off so much that it may bring me some pleasure to leave them out - Garrett Anderson and Troy Glaus. Neither were Hall of Famers, but were there a Hall of Horrors could be considered first ballot members. Now on to the real reason we are here...

As usual, the 10 player vote is limiting but as it is the current rule, I will continue to follow those guidelines when selecting my mock ballot. By my count, I could vote for exactly 20 players this year. Thus I must cut that in half. The easiest part is that I can find my first five with these clear first ballot men (even though four of them are holdover candidates):

• Jeff Bagwell
• Barry Bonds
• Roger Clemens
• Ken Griffey, Jr.
• Mike Piazza

When looking at that list, you may see why some are still lingering on the ballot for right reasons or wrong. There is only one that is assured of making the Hall in this year or perhaps any other. I need not even repeat his name. You know it already and congrats to him and the Mariners.

This leaves me with 5 more votes out of 15 potential players. I can quickly choose two more to get me to 7:

• Tim Raines
• Alan Trammell

The first is a case I have been championing for a number of years as I see little drop off from Ricky Henderson with Raines. Blessed or cursed to play in the same era with the greatest lead off hitter of all time, Raines is a clear cut Hall of Famer. And frankly, so is Trammell. In fact, I should have an eighth choice here but Lou Whitaker was cut after only one year. As it is, I would vote for Trammell now due to it being his last year of eligibility after fifteen years of consideration. The Veterans Committee beckons, methinks. Either way, they both belong. Trammell and Whitaker are the "Stockton to Malone" of MLB. And with that thought in mind, I am lead to use my eighth pick on:

• Mark McGwire

They changed the rules in part, I think, to heartlessly remove these kind of guys from the ballot. But even without the rule change, I am not sure McGwire ever had a chance. Many may disagree (as they obviously do), but I believe he is a solid Hall choice. He hit 70 home runs in one season (only one man has hit more), was a brilliant power hitter even if some of his other game was not as solid, and for at least one summer was as famous as any athlete in the world. I'm not sure what a Hall of Fame should be without him (apologies to the Maris family, to be sure.)

So now I have two left that I can choose from among twelve. It makes it hard so from here on I will look at categories and decide among them the best possible choice.

The Closers:

I begin with these guys as this is probably the most controversial pick among all potential Hall men. I am not sold on their Hall arguments even if I think some of them may belong. Even when Mariano Rivera becomes eligible, I will still struggle with this type of choice. It has yet to become clear to me that being a closer in this game makes a player such a stalwart of the game that it would not be the same without them. That they rack up numbers in this age of specialization does not make them the equal of Walter Johnson or Greg Maddux. But an argument has been made that closers cannot hide during their declining years and the special ones continue to shine despite their age. We can see what separates one from another, but their full worth is still undetermined. Thus I would note vote this year for Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner, nor Lee Smith (even if he is near his eligibility as well.)

The Starters:

There are two of them and honestly I believe both men belong. Given current Hall standards, and considering Smoltz sailed in last year with somewhat similar numbers, I might be tempted to use those last 2 votes on Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina. But I will not. Not this year, at least. They have time left.

The Hitters:

So now I have seven guys to choose from with my last two votes. In my mind, those seven are Jim Edmonds, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa and Larry Walker. Of those, I strike Edmonds first as I still think he is borderline. But as I look at the numbers, he is not that far off from Kent, Sheffield or Walker. So they get cut as well. And Sosa...what to say? One dimensional? Cheater? Liar? I'm not sure any of those truly apply. But he would never be a first ballot guy in my mind, regardless of those possible factors. I think he belongs, and certainly would not be the worst choice to enter the hall, but I'm not going to use these last votes for him. In fact, of the 20 potential players, he would be the last and hardest vote. So that leaves my final votes for:

• Edgar Martinez
• Fred McGriff

I am aware that McGriff especially might beg a question when I have already counted out similar numbers above, but you may call it a home town favoritism or a love of home runs. Either way, I think he belongs without those last 7 home runs and this year especially I am thinking about those lingering ballot members. Dale Murphy belongs and he has to wait on the Vets. Likely so too will McGriff. And Martinez...I did not vote for him last year due to a particularly stacked ballot, but have before and remain impressed with his lifetime batting line above .300/.400/.500. So he was primarily a DH. I hate it, but the man could hit.

So those are my picks this year. As I stated, 20 are worthy. But I only had 10 to pick. Argue with them if you wish. I certainly do not mind. Above all else, congrats to the Griffey family! It is so very much deserved. That is all.

100 Bands Better Than Green Day - Tori Amos

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke to many and important to others. To me, it is a bench mark as to which bands get credit for their efforts just like any other hall of fame knowing the politics and persuasions, and yes, a question because they are clearly an inside group choosing these same bench marks. I have followed it since its inception and early on, I had little trouble. Who will argue The Beatles and Rolling Stones,Little Richard and Chuck Berry...Jerry Lee Lewis all the way to Pink Floyd? But as the years have piled on I have started to wonder.

While I understand the somewhat ridiculous nature of the current rock and roll hall of fame and question their inclusion methods, I cannot help but look at who gets in and who does not. As a lover of music and rock and roll especially, I had a very hard time accepting a certain band this year. The title of this thread will give that away. What I would rather do is spend the next 100 days giving you an idea as to why these other bands/artists have far more of an impact/importance in music - modern, historically or both.

I have a rather long list, and more than 100 artists built by not just my mind but also my friend Andy Williams who may offer his his own words to some of these bands/singers. While it may seem anti-Green Day, it isn't entirely. I like them fine enough and even own some of their work. But this year was a bridge too far...of all the people not in there and then they get in...something is not right.

If you are a Facebook friend, you have probably seen some of my posts on this in the past and maybe saw my recent post looking at The Cure. They are definitely a deserving band, but the first one I want to look at is this: Tori Amos -

Cornflake Girl

I may be looking too personally at music but I cannot see anything done here that is worse than Green Day, and in fact so much that is far better. Better musicianship, better lyrics, better presentation. This isn't trying to recreate punk, this is something new for the 90's - a woman willing to sing about her most personal moments..and accepted on its own merits, and on the same level as any man of that time. Amos did more than that during her career and is still doing it. No, she is not as popular as Green Day but that's the Hall of Fame politics.That's radio play, for what it is worth.

I won't try to directly compare each band/artist to Green Day during this run. They get enough from the title. But I (or others) may try to explain how silly it is to induct such a relatively young band into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame when so many others are still waiting. Next up? Stay tuned.

That is all.

AL's 2015 Oscar Picks

Try to do it every year and I am late getting them down but let's go ahead and pick the top six awards. While most years I look at who has won and try to pick based on that, this year I am choosing just from the heart (with maybe a little inside Oscarology involved.) So here they are:

 

Best Picture: Boyhood

Best Actor: Michael Keaton

Best Actress: Julianne Moore

Best Supporting Actor: JK Simmons

Best Supporting Actress: Patricia Arquette

Best Director: Richard Linklater

 

I used to try and pick the whole slate but it is just to much to keep up with these days. I may be wrong on these, but here is a mix of who will win (Arquette) and who should win (Boyhood). Let's see how I do. That is all.

2015 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

The ballot for the 2015 Baseball Hall of Fame is out and you can look here for the names listed. By my count, there are at least 20 names I would or could vote for had I a ballot, plus perhaps 6 others I might be tempted to vote for though all likely fall short on the merits.

For those that fall short, two are former Braves and in no way had a hall of fame career, Jermaine Dye and Jason Schmidt. I always enjoyed Troy Percival as well as he was one the of the best at the closer position for a number of years but also lacks the numbers for inclusion. I had great ideas that Nomar Garciaparra would become one of the best back in the day, but it did not materialize, and much like Peter Gammons, I was a big fan of "Everyday" Eddie Guardado. Neither measures up once you look at their entire career. Finally, Carlos Delgado is one I am willing to take another look at as perhaps he might jump to a potential number 21 that I might consider for this ballot. But as it is so large, I know he won't be making the cut.

Pretty much every year I like to post what my ballot might look like and in that endeavor, I have always tried to adhere to the real voting rules meaning I only get to pick ten players. You can look back at previous posts on this blog explaining why I think that limit is short-sighted, especially given the current environment and voting habits, but for now let us simply stick to the rules and see if I can come up with just ten.

First, there are the no-brainers:

• Jeff Bagwell
• Craig Biggio
• Barry Bonds
• Roger Clemens
• Randy Johnson
• Pedro Martinez

So now I am already at 6 players with only 4 left to pick. But there are 14 left to choose from, in my mind. Immediatey I look at who is left and choose one more,

• Mike Piazza

Now I have 7. Then I have to look at three pitchers of arguably equal importance. Mike Mussina has the obvious win total advantage and Curt Schilling has his bloody sock and perhaps a better post-season resume by a slight tick, but the combination of starting success and closing success like Eckersley before him and the Cy Young award in 1996 makes my next vote go to:

• John Smoltz

I now have 2 more positions to fill out of 12 to choose from. I start to look at those long holdover candidates that may not have much time left on the ballot, especially after the recent change to only 10 years on the ballot. While I think Alan Trammell is a worthy player for induction, I have to give my next vote to:

• Tim Raines

And I still have 11 players that need to be cut to just 1. I can cut Lee Smith first, especially as there are better closers coming in soon. It saddens me, but I can cut Fred McGriff next. Get those last 7 home runs. Now I have six really great hitters to choose from. Next cut is Larry Walker since as I look at him, his numbers don't quite match the others. After that comes Sammy Sosa as he was so one dimensional as I see it. Jeff Kent is the next cut as he was a great 2nd baseman but that is where you stack him and compared to the rest he doesn't quite match their numbers. Gary Sheffield is next on the chopping block, as he was truly great but also not quite as good as the two left. Quick swing, though.

So I am left with the greatest DH in the history of the game and one of the greatest home run hitters in the history of the game. Many would choose Edgar Martinez because he was presumably clean (and an all around nice guy, as far as I have heard) but I don't really care that much about steroids as a qualifier and am no great fan of the DH. So I go with:

• Mark McGwire

So those are my ten. One can easily argue with those picks since there are so many qualified for induction, and I would be hard pressed to argue against them. But these are mine. Apologies to those I did not name as I enjoyed each as they played in a certain way. But this experiment just shows not just how hard this is to do each year, but so too a need to change the limit for which to vote.

I am sure I will have something to say after the results come in, especially if it turns out to be a slim year of inductees. You can check out how they are doing over at BTT with their ballot collecting. It suggests a really good year, but anyone in the 80% range right now is already in danger of fallling below 75%. Just ask Craig Biggio.

I'd love to hear your picks if you have them. Until then, let us look forward to another Hall of Fame ceremony and hope it is a plentiful one. The backlog needs it. That is all.

AL's 2014 Oscar Picks

It's that time of year once again as the Oscars come tomorrow night. And unlike the past few years, I have actually seen a good amount of the years nominees prior to the ceremony - Gravity, American Hustle, Philomena and just last night Dallas Buyers Club. All excellent films, as well. Though I don't do a full slate of picks anymore, I will still give you my thoughts on the big six. So here we go:

Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave

Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club

Best Actress: Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine

Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club

Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave

Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron for Gravity

The sad thing is that American Hustle will not be well represented here as perhaps it should be.  It was on equal footing for the best film I saw this past year along with Gravity. Jennifer Lawrence could win supporting actress, but she won her first just last year, and Amy Adams will have some support as she has not yet won before while the other best actress nominees all have at least one Oscar but Blanchett pretty much has it wrapped up. Hustle could win for screenplay but even there, Her is getting much love.

I recognize that my picks pretty much track general opinion with not one shock in the bunch, though for that I think supporting actress could provide such as it so often does. However, I am at a loss as to who might benefit from a split vote between Lawrence and Nyong'o. For a truly shocking pick, perhaps look for American Hustle to win Best Picture. Opinion suggests if 12 Years a Slave does not win, it would be Gravity and the manner in which they vote for Best Picture still leaves Hustle outside looking in, but it would be a shock and a pleasant one at that. We shall see. Looking forward to my yearly Oscar ceremony.  It has been a great year for film. That is all.

2014 Oscar Nominations - A Few Notes

The Academy Award nominations are out for last years films and a few interesting things show up.  First, you can find the nominations listed here if you've yet to see them.  Some surprises with Christian Bale and Sally Hawkins perhaps and certainly disappointment in the homes of Tom Hanks, Robert Redford and Emma Thompson, not to mention the Coen Bros. compound (is there such a thing? I'd like to think so...with a wood chipper, stolen diapers and a rug that ties it all together.)

A few things stick out to me initially.  This is the first nomination for Matthew McConaughey and Michael Fassbender which actually surprised me on both counts considering how much I tend to follow these things.  Too many great performances from both.  It's about time.  And speaking of that, this is the first nomination since 1978 for Bruce Dern and only his 2nd overall. He has never won.

For actresses, Meryl Streep continues to build what will likely be an unbroken record for most nominations for any actor with her 18th nomination.  As well, the Best Actress race highlights an interesting situation.  All five women have been nominated before but only Amy Adams lacks a win.  The rest have at least one trophy.  Further, this year brings Amy Adams into an elite list - 5 nominations. And an even more elite list may follow - those who have been nominated 5 times without a win.

The five or more nomination history I've looked at before and you can read that here if you wish.  Some additions are likely warranted, though only Kate Winslet would alter the following.  Five nominations is a bit magical in that it is rare to have not won by that point and even more rare to miss on the 5th time.  Only 12 people so far have endured such a fate.  She could be the 13th should she lose this year.  To see that truly elite company, consider this:

• 5 Nominations with no wins: Irene Dunne, Albert Finney & Arthur Kennedy
• 6 Nominations with a win on the 6th: Kate Winslet
• 6 Nominations with no wins: Glenn Close & Thelma Ritter
• 7 Nominations with a win on the 7th: Paul Newman (he would end with 9 total nominations before his death) & Al Pacino (who was nominated for an additional 8th time the same year and has not had one since)
• 7 Nominations with no wins: Richard Burton & Deborah Kerr
• 8 Nominations with a win on the 8th: Geraldine Page
• 8 Nominations with no wins: The late, great Peter O'Toole

As you can see, that is certainly a special group.  Adams should be so lucky though I doubt she would see it that way.  Consider that Daniel Day Lewis has only been nominated 5 times and has 3 wins to show for it (only four others can boast that many wins for actors - Katharine Hepburn with 4 and Walter Huston, Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep with 3 each.) In fact, even this year Sandra Bulluck has but one nomination, but she won that year for The Blind Side.  One can get into the "it's about time" category but many times, these nominations are spread out over a number of years.  Adams is still relatively new.  She has a great shot, to be sure, as American Hustle seems an Oscar darling this year but she has some heavy competition especially from Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine (should she win, it would be her 2nd.)

My look is usually very acting centric but I should also note that Martin Scorsese scored his 8th nomination for directing which puts him in a tie with one of the greats - Billy Wilder.  Not bad.  At least he finally got his win already, even if later than it should have been.

I will try to do a picks post before the awards but since I have not done a big post on that in recent years, I cannot promise anything.  But I look forward to this every year.  This blog turned 10 years old last year and I've tried to say something on it each year so I will surely endeavor to say something before the awards.  That is all.

2014 Baseball Hall of Fame Results

Best Braves year since 1995!

Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre will be joined by Greg Maddux (my favorite pitcher of all time - not the best because that goes to Walter Johnson), Tom Glavine (one of the most stubborn players ever) and Frank Thomas (truly the Big Hurt - the guy was huge even without PEDs) at this years Baseball Hall of Fame inductions (Maddux and Glavine both cracked the 90% threshold, though Maddux was not unanimous as I assumed.)  Biggio came within a hair but not quite.  Hoping for next year.  That is one of the greatest collections of baseball men ever elected (challenged only by the first class perhaps.)  It still leaves out such wonderfully talented players as Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire, Jeff Kent, Larry Walker, Fred McGriff and Sammy Sosa. (As well as those that fell off after not getting to the 5% level in the voting - see Albert Belle, Kenny Lofton, Lou Whitaker, Kevin Brown...the list goes on including Palmeiro after this years vote - 500+ HR and over 3000 hits, traditionally an automatic induction and one of only four men to do such alongside Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Eddie Murray.)

There has been much said about the huge amount of players deserving and much of that has been spot on.  You cannot swing a dead cat on the internets without finding some discussion and for that I am thankful as I have read some great work over the last month.  It will not get any easier so I am really happy to see so many worthy candidates getting in this year.  Congratulations to all of them!  But the writers...oh the writers.  They are the voters and they continue to get it wrong in so many ways. (Last time I mention Jack Morris, but sorry dude.  Good luck with the Vets committee.  Stand in line alongside Dale Murphy, Dick Allen and Gil Hodges among others.)

I have little sympathy for the writers asked to vote for these players.  I have heard many attempts to relocate blame for this backlog from PED questions to the 10 vote limit.  The truth is, they have brought this on themselves.  They want to be holier than thou now on steroids when they championed McGwire and Sosa back in 1998.  They want to complain about the 10 vote limit this year when they voted in no one last year and Dawson, Rice, etc over the previous years when Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Trammell and yes, even Morris were already on the ballot (not to mention obvious Hall of Famers Bonds and Clemens.)

Perhaps a few changes should be made by the hall, but as well, perhaps some thinking needs to be changed by these writers.  One voted only for Morris as protest over PED users of the steroid era. As if Morris was not part of that era.  One voted for Palmeiro and not Bonds or Clemens stating that Palmeiro was already a HoF guy before he starting juicing, as if Bonds and Clemens were not.  That type of thinking and thus results can only provide us with the huge amount of deserving players now.  In fact, not wishing to vote for ten guys (I suppose wishing for a small hall) leads to this very type of huge ballot crush.  I don't think they need to change the 75% threshold.  I don't really think they need to allow for more than 10 votes.  I think they need to do the job entrusted to them.

I've written on this before so I won't go into the details too much here but the huge ballot is not going to get any better.  For completion, let us see who is coming up over the next few years:

2015: Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Gary Sheffield

2016: Ken Griffey, Jr., Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner, Jim Edmonds

2017: Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Vladimir Guerrero, Jorge Posada

2018: Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Scott Rolen, Omar Vizquel, Johann Santana

2019: Mariano Rivera, Todd Helton, Andy Pettitte, Roy Halladay (and maybe Alex Rodriguez)

2020: Likely Derek Jeter and Ichiro Suzuki among possible others

I'm not saying all of those guys are Hall of Famers, but they have legitimate arguments for enshrinement.  Added to the huge amount of players still on the ballot now, how do the writers explain keeping their votes low? Looking at the holdovers, why would they not vote for Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Martinez, Raines, Mussina, Schilling, etc?  That's not even looking at the PED guys like Bonds and Clemens, much less McGwire or Palmeiro.  Don't refuse to vote for guys and then complain that there are too many to vote for.

This brings me to the PED guys - this argument has been told and retold time and time again.  There is little reason to keep saying the same thing.  All I can say at this late date is this - a Hall of Fame without Bonds, Clemens (or for that matter Pete Rose) is no true Hall of Fame.  Yes, they are in the museum, but they also deserve their plaques with the rest of the FAMOUS players.  Ty Cobb has his.  Gaylord Perry has his.  Rickey Henderson has his (and don't try and tell me he shouldn't be suspected after playing with Canseco and McGwire, much less under HoF manager Tony La Russa.)  It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good.

And one more thought regarding the writers that vote - blame the players, the union, the management or MLB in total for the steroid era.  But so too, blame yourselves.  You wrote about them as heroes, you championed their efforts and you now wish to ignore that very same.  If BBWAA voters found out now that a player that gained entry due to their votes had used, what would they do?  Likely nothing as has been their want over the years.  But now, they want to use the character clause to justify keeping out some of the best players of all time.  Are they trying to punish these players, or simply exculpate themselves?  I say to them, stop trying to push this issue off to the HoF or MLB.  Take control and stop blaming others.  If you don't want Barry Bonds in the Hall, explain yourself and live with it.  It is no one else's fault.  If a change is made at all, try keeping those that don't even follow baseball anymore from voting.  That would at least make the final result more honest rather than letting writers that have no connection anymore from being the moral police.  And those that do follow baseball, live with the Hall you have created (without Bonds, Clemens, McGwire et al.)

One more thing, while we are looking at Hall arguments - stop trying to use the excuse that if a player didn't have the 1994 strike they might have won 20 games or hit .400 - these same players went on strike.  Maddux might have won 20 plus in 1995 and Mussina might have won 20 games the previous year long before his last season.  Wins are not the best stat to judge a pitcher but it will always be used to consider the best.  These players decided it was better to strike and cancel the end of the season and the postseason to better their advantage.  Further, these same players and MLB itself used first Ripken's great games played streak and then the McGwire/Sosa home run chase to bring fans back.  I have little sympathy with any of them as they all made millions of dollars off of those decisions.  History is what it is.  You cannot change it.  Just accept it and be truthful.  And I will say it again, when it comes time to vote for Bud Selig, please don't forget all these moralizing arguments and hold him to the same standard.  I've nothing against Bud personally, but he is just as guilty as anyone in this sport over the past 20 years.  I simply have trouble with the double standard.

I've spent a lot of words making negative arguments or just bitching at what I perceive as a problem with Hall voters or the system or whatever, so let me end saying how happy I am that so many great baseball men are going into the Hall this year.  After last year, this is a needed remedy as well as a wonderful thing for this Braves fan.  I can even get behind the Hall cases of Torre (former Braves player and manager by the way) and La Russa.  Certainly for Frank Thomas.  I can only hope that future elections stop trying to be moral judges and simply vote for the best players.  It is simple. It is baseball.  And baseball can be a wonderful analogy for life itself.  When you get knocked back at the plate, get up and hit a home run.  When you give up that home run, steady yourself and strike the next guy out.  It isn't that hard, guys.  And Go Braves!  That is all.

2014 Baseball Hall of Fame

I feel the need to link back to this post previously written on the subject back in 2010 and this one earlier this year.  I knew it would get clogged up and it has.  The 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot is out and there is no way to pick just ten.  While I might have gone through each player in previous years, for now I will simply give you my ten picks:

Greg Maddux

Tom Glavine

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Frank Thomas

Jeff Bagwell

Craig Biggio

Mark McGwire

Mike Piazza

Tim Raines

 

That's the best I can do.  This leaves out Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez, Curt Schilling and Sammy Sosa, Jack Morris and Mike Mussina.  Oh, and Bonds' "best friend" on those Giants teams, Jeff Kent.  Not even yet to include Randy Johnson, John Smoltz and Pedro Martinez.  Is it the ten vote limit making the ballot so stuffed?  Is it so many great players from the 90's creating that log jam?  Or is it intransigence from the voters over steroids?  Take your pick.  Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe still wait outside.  And while writers/voters keep to their holier than thou attitude, so will a lot of deserving players remain outside (note that Maddux will not get 100% of the vote...calling it right now.)  In fact, some may fall off the ballot all together.  That would be the biggest travesty.  Hell, Lou Whitaker has to wait for the veterans committee while his double play partner, Trammell continues to toil on the ballot.  Fair?  Well, life isn't fair and neither is the Baseball Hall of Fame.  I do love it so. 

I am still hoping for a Cox, Maddux, Glavine election this time around.  We'll find out about the first part of that next month.  Go Braves. That is all.