I think I have learned to really look at the numbers when looking at a players career. And I mean all the numbers you think are relevant.
And I believe that I also learned that Slugging % is a bigger indicator of what a player is doing than I previously thought. I did not value Slugging % because I knew it involved calculating total bases and I placed no real value on that part of the equation. Now I think I was wrong. Oh, well me being wrong is pretty much a daily thing.
But before I get to the slugging numbers I want to make one point I forgot to make yesterday about Barry Bonds home run numbers. After I figured out the home run split between 86-97 and 98-07 I averaged the homers between the splits. From 86-97 he averaged 31 per year and from 98-07 he averaged 38 per season but the second split does not really matter for my purposes.
What does matter is I took the 31 per season between 86-07; then added the home runs he might have hit if he had stayed at the 31 per season level (372) and the 374 he hit between 86-91 for a possible career total of 746. Either way Barry Bonds is the home run king and Major League Baseball should remove the asterisk from his statistics. And I think on homers alone Barry Bonds is a first ballot HOF'er.
NOTE: Writer's block is a terrible thing. I have been trying to finish this the last few days but it seems like everything I have written has been gibberish. Yes, you can add the joke here.
Since I have written this in the sequence I did the research I will look at Bonds' On Base % (OBP). I find it some what amazing that I failed miserably in algebra but when I saw the formula for finding a player's on base % it looked like algebra and I understood it. Maybe if I would have found a way to use baseball to learn algebra I might have actually passed the class. Oh well, it's only 20+ years to late for that.
Anyway, I have thought for years that other than batting average a player's OBP was the best way to judge how good they were. I may have slightly altered my thinking on that but I will get to that later.
In the time between seasons 86-97 Bonds OBP was .408%. From 98-07 his OBP was .496%. I calculated the difference to be .088% and to me that is a somewhat major difference. I would have expected both the HR numbers and OBP to be significantly higher if the "experts" were right about how steroids greatly help a players abilities.
Even though I still think the increase in home runs can still be attributed to Bonds becoming a better hitter; the OBP numbers are more significant to me and has me questioning my thinking a little.
And then I got to the Slugging % (SLG% ) and was astonished at what I found out. From 86-97 Barry Bonds SLG% was .551%. From 98-07 Bonds' SLG% was .670%. That is a percentage point difference of .119 and that is a major difference to me.
My understanding of what a SLG % means is not the just the average a player hits a but in includes the amount of total bases and my understanding is a bit hazy on this but I believe its and indicator of power. I have always figured it to mean that with a greater number of doubles and triples a players SLG% increases. If anyone who reads this can confirm or deny my thinking I would greatly appreciate being told.
If I am right, I think the much higher SLG% number may be and indicator that Barry Bonds' home run splits may not have been much of a power indicator but if his double and triple increases were significant we may be able to see the aid that steroids give.
I will look into that before I look at Mark McGuire (spelling?) and Sammy Sosa. Hopefully tomorrow.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Steroid era possible HOF'S PT 1: defending Barry Bonds
While doing research for this post today I rediscovered the joy of dealing with statistics and I remembered that I used to enjoy dealing with stats.
In high school I was the stat keeper for the hockey team and I seem to recall doing stats for something else. I also used to keep my own statistics for Major League baseball just for the enjoyment of it.
As I was enjoying going through Barry Bonds statistics I realized a couple of things: dealing with and calculation stats is very time consuming and I need something to keep my mind occupied. The other thing I realized and decided was to turn this into a small series of post to examine some of the other possible steroid era Hall Of Famers.
Because starting to gather the stats was so time consuming I have decided I will do two postings on Barry Bonds. Mainly because I feel I am only half done evaluating the stats I want to.
With all that being said; I want to make it clear: I am not a Barry Bonds fan. My not being a fan of his goes beyond the fact that I am a diehard LA Dodger fan and the Giants have always been the Dodgers biggest rivals. In actuality, I don't like Barry because I have not heard too many good things about him and from the interviews I have seen of him he seems like a very self involved jerk. I think he was TO before TO was TO.
I do honestly believe Barry Bonds is the best all around baseball player I have ever seen. A big part of why I am doing this is because I really don't believe steroids is as big as a factor in a players statistics as the sports media seems to think.
I believe that most baseball "experts" think the steroid era started around 1998. I'm sure there are many different arguments for when the steroid era was but since this is my opinion I say 1998 was the start of it.
Since I decided the start of the steroid era was 1998 I decided to divide Bonds statistics between his rookie season in 1989 until 1997 and from 1998 until his last season in 2007. My two sources for the statistics are baseball-reference.com and MLB.com.
For the record I did not find a way to split the numbers through the websites (and believe me I tried real hard but I'm not as computer savvy as I would like) so I calculated hits and at bats myself so if there are errors the fault is all mine.
From 1986 until 1997 Bonds had 1750 hits and 6069 at bats for a batting average of .288. From 1998 Bonds had 1185 hits and 3778 at bats for a batting average of .313. I calculated the percentage difference of the two averages to be .025.
From looking at those numbers I come to the conclusion that the difference is not big enough to really make it real attributable to steroids. Couldn't it be that he got smarter and better as a hitter?
Next, I examined his home run numbers. I personally am a bit surprised by what I found there. From 1986 to 1997 Bonds hit 374 homers at an average around 31 per year. From 1998 until his last season in '07 Bonds hit 388 homers for and average around 39 per year. If I did it right I calculated the difference to be around 1.26 homers per year difference.
I was surprised because I expected the difference to be larger.
I will think about that and look at his On Base Percentage and Slugging before I come to a conclusive conclusion.
But that is all for right now. I think I tired myself out and that is good.
;
In high school I was the stat keeper for the hockey team and I seem to recall doing stats for something else. I also used to keep my own statistics for Major League baseball just for the enjoyment of it.
As I was enjoying going through Barry Bonds statistics I realized a couple of things: dealing with and calculation stats is very time consuming and I need something to keep my mind occupied. The other thing I realized and decided was to turn this into a small series of post to examine some of the other possible steroid era Hall Of Famers.
Because starting to gather the stats was so time consuming I have decided I will do two postings on Barry Bonds. Mainly because I feel I am only half done evaluating the stats I want to.
With all that being said; I want to make it clear: I am not a Barry Bonds fan. My not being a fan of his goes beyond the fact that I am a diehard LA Dodger fan and the Giants have always been the Dodgers biggest rivals. In actuality, I don't like Barry because I have not heard too many good things about him and from the interviews I have seen of him he seems like a very self involved jerk. I think he was TO before TO was TO.
I do honestly believe Barry Bonds is the best all around baseball player I have ever seen. A big part of why I am doing this is because I really don't believe steroids is as big as a factor in a players statistics as the sports media seems to think.
I believe that most baseball "experts" think the steroid era started around 1998. I'm sure there are many different arguments for when the steroid era was but since this is my opinion I say 1998 was the start of it.
Since I decided the start of the steroid era was 1998 I decided to divide Bonds statistics between his rookie season in 1989 until 1997 and from 1998 until his last season in 2007. My two sources for the statistics are baseball-reference.com and MLB.com.
For the record I did not find a way to split the numbers through the websites (and believe me I tried real hard but I'm not as computer savvy as I would like) so I calculated hits and at bats myself so if there are errors the fault is all mine.
From 1986 until 1997 Bonds had 1750 hits and 6069 at bats for a batting average of .288. From 1998 Bonds had 1185 hits and 3778 at bats for a batting average of .313. I calculated the percentage difference of the two averages to be .025.
From looking at those numbers I come to the conclusion that the difference is not big enough to really make it real attributable to steroids. Couldn't it be that he got smarter and better as a hitter?
Next, I examined his home run numbers. I personally am a bit surprised by what I found there. From 1986 to 1997 Bonds hit 374 homers at an average around 31 per year. From 1998 until his last season in '07 Bonds hit 388 homers for and average around 39 per year. If I did it right I calculated the difference to be around 1.26 homers per year difference.
I was surprised because I expected the difference to be larger.
I will think about that and look at his On Base Percentage and Slugging before I come to a conclusive conclusion.
But that is all for right now. I think I tired myself out and that is good.
;
Monday, February 20, 2012
Steroids and the Baseball Hall of Fame voting
If I ever see or hear a member of the baseball writers/commentators say "I will never vote for a player who used steroids to get into the Hall of Fame" my head may explode.
First of all, it greatly bothers me that when the sports media talks about steroids and baseball they rarely talk about how steroids are a huge health concern. In my opinion, that should be the real main focus when talking about the effect that steroids had on the game. But the reality is that the sports media is obsessed with how steroids affect a players statistics and whether is should prevent players from being voted into the HOF.
Throughout the history of baseball drugs and alcohol have been problems in baseball as it has been in the USA in general. In fact is is said that in the 70's and 80's most players were using amphetamines. It has always seemed to me a bit odd that the media doesn't even begin to consider those who may have used and may not belong in the HOF.
I know many will say that doing amphetamines and cocaine are not the same thing as using steroids. But until someone proves to me that steroids help to improve a player's hand-eye coordination I will always question how much steroids actually help a player hit home runs. Until that is done I see no difference between illegal recreational drugs and steroids.
My understanding is that the main reason players use steroids is to help speed up their recovery time and help with their endurance. If that is the case then I don't get the argument that steroid use should affect how a player's career is judged.
However, if I am wrong (that's always a great possibility) then I believe the "experts" seem to forget a couple of things.
1.) To the best of my knowledge only four players have been openly revealed as having used steroids/HGH/illegal substances: Rafeal Palmeiro, J J Putz, Manny Ramirez (female hormones still cracks me up) and a minor leaguer whose name I can't recall. If someone knows of someone else please let me know. If you don't for sure know a player used how can you use that against them when judging their career?
2.) During most of the so-called "steroid era" steroid use was legal in Major League Baseball. The writer's want to punish players for doing what essentially within the rules at the time? Sorry but that just doesn't make sense to me at all.
3.) I have heard estimates that between 50-80% of the players used at the time before steroids and HGH were banned. Doesn't that mean the competition level was fairly even? So if a player is later found to have used steroids during that time that he played how can you hold that against him?
Honestly, I think some in the sports media want to keep some players out of the HOF because the press didn't learn of the steroids sooner and want to punish the players the only way they can.
The next post I write (hopefully tomorrow) I will be doing something I never thought I would do: defend Barry Bonds.
First of all, it greatly bothers me that when the sports media talks about steroids and baseball they rarely talk about how steroids are a huge health concern. In my opinion, that should be the real main focus when talking about the effect that steroids had on the game. But the reality is that the sports media is obsessed with how steroids affect a players statistics and whether is should prevent players from being voted into the HOF.
Throughout the history of baseball drugs and alcohol have been problems in baseball as it has been in the USA in general. In fact is is said that in the 70's and 80's most players were using amphetamines. It has always seemed to me a bit odd that the media doesn't even begin to consider those who may have used and may not belong in the HOF.
I know many will say that doing amphetamines and cocaine are not the same thing as using steroids. But until someone proves to me that steroids help to improve a player's hand-eye coordination I will always question how much steroids actually help a player hit home runs. Until that is done I see no difference between illegal recreational drugs and steroids.
My understanding is that the main reason players use steroids is to help speed up their recovery time and help with their endurance. If that is the case then I don't get the argument that steroid use should affect how a player's career is judged.
However, if I am wrong (that's always a great possibility) then I believe the "experts" seem to forget a couple of things.
1.) To the best of my knowledge only four players have been openly revealed as having used steroids/HGH/illegal substances: Rafeal Palmeiro, J J Putz, Manny Ramirez (female hormones still cracks me up) and a minor leaguer whose name I can't recall. If someone knows of someone else please let me know. If you don't for sure know a player used how can you use that against them when judging their career?
2.) During most of the so-called "steroid era" steroid use was legal in Major League Baseball. The writer's want to punish players for doing what essentially within the rules at the time? Sorry but that just doesn't make sense to me at all.
3.) I have heard estimates that between 50-80% of the players used at the time before steroids and HGH were banned. Doesn't that mean the competition level was fairly even? So if a player is later found to have used steroids during that time that he played how can you hold that against him?
Honestly, I think some in the sports media want to keep some players out of the HOF because the press didn't learn of the steroids sooner and want to punish the players the only way they can.
The next post I write (hopefully tomorrow) I will be doing something I never thought I would do: defend Barry Bonds.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The media and Josh Hamilton
For those who may not know who Josh Hamilton is; he is an outfielder for the Texas Rangers. In my opinion he is the second best player in Major League Baseball right now. And he is the only public person that I know of who admits that he is an addict who is in recovery.
Unfortunately, he had a bit of a relapse two weekends ago.From all accounts he only had a few beers; which is fine for most people, but for a person in recovery it is a very bad thing.
Being a recovering alcoholic/drug abuser is difficult for everyday average people. I imagine it is 100x's more difficult when you are in the public.
Personally, I think very few people who are not in recovery can understand for those who are recovering.
From what I have seen there are actually people who can have one alcoholic beverage and that is all they need; for me and others like me that makes no sense.
Since Mr Hamilton is in the public spotlight and in recovery his actions are viewed by many who do not understand what he is actually going through. And from what I have read in the last week or so many writer's have judged him way more harshly than they should have.
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/33714192/34755087
The link is too what I believe is the most egregious of the articles/blogs I have read.
Apparently, Josh Hamilton contract is ending after this season and Mr Jon Heyman believes Josh Hamiliton owes the Rangers for keeping him employed while he is in recovery.
Basically, the point I got from the article is that because Hamilton is an addit ; had a slip and the Rangers have helped he along the way to deal with his addiction Mr Heyman believes he owes the Rangers.
I might have understood this reasoning in Josh Hamilton's early career when he was still in the Tampa Bay (then Devil) Rays minor league system; when Josh was still actively using cocaine, heroin, pills and drinking. Mr Hamilton finally seemed to have his bottom, got into treatment and had been clean for a number of years before he relapsed.
He turned himself into an exceptional player, got married, had kids and claimed to be a Christian. I have long since become a Josh Hamilton admirer and a few beers will not change that.
What Josh did was wrong for him if he truly is an addict and really wants to remain in recovery. What he did was very hurtful to his family and close friends.
From what I have read and seen about the situation Mr. Hamilton did nothing illegal. From what I have heard; he publicly apologized for his actions and to me he truly seemed regretful.
But to suggest that Josh Hamilton owes the Rangers because he he is an addict and they have helped him deal with his recovery is just irresponsible and overly judgmental.
What's next Jon Heyman if you find out that an athlete is gay will you demand he owes the team he plays for?
Unfortunately, he had a bit of a relapse two weekends ago.From all accounts he only had a few beers; which is fine for most people, but for a person in recovery it is a very bad thing.
Being a recovering alcoholic/drug abuser is difficult for everyday average people. I imagine it is 100x's more difficult when you are in the public.
Personally, I think very few people who are not in recovery can understand for those who are recovering.
From what I have seen there are actually people who can have one alcoholic beverage and that is all they need; for me and others like me that makes no sense.
Since Mr Hamilton is in the public spotlight and in recovery his actions are viewed by many who do not understand what he is actually going through. And from what I have read in the last week or so many writer's have judged him way more harshly than they should have.
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/33714192/34755087
The link is too what I believe is the most egregious of the articles/blogs I have read.
Apparently, Josh Hamilton contract is ending after this season and Mr Jon Heyman believes Josh Hamiliton owes the Rangers for keeping him employed while he is in recovery.
Basically, the point I got from the article is that because Hamilton is an addit ; had a slip and the Rangers have helped he along the way to deal with his addiction Mr Heyman believes he owes the Rangers.
I might have understood this reasoning in Josh Hamilton's early career when he was still in the Tampa Bay (then Devil) Rays minor league system; when Josh was still actively using cocaine, heroin, pills and drinking. Mr Hamilton finally seemed to have his bottom, got into treatment and had been clean for a number of years before he relapsed.
He turned himself into an exceptional player, got married, had kids and claimed to be a Christian. I have long since become a Josh Hamilton admirer and a few beers will not change that.
What Josh did was wrong for him if he truly is an addict and really wants to remain in recovery. What he did was very hurtful to his family and close friends.
From what I have read and seen about the situation Mr. Hamilton did nothing illegal. From what I have heard; he publicly apologized for his actions and to me he truly seemed regretful.
But to suggest that Josh Hamilton owes the Rangers because he he is an addict and they have helped him deal with his recovery is just irresponsible and overly judgmental.
What's next Jon Heyman if you find out that an athlete is gay will you demand he owes the team he plays for?
Monday, February 6, 2012
Superbowl afterthoughts
I wouldn't put this Superbowl in the top 5 of the ones that I have seen. Maybe top 10 but I would like to think about that a little more.
I have heard the "experts" talk about the game today and most have good points, I would like to give my input.
I think the Patriots might have lost the game on their first possession. I just looked up the game log and I thought there was another penalty other than Tom Brady's penalty for intentional grounding in the end zone.
I know for sure that at the end of the first quarter I was thinking the Pats were giving the game to the Giants.
I heard Tony Kornheiser say he thought that Bill Belichick should not have challenged the ruling of a catch for the Giants Mario Manningham; but as I said to my TV (yes, I talk to myself and my TV sometimes, hey I rarely have someone to talk to) Belichick had no choice but to challenge that. I understand he only had two time out but since the catch happened right in front of him he MUST have thought it was not a catch, so what else could he do.
I said in my previous Superbowl post that I thought Tom Brady was on the downside of his career and I believe that even more now. He looked slower and more indecisive to me than I ever remember. And the throw to Wes Welcker was horrible.
I don't like dynasties and I never have; I think the Patriots one is over.
Finally, while Eli Manning had a great game; I would have given the MVP to Mario Manningham. To me that play was the play of the game and a momentum stopper.
A couple more weeks until pitchers and catchers report to spring training. I am sooo ready for that.
I have heard the "experts" talk about the game today and most have good points, I would like to give my input.
I think the Patriots might have lost the game on their first possession. I just looked up the game log and I thought there was another penalty other than Tom Brady's penalty for intentional grounding in the end zone.
I know for sure that at the end of the first quarter I was thinking the Pats were giving the game to the Giants.
I heard Tony Kornheiser say he thought that Bill Belichick should not have challenged the ruling of a catch for the Giants Mario Manningham; but as I said to my TV (yes, I talk to myself and my TV sometimes, hey I rarely have someone to talk to) Belichick had no choice but to challenge that. I understand he only had two time out but since the catch happened right in front of him he MUST have thought it was not a catch, so what else could he do.
I said in my previous Superbowl post that I thought Tom Brady was on the downside of his career and I believe that even more now. He looked slower and more indecisive to me than I ever remember. And the throw to Wes Welcker was horrible.
I don't like dynasties and I never have; I think the Patriots one is over.
Finally, while Eli Manning had a great game; I would have given the MVP to Mario Manningham. To me that play was the play of the game and a momentum stopper.
A couple more weeks until pitchers and catchers report to spring training. I am sooo ready for that.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Superbowl and prediction
I have got to say that I am shocked that I have not heard anyone complain about Peyton Manning making himself be the main news this week. I think if I were younger brother Eli I would a little po'ed at Peyton.
This week should have been more about Eli's Giants and the Golden Boy and his Patriots. Instead we have been getting the soap opera that is Mr Manning and Cotls owner Jim Irsay.
Personally I have lost some respect for Peyton this week; I think he could have allowed the spotlight to shine on the game rather than him. Some might say this was not done on purpose. I really believe this was done on purpose and that we are seeing the true arrogance of Mr Manning. And to me it's not entertaining at all.
And while I don't like Mr Irsay's constant tweeting like he's a jilted lover; I do think it is time for the Colts and Manning to part ways. Whether the Dr's really will clear him to play again I don't know but I firmly believe that Manning will never be as good as he once was. I also believe that he is not worth $28 million at this point in time.
Now on to the actual Superbowl. I am hoping that Eli has a great game and wins another Superbowl. I am not a big fan of his because he is too inconsistent. I think a bigger part of the reason the Giants have gotten this far is because of WR Victor Cruz on offense and the Giants Defensive line. The Giants only gave up more than 30 points in three games and I believe by keeping the games relatively close is what helped the Giants get to where they are. I do believe that defense wins championships.
From the games I saw the Patriots play (I believe it was 3 or 4) Tom Brady is not what he used to be. I believe he is on the downside of his career and I predict this will be his last Superbowl and I believe he will have 2-3 more seasons and then retire.
Mr Brady is why I am a Tim Tebow believer. I saw Brady play in college a lot and I thought he was going to be a bust; obviously I was wrong. Tebow was a lot better than Brady was in college and so I have hope.
The Patriots defense is awful and I never thought they were the best team in the AFC. I am honestly surprised they made it this far.
But I do have to say I think this will be one of the better Superbowls and I am actually looking forward to it. I believe that because of the Giants defense they will win the Superbowl and the final score will be 31-28.
I can't wait for Sunday.
This week should have been more about Eli's Giants and the Golden Boy and his Patriots. Instead we have been getting the soap opera that is Mr Manning and Cotls owner Jim Irsay.
Personally I have lost some respect for Peyton this week; I think he could have allowed the spotlight to shine on the game rather than him. Some might say this was not done on purpose. I really believe this was done on purpose and that we are seeing the true arrogance of Mr Manning. And to me it's not entertaining at all.
And while I don't like Mr Irsay's constant tweeting like he's a jilted lover; I do think it is time for the Colts and Manning to part ways. Whether the Dr's really will clear him to play again I don't know but I firmly believe that Manning will never be as good as he once was. I also believe that he is not worth $28 million at this point in time.
Now on to the actual Superbowl. I am hoping that Eli has a great game and wins another Superbowl. I am not a big fan of his because he is too inconsistent. I think a bigger part of the reason the Giants have gotten this far is because of WR Victor Cruz on offense and the Giants Defensive line. The Giants only gave up more than 30 points in three games and I believe by keeping the games relatively close is what helped the Giants get to where they are. I do believe that defense wins championships.
From the games I saw the Patriots play (I believe it was 3 or 4) Tom Brady is not what he used to be. I believe he is on the downside of his career and I predict this will be his last Superbowl and I believe he will have 2-3 more seasons and then retire.
Mr Brady is why I am a Tim Tebow believer. I saw Brady play in college a lot and I thought he was going to be a bust; obviously I was wrong. Tebow was a lot better than Brady was in college and so I have hope.
The Patriots defense is awful and I never thought they were the best team in the AFC. I am honestly surprised they made it this far.
But I do have to say I think this will be one of the better Superbowls and I am actually looking forward to it. I believe that because of the Giants defense they will win the Superbowl and the final score will be 31-28.
I can't wait for Sunday.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Circle of Life?
Before I begin I want to write a disclaimer that the following is not being written to suggest that anyone is doing anything wrong.
But I'm wondering if the human race or just American culture has gotten off the track.
My best friend, may be the busiest person I have ever known. She has a husband, three kids, her own counseling practice, manages realty properties and church activities. Frankly, I don't know how she does it.
When she started counseling she had told me that if I ever had things to do that if I asked ahead of time I could come talk to her when needed. For awhile there I went to her office once a month. Well, apparently her practice has grown so much that she tells me no more often than not. Bothers me but she has to do what best for her.
Earlier this week I had asked for some time and she said no. I texted her (that's the main way we communicate now) that I was disappointed and her responding text was, "I wish I had time for ANYONE OR ANYTHING that isn't must do or a requirement."
Ever since reading that text Harry Chapin's song 'Cats in the Cradle' has been running through my mind.
And I have been thinking of my own experience growing up. I guess my brother, sister and I were lucky growing up. My Mom had a regular 9 to 5 job and my Dad was home most nights around 7-8. We pretty much saw our parents every day. I have heard that many people don't. I didn't appreciate what I had back then.
And this lead me to wondering if people being too busy for family and friends is the way God intended it to be.
From what I have seen and heard my parent's were a little bit younger than most who start having kids. It seems to me most have kids in their late 20's early 30's. And it seems to me that is when most people really into their careers.
It also seems to me that between the ages of 2-15 are when children need their parent need their parent's the most.
All of that seems to be a contradiction.
Which makes me wonder if that's the way things were intended to be. Somehow I doubt it.
But I'm wondering if the human race or just American culture has gotten off the track.
My best friend, may be the busiest person I have ever known. She has a husband, three kids, her own counseling practice, manages realty properties and church activities. Frankly, I don't know how she does it.
When she started counseling she had told me that if I ever had things to do that if I asked ahead of time I could come talk to her when needed. For awhile there I went to her office once a month. Well, apparently her practice has grown so much that she tells me no more often than not. Bothers me but she has to do what best for her.
Earlier this week I had asked for some time and she said no. I texted her (that's the main way we communicate now) that I was disappointed and her responding text was, "I wish I had time for ANYONE OR ANYTHING that isn't must do or a requirement."
Ever since reading that text Harry Chapin's song 'Cats in the Cradle' has been running through my mind.
And I have been thinking of my own experience growing up. I guess my brother, sister and I were lucky growing up. My Mom had a regular 9 to 5 job and my Dad was home most nights around 7-8. We pretty much saw our parents every day. I have heard that many people don't. I didn't appreciate what I had back then.
And this lead me to wondering if people being too busy for family and friends is the way God intended it to be.
From what I have seen and heard my parent's were a little bit younger than most who start having kids. It seems to me most have kids in their late 20's early 30's. And it seems to me that is when most people really into their careers.
It also seems to me that between the ages of 2-15 are when children need their parent need their parent's the most.
All of that seems to be a contradiction.
Which makes me wonder if that's the way things were intended to be. Somehow I doubt it.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Probowl; sports thoughts
For the first time that I can think of I actually watched the NHL's All Star game this past Sunday. And I liked it because, for the most part the actually played liked they actually wanted to win the game. And it seemed to me to be a cleaner, more swift moving game than how games are played during the regular season.
I can't remember the last time I actually watched the NFL's Probowl and don't recall the last time I enjoyed watching the Probowl. I have heard some say they don't like any all star games because they are just exhibitions. I have never understood that thinking and I probably never will. If it's a sport I enjoy and a game is on I am most likely watching it.
But if players aren't even going to give an effort than the game shouldn't be played. In other words I think the Probowl should just go away. I understand not wanting to tackle hard or not wanting to get hurt but the highlights I saw of the Probowl were pathetic. I think it's time for the NFL to cancel the game.
Speaking of things the NFL should do away with; the idea of playing the Superbowl is just dumb, dumb, dumb. They tried a European football league, it failed. From what I saw of the regular season games the NFL has tried there it looks like attendance was terrible.
I get the idea of wanting new revenue streams, that makes sense. But trying to force yourself on a market that doesn't want you does not make sense. I don't understand why FOX and ESPN trying to force soccer down our throats and the NFL is trying the same thing on Europe.
NFL football is our game and the rest of the world can have the other football. Although I would like to see more of Australian rules footie (as they say) here. I think it's good that they have their games and we have ours.
Two weeks until pitchers and catchers report to spring training. Thank you God. I have been ready for it to be back for a couple of months now. Part of the reason I don't like winter, (and I can't even being to explain how much I don't like winter) is because of no baseball to follow on a daily basis.
I am starting my research for my predictions this season so that I can do them the way I had planned last year. Hopefully I'll be more accurate than 40% than last year.
Now if I could only remember...if the groundhog sees it's shadow it's gonna be a shorter winter or is it the other way around? 46 years old and I still can't remember...
I can't remember the last time I actually watched the NFL's Probowl and don't recall the last time I enjoyed watching the Probowl. I have heard some say they don't like any all star games because they are just exhibitions. I have never understood that thinking and I probably never will. If it's a sport I enjoy and a game is on I am most likely watching it.
But if players aren't even going to give an effort than the game shouldn't be played. In other words I think the Probowl should just go away. I understand not wanting to tackle hard or not wanting to get hurt but the highlights I saw of the Probowl were pathetic. I think it's time for the NFL to cancel the game.
Speaking of things the NFL should do away with; the idea of playing the Superbowl is just dumb, dumb, dumb. They tried a European football league, it failed. From what I saw of the regular season games the NFL has tried there it looks like attendance was terrible.
I get the idea of wanting new revenue streams, that makes sense. But trying to force yourself on a market that doesn't want you does not make sense. I don't understand why FOX and ESPN trying to force soccer down our throats and the NFL is trying the same thing on Europe.
NFL football is our game and the rest of the world can have the other football. Although I would like to see more of Australian rules footie (as they say) here. I think it's good that they have their games and we have ours.
Two weeks until pitchers and catchers report to spring training. Thank you God. I have been ready for it to be back for a couple of months now. Part of the reason I don't like winter, (and I can't even being to explain how much I don't like winter) is because of no baseball to follow on a daily basis.
I am starting my research for my predictions this season so that I can do them the way I had planned last year. Hopefully I'll be more accurate than 40% than last year.
Now if I could only remember...if the groundhog sees it's shadow it's gonna be a shorter winter or is it the other way around? 46 years old and I still can't remember...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)