Emperor Fuckshit

Walking In Memphis by Marc Cohn and All Star by Smash Mouth are two I can think of off the top of my head.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QEPkPMMM_PI

That was by Smashmouth? Mad. They really cornered the market on 'summer movie montage music', ey?

Len have put out about half a dozen albums, I think. I remembered checking their Wiki page in the summer when I was playing 'Steal My Sunshine' about fifty times a day.

EDIT: Beaten by Dragsy on this.

The only example that immediately springs to mind is 'Weird' Al Yankovic. His parody stuff is just incredibly unimaginative, trite, whimsical toss. But there's an original composition of his from the 'Poodle Hat' album (yes, 'Poodle Hat'. IT'S TEH WACKEEEE RANDUMMMMZ, FOLKS!!!!!!) called 'Hardware Store' that is just fantastic. Incredibly inventive lyrics, all-over-the-place instrumentation, very danceable (in an odd sort of way). It kind of proves that he's actually an incredible songwriter, but is presumably just content to mostly trade in half-arsed gastronomy puns and the joke that, heh heh, he's a white guy performing music that one might expect a black person to make.

EDIT AGAIN: I should probably say that it's quite possible that other Yankovic compositions are just as good; I've just never heard any. And there aren't that many of them, as far as I can tell.

Thanks for the tip re: 'Democracy'. I'm checking it out right now (actually, a sequel). I have a feeling I've played it before, but I might be wrong (hopefully I am). I just played a quick game of 'Oval Office' and tried to be a bit right-wing. I was re-elected twice (I know that doesn't make any sense; but that's how the game works) without incident.

EDIT: Odd note about that 'Oval Office' game I just played. 52% of socialists voted for me at the end of my first term, despite the fact that I'd reduced education spending to virtually nothing, lowered income tax by about 20%, made no increases in public spending in any area except the police force and introduced a citizenship test. The game is probably a bit more broken than I realised.

Is this probably the best global political simulator out there, though? Most of the ones I've played up to now (Shadow President most notably) have just been... shit. Awful. No sense that you're inhabiting a believable facsimile of the real world at all.

Most of the best political games I've played have only attempted to recreate a much smaller scale. I still play 'Conflict: Middle East' a bit when I just want to kill half an hour or so. Even though it basically amounts to pressing a few buttons and seeing your decisions cause events in a somewhat random (yet still quite logical) way, it's quite immersive in a sense. And it's difficult enough that 'beating' it for the first time feels like an achievement.

In that vein, 'PeaceMaker' seems like a worthy graphical update. I played a demo when it first came out (last year, I think) and it seemed nice, but difficult and perhaps not worth the money. Still, it's one I might look into.

There's also 'Oval Office', which is a pretty nice simulator of domestic American politics. It's a little focused on the balancing of budgets, though, but it does give you a real sense of tension between structure and agency -- you feel like a President, rather than an all-powerful representative of The State. There's no foreign policy element, though, and the games become a bit predictable after a while. (Especially if you're like me, and just want to create a socialist democracy and nothing else. My political scruples are such that I can't even pretend to be a Conservative or Liberal in a video game, it seems.) And I'd prefer something that simulated world politics; or at least British politics with a world dimension.

The old 'Yes, Minister' tie-in game seems like it would be good fun if I could get it to run properly on my Windows machine (it's a DOS game; the pointer flickers in and out on XP, if memory serves).

'Balance of Power' is alright in a dry-as-sandpaper, clicking-on-standard-Visual-Basic-buttons sort of way. I also like the fact that, if you trigger nuclear war, you get a very sanctimonious "Hmmm. I could give you a nice image of a mushroom cloud to illustrate the consequences of your actions. But there are NO PRIZES for FAILING!!!!"-type message. Can't hate a game that takes itself that seriously.

Apparently, there's a sequel to 'Tropico' in the making, which is a bit exciting. It verges a bit on the God Game-y, but Latin America during the Cold War is a political area I have a lot of interest in, so I found the original quite fun once I got going.

It seems odd that there aren't more games that cater to this market. Most seem to either be explicitly war-driven (stuff like 'Hearts of Iron' and that stable of games), which is not what I'm after. I don't find war terribly interesting (I always associate an interest in military history with Young Conservatives and/or slavering Nazi fetishists), and if I did I'd just play 'Command and Conquer' or something. And then there's stuff like 'Civilization' which I do quite enjoy, but is obviously very broad-brush and not very political. There seems to be a dearth of games that place you as a head of state and simulate world politics. Maybe it's perceived as too niche of a market to justify the expenditure (of time and intellectual energy as much as anything) that would be required to create a really cock-on game of that sort.

I've always thought it might be interesting to play a game which starts you as, say, a grunt in your political party of choice's local branch, and have you attempt to gain various offices (council seat, Commons seat, Ministry etc). Sort of a political career game that could combine the electioneering elements of stuff like 'President Forever' (which always seem a bit pointless to me, as you get into office, and then... the game ends) with a more advanced version of something like 'Oval Office' (or GPS, which I haven't played).

Hmm.

Awesome. The CusFac is a really good venue, too: saw the Fall there a couple of years ago. Digbeth reprazent.

I just did track three on Easy mode. It was a bit... easy, but I forgot that I have actually played this game before. Super Monkey Storm-ing a track completely filled with balloons is very pleasing.

You do know your s/n is Emperor Fuckshit right?

Edit. Had it as Fuckishit which is fabulous

I wish my s/n were 'Emperor Fuckishit'. Emperor Fuckshit actually was the pseudonym of the guitarist for not-very-good goth/punk band Tales of Terror. I think it just about gets a pass on the basis of being too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Although, yeah, I was 16 when I signed up for EWB and would probably like a do-over on the username front.

!!!

Yes that's right Fuckshit I said !!!.

Haha. Why, though?

For me, stuff like 'CunningLynguists' and 'Unexplained Bacon' are no good because they're not original. The former is a well-established pun and the latter is just a Simpsons reference.

But they're funny and catch the attention. And that's all that really matters.

I don't agree. Someone who names their band 'Unexplained Bacon' has no more proved an ability to come up with a great band name than someone who can reel off the 'Pet Shop' sketch has proven his ability as a comedy writer. And if 'catching attention' is the/a major consideration, then that leads to the conclusion that stuff like '!!!' and 'Selfish Cunt' are 'great' names, when they're just lazy, cynical attempts at generating publicity (moreso in the latter case than the former).

Ah, yeah, 'Casiotone for the Painfully Alone' is one I was going to mention.

For me, stuff like 'CunningLynguists' and 'Unexplained Bacon' are no good because they're not original. The former is a well-established pun and the latter is just a Simpsons reference.

It really shouldn't be hard to think of a great band name. Me and my mate had an MSN conversation, the intention of which was to fill our Facebook 'Favourite Music' section with ridiculous band names. 'Diagnosis: Girder!', 'Hand Shandy Behind Tandy', 'The quietLOUDquiets', 'Ernie Earnest and the Stiff Upper Lips'... those are all great.

'Twat Appetizer' and 'Andrew Jackson Jihad' are both excellent names. I shall check out AJJ. Thanks for the tip.

'Streetlight Manifesto' is a bit cringe to me; just for the use of 'manifesto' in a band name. I would put 'The Libertines' with the 'simple but effective' band names. (Which is what I think they were going for, given their obvious debts owed to The Clash and The Jam).

'House of Large Sizes' is a name I've always liked. 'Doctor and the Crippens' falls somewhere between 'fantastic' and 'shit whimsy' (in that category, see also: '? and the Mysterians', 'Mark Lansing and his Board of Water and Light', 'The Flaming Sideburns' and 'Sick Terrific Nosebleeds'). Also, '?...' are cool because everyone bangs on about '!!!' being a kerazy and subversive band-name, but the Mysterians did exactly the same thing, basically, in 1962.

I quite like 'The Future of the Left'. Better than 'Mclusky' anyway.

That's pretty good.

I was once in a band called 'Daddy or Chips?' And I've always liked 'Danananananakroyd'. It's incredibly hard to think of a well-known band with a genuinely good name. I can think of some 'simple but effective' ones (The Fall, Slint, Big Black, The Smiths), but none that are really creative. 'The Beatles' is a (quite probably self-aware) shit pun. 'Half Man, Half Biscuit', a band that 'should' have a great name, have... a shit one.

EDIT: I will defend 'till the day I die 'I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness' as a great band name. It usually divides people quite a bit, but I think it's just about on the right side of ridiculousness and is likely somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Best porn titles?

I've been tickled by the Erotic Adventures of Columbus and 8 Simple Rules For Banging My Teenage Daughter.

'Squirt in My Gape'

'That Bitch Ate Our Witch'

'Slit-Eyed Sluts' ['Asians' comp]

'All Ditz and Jumbo Tits'

EDIT: There isn't, but should be, a porn film called 'Entirely a Splatter for You'.

Seeing Mussina go pleases me. He's not too much of a weapon at this stage, but his long-time association with the Yanks and general personal disposition just generally make me vomit. It's a little surprising, but I think CQI is exactly right -- as soon as you decide to make that run at 300 (and HOF certainty) you can be hanging around forever and ever indefinitely. He was pretty strong at the end of last year, but maybe that helps him make this decision in a 'go out on top'-type way.

Glad to see the back of him. I'll look into his Cooperstown worthiness when I get more of a chance, but my instincts say 'no' at this point.

Pedroia was more valuable to the Red Sox than anyone else was to their team (in regards to those in the discussion). With the injuries they faced this year they could have easily tanked. Pedroia was the spark that kept that team alive and not only got them the wildcard, but nearly got them back on top to take the division.

But it's not like Pedroia was the only consistently good thing about the Sox this year. Aren't we arguing in this thread that Youkilis himself is an MVP candidate? Why was Youks any less sparky? There were also a few sparks emitted by J.D. Drew (137 OPS+ in 109 games) or Jason Bay (128 OPS+ down the stretch). Sure, those guys played fewer games (in Bay's case many fewer), but that's no reason to dismiss their contributions -- you just have to temper them somewhat. Besides, how can one explain the Sox' success this year without reference to Jon Lester's 210 IP of 144 ERA+ work; or Daisuke Matsuzaka 168 innings of 159 ERA+ pitching? Both really valuable.

If you replace any of these players with a replacement-level guy, then the Sox are unlikely to make the playoffs. To single out Pedroia in this regard is weird.

[Pedroia] never had a "cold" streak of any significance

I don't think this should be a relevant consideration, but just for the record:

Pedroia in May: .260/.295/.374 for a .669 OPS.

Mauer in April (his worst month): .295/.357/.387 for a .744 OPS.

Hamilton - it's hard to be impressive by mashing the ball on a team where everyone else mashes the ball.

Why so? Because of Arlington? That's fair enough; but even context-neutral stats love Hamilton. 6th in the league in VORP, 136 OPS+. The only Ranger to put up anything like Hamilton's numbers was Milton Bradley, and he missed a ton of games and was a DH. I'm agreed that he's not the MVP, but more for reasons of defense.

If you take him away from that lineup it isn't going to mean much because they're still going to mash the ball and score over 5 runs a game.

PMLV, a stat designed to measure just this very thing, has Hamilton as #6 in the AL. He's tied with Pedroia and not too far behind Mauer. A team's goal is to score as many and to give up as few runs as possible, by any means. Just because Hamilton's contributions are largely offensive, and the Rangers have a strong line-up, that doesn't make his value any less. Besides which, Hamilton did this whilst playing centerfield; it's incredibly hard to replace his production from that position, unless you have Grady Sizmore hanging around on your bench.

[Mauer] was the leader on a team that pushed for the playoffs and didn't make it. Pedroia was the makeshift leader of an injury laden team that pushed for the playoffs and made...

So, you're saying that you'd be convinced about Mauer if the Twins had won their one-game playoff against Chicago? That if John Danks had had a slightly worse outing, Jim Thome's fly in the 7th had been a little less deep, or Cuddyer had run down the paths a little quicker in the 5th; Joe Mauer would be the MVP?

And how are you defining 'leader'? Just 'best player'? OK, but why bother making that distinction? Players just contribute value by helping to score or prevent runs. Anything else is irrelevant.

Anyway, Pedroia isn't a bad choice. I just don't think he's the best. Enough little things about Mauer add up that I'm certain he should take the award, and I'm yet to be convinced otherwise.

Youkilis batted in how many spots in the line up?

Youks played significant games at 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th, and also some at 3rd and one at 1st. Is this really a major thing to consider, though? It's interesting and kind of cool, but does it make him any more valuable?

Played great defensively at 1st base, and considering it's not his natural position, did a very good job at third base.

No doubt Youkilis is a great defensive 1B; one of the best in the AL. He gets credit for that, but you also have to consider that playing first i) limits his value defensively and ii) makes it easier to find a replacement for his bat. Incidentally, 3rd is definitely Youks' natural position. He played 272 minor league games there, compared to 58 at 1B.

I haven't looked at the batting numbers, but I would venture a guess that they might be better than Pedroia's.

It's close:

Youkilis does have a better OPS+, 143 to 122. However, the difference in positions bridges that gap and maybe more, I'd say.

Youkilis also has a better OBP, which is valuable.

VORP has Pedroia as 6 runs better, which shows you how difficult it is to get great offense from 2B as compared to 1B. PMLV also prefers Pedroia for the same reason.

Pedroia was better by WPA, ranking #6 in the AL compared with Youkilis' 13th. Not definitive, but something to consider.

Basically, Youks has the better raw numbers, but Pedroia plays a more difficult position (and does so respectably). I'd maybe give the edge to Pedey, but it's essentially a wash.

Anyway, I'm bored of looking through these numbers now. Mikel, HttK and LD are right in that it was a very close race. I favour Mauer for a lot of reasons I've already outlined. If you don't, and prefer Pedroia, then that's great. I'm a Sox fan so I'm not going to get too mad about it, and the race is really tight. I just think it's sad that Mauer gets overlooked because his raw numbers aren't as good as some of the bad-glove 1Bs that people love talking about, and because he plays for the Twins.

Joe Mauer, guys. Joe Mauer.

Any of us here are voters?

Sadly not. But we're 'people having a discussion about the 2008 AL MVP Award', and no-one other than me (as far as I can see) has made a strong case for Mauer, which is pretty ludicrous.

Speaking of which, Mauer didn't even get the most votes of guys on his own team.

No. Are you lamenting this, using it as evidence that Mauer is a bad choice, or just saying it? In case you're arguing that Morneau was better than Mauer:

Mauer and Morneau had exactly the same OPS+; but Mauer played catcher and Morneau is a first baseman.

Mauer had a much better OBP than Morneau, which OPS undervalues. Morneau was 16th in the AL in OBP; not quite Howard-ian, but not great either.

Mauer was ten runs more valuable by VORP; they are basically equal by MLV. Whether or not you want to give Mauer some extra credit when dealing with counting stats because he plays C, which requires more days off and so creates less playing time, is up to you. (I'd say not, actually, considering that there are guys like Russell Martin and Jason Kendall out there showing some serious durability. Then again, if I'm a Brewers fan, Kendall's durability might not be something to celebrate too vigorously.)

Mauer led the AL (by a considerable margin) in WPA, Morneau was 3rd.

Mauer was an above-average player at the hardest defensive position; Morneau is a bad defensive 1B (2nd worst in the league behind Giambi by PMR). EDIT to note: David Pinto, who compiles PMR, express some surprise about Morneau's ranking. Maybe there are gremlins in the system there -- God knows you can never rule that out when dealing with defensive metrics -- but the analysis would have to be very, very wrong to give Morneau an edge defensively considering the positions the guys play. (In fact, I'm not even sure how possible it is for a 1B to provide more defensive value than an above-average C).

WARP favours Mauer, but I don't know by how much because I don't have Morneau's value to hand. Existing FRAA disclaimers apply again.

Sorry if this seems defensive, and if you weren't arguing for Morneau's superiority then disregard. But Morneau really shouldn't have even been a serious contender (off the top of my head, MAUER, A-Rod, Sizemore and Pedroia are all better choices. So, probably, are Youkilis, Kinsler, Hamilton and Quentin. Maybe even Bradley, but I'm never sure how to handle DHs as regards defense).

Bye. Bye Coco a couple years in Boston and only a handful of meaningful moments. Blah... I thought he would be better.

The return is a little disappointing to me. Coco has not lived up to expectations since acquired, but I still think he would've been valuable to have around in 2009: Ellsbury had a streaky rookie campaign; we have to contend with Drew's likely off-days in the outfield; we now have no source of speed on the bench (particularly if Lugo is dealt or starts).

Nevertheless, I'm going to hold off evaluating this trade for a little bit. Ramirez looks like he could be an excellent late-innings option, and the bull-pen was a major weakness last year. What's more, I think this is the sort of move that facilitates another. Is Masterson flipped? Does Buchholz go, and Masterson return to the rotation? Does Delcarmen get packaged to bring something back? Could Ramirez himself be turned right back around?

The sine qua non of this Sox offseason is finding the catcher of the future. I think that all other moves can be linked to that end in one way or another. (Well, except maybe signing Paul McAnulty to a minor-league deal...)

There is a baseball team in Minnesota.

Joe Mauer is their Catcher.

He is good.

#5 on the OPS+ leaderboard behind a balky DH, a first baseman, a left fielder and Alex Rod (we'll get to him).

#2 on the OBP leaderboard behind Bradley, who played in 5 games this season and WAS A FUCKING DH. (Remember: Not making outs is absolutely the most important thing a hitter can do.)

#4 on the VORP list behind Rodriguez, Sizemore and Pedroia, all of whom provided average defense (going by PMR) at positions easier than catcher, to a lesser or greater degree.

#5 defensive catcher in the AL by PMR. The only other candidate who was in the top 5 at his position by PMR was Kevin Youkilis, who plays first base. Catcher is the hardest position to play. First is the easiest (other than DH, obviously).

#1 by WPA. #1 easy. Context-specific king. If you believe in 'clutch', he's your guy. For the record, Rodriguez was #7 in WPA... on the Yankees.

Mauer also had more PA than Rodriguez, despite being a catcher.

In short, Mauer put together one of the top-five offensive performances in the AL whilst providing above-average defense at the game's toughest position. I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

(I'm kind of loathe to overstate the WPA argument, even though it helps my case a lot. I don't really believe in 'clutch' as a real phenomenon. But, nevertheless, I think that something like WPA can be useful in making reactive decisions about performance. It's useful for awards voting; less so or not at all for deciding where to spend free agent money, for example. Little to no predictive value, sure. But, like it or not, getting hits in big spots is valuable, and we are measuring value. I would never argue that a context-affected stat like WPA should be the be-all and end-all in such a debate. But we can never take performances out of context entirely, so we may as well use something like WPA as *part* of the equation -- it's at least far more sophisticated than something gauche and useless like RBI or even RISP or Close and Late or something.)

Joe Mauer, guys. Joe Mauer.

Pedroia, well, the AL MVP race never had a clear-cut winner. He and Youkilis could have both taken it from the Red Sox and I don't see a large cause for complaining. Josh Hamilton tailed off or he would have been a lock. If Ian Kinsler or Carlos Quentin hadn't gotten hurt, either of them could have made a strong case too. It was basically a case of Pedroia being the win to stay healthy and stay consistent throughout the season that proved the difference.

There's this guy named Joe Mauer...

EDIT: Probably should be a bit more substantive... Josh Hamilton is great. 6th in VORP; great offense for a CF. His SLG is only good for 9th in the league, though, and his on-base skills leave a lot to be desired (.371; barely above Chone Figgins and David DeJesus). What's more, he's not a very good defensive CF. PMR has him in the bottom 10 for the MLB as a whole, which isn't definitive, but isn't a good start.

I think you're right about Quentin and Kinsler -- it's basically a PT issue for those guys. The only guys ahead of Kinsler in VORPr (VORP figured as a rate stat) are Milton Bradley and A-Rod. He played a mean 2B in 2007, but his PMR is down a little this year. Might be noise, or just year-to-year differential.

A-Rod himself is interesting. It almost seems like he has to have a superhuman year to be in contention; it's not enough for him to just hit rockets. He missed some time this year, but still leads the AL in VORP. I think the defense argument (EDIT: and WPA, if you're into that) is the only reason I can deny him the hardware; it's so hard to look past Mauer on that score.

Grady Sizemore hasn't gotten much play; probably because he was on a bad Cleveland team. Great offense from CF, but his defense looks to be only mediocre.

Just as a little addendum to my previous post, I'd like to invite you all to play a little game. It's called the 'Name Baseball Playing Men Who Were More Betterer at Playing the Baseball Game in the 2008 National League of National Baseball Playing Competition than Mr. Ryan James Howard Was' game.

Anyone can join in the fun! (I've bolded first basemen and italicised Phillies. I have also included players who were traded into / out of the league in midseason -- just because they split time between two teams, it doesn't make Howard any better than them).

Albert Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, Chipper Jones, Lance Berkman, David Wright, Chase Utley, Jose Reyes, Matt Holliday, Carlos Beltran, Ryan Ludwick, Brian McCann, Nate McLouth, Manny Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Aramis Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins, Carlos Lee, Andre Ethier, Stephen Drew, Prince Fielder, Dan Uggla, J.J. Hardy, Ryan Doumit, Carlos Delgado, Russell Martin, Troy Glaus, Matt Kemp, Joey Votto, Shane Victorino, Derrek Lee, Chris Iannetta, Mark Teixeira, Randy Winn.

More debatable inclusions:

Cristian Guzman: Depends how much you think mediocre defense at a premium position is worth over bad defense at a low-end position.

Ryan Braun: How bad does a slugger's defense have to be before he's not really that valuable?

Geovany Soto: Does horrible defense mitigate itself somewhat if you get it from a good-hitting catcher? Can a catcher redeem himself through vital, yet intangible, contributions to a team?

Alfonso Soriano: Defense?!

Conor Jackson: Is the gap between a mediocre defensive 1B and a bad one enough to bridge the gap in their relative offensive production? A lot of 'flattening' must occur at first: not many guys are really that great; not many will really kill you.

Jasyon Werth: I'm actually almost sure he's better.

So, there you go: Ryan Howard -- one of the most valuable 40 players in the NL this year! Probably! Excluding pitchers!

Sure, the guy hits HR's but he also K's more than Rob Deer.

I don't think there's anything wrong with striking out in and of itself. It's just another way to make an out, largely. If you look at the top 20 seasons for strikeouts in ML history, the names on that list are pretty mercurial: Jack Cust, Adam Dunn, Bobby Bonds, Mike Schmidt, Jim Thome, Cecil Fielder and Mo Vaughan can play for me any day. Jose Hernandez, Preston Wilson and Mark Reynolds a little less so. The problem with him is plate discipline. A .339 OBP is unlikely to make you an above-average Major League 1B, no matter how hard you slug (within reason, obviously).

Utley, Burrell, Moyer, Lidge, and Hamels were all more important (Utley/Hamels/Lidge for sure) to the Phillies than Howard was.

Burrell and Howard had similar offensive seasons in the last analysis. Unfortunately, Burrell put up those numbers whilst playing the worst LF in the National League. Shane Victorino and Jayson Werth were both better than Howard, though.

Dustin Pedroia was announced as AL MVP.

Didn't watch too many Sox games this year, but I'm assuming he had a good enough year.

I'm a Sox fan, and I love Pedroia, but I don't think he deserves the award this year. It's close; but I would've gone with Joe Mauer.

Mauer's OPS+ was 137, compared to Pedroia's 122, and Mauer did that whilst a catcher. Also, Mauer was 2nd in the league in OBP; which a lot of people have argued is slightly under-weighted by OPS.

VORP actually gives the edge to Pedroia, narrowly: 60 to 57. But, looking at PMR (the only advanced defensive metric I have to hand), Pedroia places 19th out of all Major League 2B; Mauer is 13th out of the league's catchers. FRAA also likes Mauer a lot for what that's worth (not a lot). I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Mauer's slightly superior defense at a slightly harder position bridges the gap. And, having endured Varitek as my starting C all season, and looked with some apprehension at the possibilities for replacing him, I really have started to appreciate the value of a good-hitting catcher. I wonder if the modifications to replacement level made by VORP and similar stats sufficiently apprehend the current dearth of offensive talent behind the plate.

WARP has the two as barely different (Pedroia at 9.8; Mauer at 9.6), but its fielding component is all buggered up, so I'm not sure how useful that is.

For you fans of context-specificity, Mauer led the AL in WPA at a stroll, beating Pedroia by 4.88 to 3.29 (Pedroia ranked 6th). As far as I'm aware, WPA does not make a positional adjustment.

Of course, almost all advanced rate stats (MLVr, VORPr) have Mauer killing Pedroia. Pedroia played eleven more games than Mauer; but 146 GP is still pretty damn good for a catcher. I'm not sure if I'd want to discount the difference in PT, as it seems like giving Mauer a double advantage, but it's something to think about.

EDIT: For clarity, PMR ranks Pedroia 8th out of the AL's 2B, Mauer 5th out of its catchers.

The problem with the MLB awards is that they only take the season into account, so some awards look ludicrous when players on teams that don't even make the postseason win awards over players on teams that do. Funnily enough I don't have a problem with that when it comes to the Cy Young award, but I do when it comes to the MVP award. Ryan Howard deserved the MVP over Pujols, even if you don't consider the post-season. And I don't even like the Phillies.

Ryan Howard ranked 29th (!!!!) in the NL in VORP. 47th (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) in OBP. Even in SLG, he was only 6th. 21st in WPA. Didn't crack the top 10 in OPS+, and BB-Ref's leaderboards don't go any further (I doubt he'd make the top 15 either). He did all this whilst playing below-average defense at the diamond's easiest position. Ryan Howard was the Philadelphia Phillies' 4th Most Valuable (Position) Player. If you want to make the 'the MVP must come from a successful team' argument; then I will disagree with you but concede that it has some validity. Bloodying Heck, though, at least choose a good player from a winning team.

Interesting factoid: Of the 11 full-time 1B in the NL with 500 PA or more in 2008, Howard had a better OBP than only two: Mike Jacobs and James Loney. And how many points did RH whip Loney's ass by? 1. 1 'points'.

For the record, anyone who doesn't think that Albert Pujols was the 2008 National League MVP is a gluebag. He led the league in VORP, SLG (by 62 points!), MLV, OPS and OPS+. He trailed Chipper Jones in OBP by a barely-significant 8 points. He was second in WPA to Lance Berkman. He is by far the best defensive 1B in the league. If you're into trad stats then (I pity you but) he was the only player to finish in the top 5 of all three Triple Crown categories. The man pisses value.

Penny is a decent enough guy to round out a rotation but nothing spectacular. He'll undoubtedly be overpriced unless maybe you're team with no pitching like Baltimore.

I don't necessarily think that Penny will be over-priced (well, most free agents are technically 'overpriced', but he won't be a Zito or even a Sabathia). His injury worries are likely to scare off GMs, and there's a crop of pitching talent above him (Sabathia, Sheets, Burnett, Lowe, Peavy via trade). I think he could be a great option for a team looking to add some pitching to an already effective rotation. That's why I don't think the O's are the best destination for him, although I know where you're coming from. He intrigues me as a Sox fan: we already have Beckett, Matsuzaka and Lester penciled in, but could be looking for at least one extra arm. We could throw some money at him, and not worry too much if he underperforms, because we have other options (Wakefield if he returns, Bowden, Buchholz if he's still here, there's talk about re-signing Byrd, Masterson could go back to the rotation in a pinch). I'm not sure that he's fallen far enough to take a big-money one-year deal. But a short-term commitment like maybe 2/16 - 2/20 would interest me.

Mary J Bilge...switching round two letters...was funny 10 years ago...funny now.

This made me snort. I'm 'much obilged', you might say...

I'd post Dead's photo from that Mayhem EP, but I believe that was liner art. Bollocks!

I didn't know what you were referring to, so I did some research and apparently it was used as the cover of a bootleg album. So you could post it. So could I, in fact. It's very good, anyway.

The 'hundred greatest' is the laziest trope in journalism. What's the arsing point? A hundred names all of which have to, in one sense or another, be drawn from an 'acceptable' pool of talent/works, because the presentation is supposed to be 'authoritative' rather than 'editorial'. Never more than a couple of hundred words expended on why an artist is so great. The tone is so impersonal and half-arsed that the piece might as well be called 'here are 100 singers' -- when guests are roped in to offer their thoughts, their thoughts are boring as all fuck and (necessarily) can't form any sort of dialogue. Why is Aretha Franklin a little bit, but presumably not much, better than Ray Charles?

And it's not like the pieces work as biography since they're so tokenistic. Inane, arbitrary, depth-less shit.

I'd rather read a 5,000 word piece passionately arguing that Marti Pellow is the best vocalist ever to have graced the music industry than bilge like this. At least that might dredge up some unusual commentary, rather than just, "Marvin Gaye was black. I like him. I wish he hadn't died. He had a nice voice." Whether Stevie cunting Wonder placed 82nd or 63rd is of less than no importance: the idea is not to change the channel but to turn off the whole fucking TV.

Also, does anyone actually read 'Rolling Stone'? Surely such a person would collapse in on themselves under the weight of their own tedium.