The Geniuses: MLB Past

The Flawed Genius: Alex Rodriguez

I've already detailed Alex Rodriguez's strange return to baseball, but what is obvious, now that he's finished half a season with an OPS over .900 and being the best hitter on a playoff-team, is that Alex Rodriguez, despite him taking steroids at a level that might make Lance Armstrong blush, is an incredible goliath at hitting a baseball. Alex Rodriguez had an OPS north of 1.000 as a 21-year old. He was the best player in baseball by 26, and remained that guy for another 10 years. Alex Rodriguez somehow made a $252,000,000 worth it (or at least compared to a lot of guys who got 9 figure contracts. But then there's that thing of him causing more problems than he helped. Hard to say that is true with a guy who was a consistent 9+ WAR player, but he was a weird guy. He had no real personality, or at least one crafted to be the oddest possible. He didn't play well in a lot of playoff series, series that obscured the impact of the series he was really good in. He went to play for David in New York, and was able to somehow piss off even more people, including New Yorkers. His attitude never endeared him to anyone, but Alex Rodriguez was so good at getting in that hole of his, with blinders on for all those who hated him, and threw up season after season with an OPS+ of 150. Alex Rodriguez simple swing belied that complicated brilliance. Alex Rodriguez was many things, a lot of them wrong, a lot of them an affront to those who liked to dwell on 'honor', on 'grace', on peerless brilliance, but what beyond all that he still was a great, great player who could play baseball better than all of like 20 guys ever.


The Superhuman Genius: Barry Bonds

Barry Bonds was like Alex Rodriguez amplified. He was a stranger, more aloof, more unlikeable person, for whom steroids was an ever bigger black mark, but he was also better. And not just slightly better, but empirically, evidentially and anecdotally better. Barry Bonds was so good from 2001-2004 that it is really hard to describe. He put up four straight years where he averaged the following line:

.349/.559/.809; 256 OPS+; 52 HR, 189 BBs; 60 Ks.

That is the greatest four game stretch in MLB history. Some of it was comical, particularly the intentional walks, but most of it was a guy that basically solved baseball. His batting eye was so incredible, so exact, that it seemed he never swung at a pitch out of the zone, and when he did swing, he hit the ball further than anyone has ever hit a baseball. Barry Bonds was essentially a God playing baseball those four years. His average OBP was better than the league average SLG. Of course, Barry Bonds was kind of a good player before 2001 also. In the 11 years before 2001 (1990-2000), Barry Bonds averaged this:

.302/.435/.609; 180 OPS+; 37 HR; 115 BBs; 75 Ks

That's basically one of the greatest 11-year stretches in MLB history. That stretch included winning three MVPs, leading MLB in OBP five times, leading in OPS+ five times. Of course in that stretch he also won 8 gold gloves and managed to steal 350 bases. Barry Bonds had an 11-year stretch of greatness that is matched by maybe 8-10 players, and then followed that with the greatest four year stretch in the history of baseball. There will never be another Barry Bonds. There will likely never be anyone who comes close. Barry Bonds was so good it was impossible to really comprehend what he was doing, like Tiger in 2000, or Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky. He was playing a different sport, or he was playing at a different level. Whatever he was playing though, no one else was and no one else will.


The Robot Genius: Albert Pujols
 

I just went over an 11-year stretch for Barry Bonds before he became a hulk and started dominating worlds. Well, Albert Pujols also has a nice little 11-year stretch. He was one of those guys that could match Barry:

.328/.420/.617; 170 OPS+; 40 HR; 89 BBs; 64 BBs

Pujols also won three MVP awards, along with two World Series and millions of people had the same reaction: is this guy human. Unlike Bonds, where people either went "He solved baseball" or "He's on the roids", for Pujols it was more "He's clearly not a human being." Pujols had this weird ax-wielding swing that seemed both robotic and beautiful and easy all at the same time. I often asked "why doesn't everyone just do THAT." Albert Pujols was a destroyer of worlds. He was a terrifying batter; one that could do things like shut up a frenzied Minute Maid Park by hitting a Brad Lidge slider further than anyone has ever hit anything. His 3-home run performance in Game 5 of the 2011 World Series was a perfect example of Albert Pujols showing his ability to ruin dreams. Overtime, Pujols got bigger, got a tad slower and a tad more human, but all he really needed was time for the robot to develop some new code. His power resurgence in 2015 is a sign of that process being complete. The Destroyer of Worlds is back.


The One-Trick Pony Genius: Mariano Rivera

Mariano Rivera threw one pitch. He threw that pitch about 10,000 times, and there were slight variations between the way some of those balls moved, but essentially it was 10,000 variations of the cut fastball. Each one was a small piece of performance art. This lithe, limbered man would stand and the rubber, his right arm twitching beside his frame, and then uncorked an easy swinging motion towards the plate. It was such a work of art to watch Mariano Rivera throw cutter after cutter after cutter, all between 92-95 MPH, against the best hitters in the world and see them all do absolutely nothing with it. Mariano Rivera became the Yankees closer in 1997, and over the 17 years that he was the closer, he had an ERA+ of 221, he had a WHIP under 1.00, and an ERA of 2.02. Mariano Rivera actually seemed to get better as he aged. How else do you explain having a sub-2.00 ERA for every year apart from one between 2003 and 2011, his age 33-41 seasons. Mariano Rivera, somehow, was even better in the postseason, with an ERA of 0.70. That is not a misprint, that is not wrong. That is literally the ERA Mariano Rivera, a man with one pitch, a pitch that would not be described as 'nasty' or 'filthy', in the playoffs. That is not a real number. Nothing Mariano Rivera did seemed real. It was fitting that the thing that finally made him seem human, his injury in 2012, came when shagging fly balls and not from having arm issues. He never really had arm issues. He never had any issues. Mariano did more, and when I say more I mean be the most dominant relief pitcher ever, with less, and when I say less I mean do exactly one thing over and over and over, than anyone has ever.


The Wizarding Genius: Pedro Martinez

If you want to give any pitcher the label of genius, it really would be either Greg Maddux, or Pedro Martinez. Maddux's genius was more heady, more steely, more reserved. Pedro's genius was true genius. He combined a brash attitude and a fiery personality, with a beautiful arsenal of pitches that were unmatched. Pedro Martinez's comps are the great improvisers, the great soloists. He was the pitching equivalent of Eddie Van Halen, a man with a strange personality and a fiery life, but behind that a sheer unparalleled genius that will span generations. Pedro Martinez, like Eddie, did things once thought imagineable. Martinez's change-up was like Eddie's tapping. Martinez's curveball had movement that evoked the great Koufax or Gibson. Martinez combined elements of all great pitchers, but added to it a small frame that made him seem even more historic. The stats are ludicrous. In a 7-year stretch, at the absolute height of the steroid era, Pedro averaged (162-gm average) the following:

17-5; 2.20 ERA; 0.940 WHIP; 252 Ks; 45 BBs.

Martinez's season in 2000, where he had an ERA of 1.74 (league average was 4.80), might be the best pitching season ever. For a comparison, by ERA+, he was 30% better than Bonds was in his 2001 season. Martinez faced a collection of hitters in a period where hitting was never made easier, and made them all look silly. Pedro Martinez did what Koufax did, but did it differently, combine fire and ice, fury and magic, brilliance and brawn. Pedro was a true genius, one that we may never see again.

My 30 Favorite International Cities

The last time I did this was late in 2013, following my Round the Trip world. I don't know why I'm choosing now to update the list, but it is now expanded to 30 cities, and adds four new places that I've visited the last two years, and then an additional forgotten gem from my Round the World Trip.

I’m going to rank my top-30 cities to visit that I have been to. Take this more of a recommendation list, as in I would recommend the cities in the following order to someone who hasn’t visited them based on my experience visiting them. With that, obviously, only cities I have visited make the list, and visited means more than two days. I’m rating them on the following criteria: the places to see in the city, the ease of access of the city (public transport – much more important internationally when renting a car is more of a precarious idea – and the city’s airport or entrance system), their joi de vievre (a fancy way of saying ‘how would this city be to just chill out in), their weather and overall appearance, and some other factors. There’s no formula here, though.

This is heavily weighted by the amount of time I’ve spent in a city, and what age I was when I visited there. These rules hurt London, while help Madrid, because I’ve spent all of three days in London as a person of legal age, while spent more time in Madrid. It really hurts some other European cities, like Frankfurt, Zurich, Rome, Milan, places I’ve been to as a kid of 9-11.

Again, these are ranked as cities I would visit (all of them I have visited), not where I would live. I would live in Geneva, but probably not visit again because there isn’t much to do, it is cold, and some other reasons. There are places that I wish I could rank because from what I’ve heard from family/friends that have been there they seem really good, like Moscow, Berlin and Hamburg, and when I visit them, I will update this list. Also irrelevant is the ease of getting to this city. Singapore isn’t hurt because it is the farthest commonly visited location from NYC than any other place, and London isn’t helped because it is 6 hours away.

A city includes sites and destinations that are a reasonable distance away, so Barcelona won’t get credit for the Playas that are 2-3 hours away (and are closer to Valencia), and Athens won’t get credit for Ephesus which is 3 hours away, but London would get credit for Stratford (or whatever it’s called where Shakespeare is from, or Oxford – and Rome gets credit for the Vatican, which for being a different country, is totally part of Rome) which is reasonably close.

30.) Da Lat (2013)

The little hamlet high above the Vietnamese hills, Da Lat was probably the most pleasant surprise of any place on my trip. The city itself is modeled after European cities, with parks, downtown circles and even a model Eiffel Tower. The surrounding areas houses more traditional Vietnamese fair, like temples, Buddhas, waterfalls and even roller coasters, all underneath a cool mountain air. Da Lat's hills hide many nice restaurants, bars and clubs. It isn't nearly as loud or as famous as Ho Chi Minh, Nha Trang or Hanoi, but Da Lat may be the most pure mix of Asia and Europe that I have seen. Also, it has an incredibly nice airport given the just six flights that fly there each day.


29.) Penang (2013)

There are positives and negatives to Penang, and depending how important the positives are relative to the negatives to you, Penang could rise or fall on your rankings. Personally, food and culture are really important to me, and Penang has both in spades. It may be a little overrated with food, but the seafood night markets that litter both Georgetown (the main city) and the beaches (all within an hour or so from Georgetown) are wonderful. The Nyonya food in Penang is far better than that in Kuala Lumpur. There is enough to see, including a nice little trek in Georgetown to some interesting historical buildings (the Cheong Fat Tze is a nice highlight). Of course, Penang is also very crowded, slightly dirty and the beaches themselves are quite barren. In the end, I find this fair for what I still consider a great eating spot.

 
28.) Hong Kong (2003)

Hong Kong has little to do in terms of historical sights. With a couple countries claiming ownership of Hong Kong, they have done a nice job removing any ties to any country. Still, it has arguably the best skyline in the world (though after the new WTC complex is finished in all its glory, NYC will have a good claim to that spot), and being situated in front of and on a mountain gives it some excellent views. Their airport in universally hailed as great, and the gambling capital of Asia (Macau) is just a ferry ride away. But still, picking a place to be higher than 15^th given its total lack of history, or its lack of any particular brand of brilliance other than its propensity to build really tall buildings just feels wrong.


27.) Udaipur (2013)

Our first new city on the list is my 2nd Indian city on the list. As somehow who hated traveling in India, picking a city that is in one of the hottest areas in the country, and a city I visited during their hot dry season, this high might seem surprising. Well, I can't recommend Udaipur, along with Rajasthan as a hole, enough. The city has some beautiful scenery being built on a far more hilly area of the country than you would expect. They have famous lakes that hold famous hotels built on famous castles. They have nice food and street shows that line the corridors of the inner city. THere's the strange love for the movie Octopussy, where screenings are shown nightly. There's a beautiful palace inside the city. And I'll stretch my 'sites withing 1.5 hours count' rule by saying that the Jain Temple at Ranakpur was incredible - and in any modern country it would be within 1.5 hours.


26.) Florence (2003)

I’ll admit that Florence should probably be higher on this list, but it is my list of favorite cities that I would recommend. This is a strange combination, because personal favorites are wholly subjective, while cities that you recommend should be somewhat objective. Anyway, my problem with Florence is I’m not really into art, and if you aren’t than there is little to do in Florence. If you like art, specifically really detailed portraits from the renaissance era, then you will love Florence. If you don’t, then it will be something of a bore to a disappointment.

25.) Munich (2000 & 2009)

I have a strange history with quite a few international cities, and Munich is another one. I had both my 9^th and 18^th Birthday in Munich (in related news, I’m pretty sure where you can find me on April 7^th, 2018). The first during my initial trip to that part of the world, and the 2^nd on the penultimate day of our Orchestra’s tour of Austria (we flew out of Munich). Berlin is supposedly a great, modern city, but out of all the cities I have been to in Germany, Munich is by far the best. It is incredibly modern, and getting increasingly so, with modern architecture abound. It is the only European city with a skyline that can compare to those in the US (not a crucial factor, but still nice). The downside is there is little to see and that German food isn’t that good. Either way, Munich will always be the place to spend any birthday that is a multiple of nine, and for that alone, it gets on the list.


24.) Paris (2006) 

There’s obviously a ton to see in Paris, and the city center around the Eifel Tower, on either side of River Sein, is beautiful. Paris is a probably a city that certain people would love, but I am not one of them. Of course, I liked it enough to put ahead of some damn good cities, mostly on the ridiculous amounts of things to see alone. I actually don’t remember much of my Paris trip, which is strange given its relative recency, but I do remember thinking one day in the Louvre was far from enough, and the city center of Paris containing some of the best architecture of any European city. A lot of these European cities are impacted by my like or dislike of footballers from that region (I know, that sounds stupid, and it is), and Paris gets a boost for being the hometown to Zinedine Zidane.

23.) Mexico City (2014)

I put 2014 there, but I went to Mexico City two different times, staying in two different areas of that expansive, massive, festive city. Far safer than most areas of Mexico, La Cuidad is incredibly impressive. There are tons of historical sites, like the entire Zocalo, the Chapultepec, and La Reforma. Mexico City also has a wealth of food options, with incredibly authentic Mexican fare from around the country, including the incredible Oaxacan food. Really fun night spot as well. Mexico City blew me away also with its strange, mysterious beer culture. The City is a sprawling testament to how secretly, behind the dangerous cartels that line the exterior, the soft interior of Mexico is a gorgeous, cultural attraction that is bettered by so few cities.


22 & 21.) Prague/Budapest (2000)

These two are kind of blended together for me. I visited them essentially right after each other, both 13 years ago so my memory of each is a little hazy. I remember both for mainly positives. They are both beautiful cities, with lovely rivers running through them. They have some stuff to see, but not a whole lot. They are more affordable than the major cities in Western Europe, which is a plus (but also English –at least then – is not very transferrable to there). Budapest has some great food (Goulash!), while Prague is a pilgrimage for Catholics. 


20.) Phnom Penh (2013)

I lied when I said that Da Lat was the biggest surprise of the trip. Phnom Penh was. I wasn't expecting too much from Canbodia's capital, but the mix of history, good and bad, food, nightlife and surprising urbanity made Phnom Penh a real highlight for me. I really loved Cambodian food, and it was at its best in Phnom Penh, a perfect mix of Malay and Thai cuisine. Phnom Penh itself embraced its own history, not shying away from the terrible acts of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, maintaining multiple areas in the city to pay tribute to those who died. The rest of the city pays tribute to the rich culture of Cambodia that preceded the destruction, with large pagodas in beautiful parks and nice museums. Phnom Penh also has a nice riverfront area that is really, really lively at night. Add into all of this that the currency of choice in the Dollar, and you get a really nice, underrated city.


19.) Panama City (2012)

My highest ranking Caribbean city probably could be higher, but I’ve been to a lot of great European cities so I don’t want to get crazy. I went to Panama with really low expectations, and I was blown away. It has a really impressive skyline, one that holds its own even if you forget that it is a poor latin country. It has great food of different cuisines. It has a ton to see, with the Panama Canal and the rainforest both falling into its sights. Other than Calgary (which I talked about in the last list) I don’t know if any trip I’ve gone on has been such a surprise as Panama, the Caribbean’s only truly modern city.


18.) Berlin (2014)

Berlin is the only German city I've gone to as an adult, and from what I read it was a good one to pick. The city is sprawling, and has covered it's whole 'we had a giant wall' thing with some really modern buildings and a few nice memorials. But what it also hides is an incredible city. The main squares, or platzes are all incredible, including that entire stretch between the Brandenburg Gate, through the Tiergarten, and ending with the Berlin Island. There are various areas of the city with incredible churches, restaurants, bars (and bars, and bars) and historical buildings. The city houses some fascinating museums that touch on the long, varying history of Germany is a country. Berlin as a city is too big to do in 3 days like I did, but it is definitely alluring enough to go back.


17.) Melbourne (2013)

Melbourne could be a Top-10 city to spend four or five days in. There is not too much to do, but enough to keep you occupied. If you like sports, which I do, then it is even better. Melbourne tries to lay claim to the Sporting Capital of the World, and when you mix together one of Tennis' four main tournaments with the 2nd most famous Cricket Ground (and most famous Aussie Rules ground) in the world right next door, it is hard to argue. Melbourne's riverfront is a beautiful area, with amazing views of the city around it. It's food options are endless, with really good Asian cuisine throughout the city. The nightlife seemed nice enough. It also has some really beautiful scenery around an hour of its boundaries, with beautiful parks, wine regions and the Great Ocean Road. Add into that Philipp Island, which just hits the cutoff to be included with Melbourne, and you get a solid, Top-15 city.


16.) Turin (2015)

I was close to picking Parma, as then I could include the Parma cheese factories, but picking Turin allows me to count the Piedmont wine country, and those little towns that dot it. Turin the city though, is a understated version of how incredible Italy is. It has the requisite churches and squares, but also has the open palacial squares and river-fronts that you normally associate with other countries in Europe. It has some incredible little hamlets of food, with great options for eating throughout the day (some excellent tea joints). My favorite place in Turin actually wasn't one of the two main squares, but Piazza Vittorio Veneto, one that borders the river with an amazing view of the city behind it. It was the last place we went to in Turin, an incredible capper to an unexpected amazing day in a great city.


15.) Tokyo (2013)

As a tourist, I don't care what the work and life culture are of the people in the city, and good thing, because if I did I may hate Tokyo. To see people in full suit in the subway at 11 PM coming home from work is jarring. But this isn't about any of that, it is about Tokyo the city, and it is a really fabulous metropolis. Tokyo is sprawling, in a way that makes New York seem small. There are really bustling regions like Shinjuku, really fun late night spots like Roppongi. There is a ton to see, and great food options. The food may be more corporate than traditional and homestyle in Tokyo, but that isn't all bad. The biggest complaint with Tokyo is just the size. It is so big that it is tiring to navigate at times, getting from one end to the other. Even with the reliability and the local JR Train lines, it takes time to get around. Good thing that most regions have enough to do to spend half a day there anyway. One last point, I thought Times Square was bright, until I went to Ginza.


14.) Vienna (2000 & 2009)

The 2^nd time I went to Vienna was on my high school’s Orchestra’s tour of Austria during my Senior year, and much of my high ranking for Vienna is based on that trip. There is a ton of history in Vienna, with the music scene being located there (Mozart and Beethoven’s houses), with the adjoining arts scene with a bevy of theatres. If you like classical music, then Vienna is heaven. I am including the adorable little town of …… where we performed, which was half an hour outside Vienna. The best part of Vienna is how modern it is. The city center has some of the largest streets and public squares of anywhere in Europe, with grand architecture all around. The food isn’t great, but it is no worse than Germany and Switzerland, and Austria is generally less expensive. It took a second trip to get acclimated with Vienna’s charms, but they are there, and plentiful.


13.) Bangkok (2003 & 2013)

Here’s the gist of what I remember from Bangkok: nice Wats to see, incredible food, up all night, eating all the time. Bangkok is a food-lover’s paradise, especially for those who like Thai food. Bangkok is also close to areas where you can do all those Asia type things like ride elephants and see the jungle. The weather is surprisingly decent for a city in Southeast Asia, and from what I remember it is pretty easy to navigate. My thoughts regarding Bangkok have indeed changed with my one-plus day visit. The city is better than I remembered, with sprawling malls, an advanced metro system, and new urban centers. The weather isn’t quite as good, as it is still hard to get to different parts of the city, but the city center of Bangkok is about as good as any I’ve seen in Asia.

12.) Goa (2011 & 2013)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, my initial ranking of Goa was a little ridiculous. It was built off of an admittedly awesome trip to Goa in 2011, but that was a perfect storm. We were staying in the best part of Goa for a first timer who loves food on beaches at 2 AM. I was fresh off of an alcohol cleanse (which of course came after the opposite of an alcohol cleanse), and was greeted with $0.50 beer. Goa still has all those things, but I quickly realized upon my second visit that the area of Goa you stay in makes a huge difference. Stay too far South and you get isolated beaches, which I am sure are nice to some, but they don't have the same nightlife and food options littering the beach. Instead, they have litter littering the beach. Stay in the right part of Goa and it is amazing, the wrong part and it is merely OK. Still, it is unlike anything else in India, and for that it will always be in my part.


11.) London (1999, 2000 & 2010)

I probably should just go to London more, because both my Dad and my Sister, who lived there, swear by London as an incredible city. But again, I’m not ranking this by how livable they are, but how good they are as tourist destinations. London definitely has enough to see, including the nicely compact Royal stuff (palace, parliament, other stuff), and a neatly packed city center (West End, Trafalgar Square, other stuff I’m forgetting), but it is a little too big. It’s subway system is clean, but doesn’t have the expansiveness that it needs (something I give huge credit to the NYC Subway System for, no matter how dirty it is). Of course, it is damn expensive, and the weather is mostly lousy. It may get better with more trips, but I think London is too big for its own good, and a little too confused, as it tries to be both Rome and New York.


10.) Krakow (2014)

By rule I like smaller cities over sprawling ones. Well, while there are expanses to Krakow that extend in all directions, almost everything worth seeing in the city is in a 10x10 block radius circling the best city square (Rynek Glowny) I have seen in Europe. When you get a city that has (their claim) more bars per capita than any in the world, combine that with amazing open space and roadside/streetside restaurants, and an economy that does not use the Euro and is far cheaper than comparale cities in Western Europe, you get a pretty fantastic city. Also, you want history near its borders, you get Auschwitz about 2 hours away. Krakow is an incredible secondary city, arguably the best secondary city I've ever been to. The beer, food and endless beautiful women makes it Top-25; the sites, easily walkable goegraphy, and amazing history (Copernicus lived there too) makes it Top-10.


9.) Kyoto (2013)

Kyoto is the 3rd biggest City in Japan, but resembles so little of Tokyo (the biggest city) that makes it seem like a different country. Sure, the food options and the bustle is still there, but Kyoto, in some ways, is like a supersized Siem Reap. The real highlight of Kyoto is the ridiculous amounts of Temples and historical Japanese buildings. All of these are encircling the downtown area of Kyoto. Of course, that downtown is quite large, with beautiful malls, tall buildings with summer beer gardens (umlimited beer buffets for $30) and plentiful up-scale food options. Kyoto even has the most expansive Geisha area of Japan. Kyoto is the perfect city to experience what people's idea of Japan is, temples and pagodas and sushi, oh my!


8.) Rome (2003)

Speaking of Rome, history’s most famous city checks in next. I haven’t spent any time in Rome as an adult, but I don’t think Rome is the type of city that would change much from an adult’s perspective. It is good for its history and sites first, and if you like Italian cuisine, the food second. If you include the Vatican, and as a Catholic I do, in Rome, then there is even more to see, as you have two different parts of history, the formation of the Catholic Church in the awe-inspiring Vatican grounds near and inside St. Peter’s Basilica, and the Roman history which is very well kept up. I can’t remember how their public transport was, and we went in December, so the weather was bad, but I don’t think it is a very big city. And then there is that food. I don’t want personal biases like my ambivalence towards Italian food to sway this. Many do like Italian food, and the city is even better for those people. That said, what hurts Rome in my book is I think it is too dependent on the sites, and if you aren’t there on a religious pilgrimage, I can’t imagine the allure of going to Rome more than once.

7.) Athens (2010)

So Athens is very much like its historical partner, Rome, with a few less sites, a lot less crowds, less expensive, and with better weather. So does that whole equation spit out a better city? In my mind, it does. Part of this has to do with visiting Athens at the perfect time (19, during March) and Rome not (13, during December), but Athens has it all. It has a lot to see, but not so much that sightseeing takes over the trip. It has a city that is hard to navigate by car and by walking, but has an adequate subway system. It has excellent food, and a great environment that bursts with fun and enjoyment. Just a grand old time in Athens, as I’m sure it was 2,500 years ago.


6.) Singapore (2012 & 2013)

Singapore is one of those places that has to be seen to be believed. There is no city any cleaner. There is no city as tightly situated while having enough external attractions. There is no city better built for a short stay. What doesn’t Singapore have? It has a theme park for kids. A bird park (highly recommended) and a night safari for kids and adults. It has a brand new casino for adults. It has a centralized bar/pub/club area near the waterfront. It has a preponderance of food from really, really cheap to really expensive. It has livable weather year-round. It also has the most interesting and enjoyable airport I’ve ever been to (there is a pool and gym that everyone can use for free in it!), and the cleanest, best organized subway system I’ve seen. So why is Singapore only #3? Because there isn’t that much to do, and Singapore’s not cheap enough to just sit around and eat/drink/do nothing. The sights have no historical resonance, and are replicated in other cities. Still, for a period less than a week, there is no better city to visit.


5.) Sydney (2013) 

Take the weather and leisurely attitude of Australia, combine the waterfront facade of a Chicago, add some pub and club nightlife of any city in Europe and you get Sydney, a city that combines the great aspects of every major city I have been too. It doesn't have a true culture of its own which hurts it in my mind. What I really mean by that is, much like the problems I have with England, there are too many similarities to the US. You don't really feel you are in a foreign city too much. Of course, that all changes when you walk towards the Opera House, or go to the night spots with the Australians out partying, or eat great meats. Sydney is a wonderful city, probably the most livable of any in the Top-10 (of course, it is helped by being English-Speaking), but sometimes I would sacrifice livability for uniqueness, which is why it isn't any higher.


4.) Barcelona (2007)

I really want to go to Barcelona again, because it could easily be #1. All the ingredients are there. Pristine weather. A people who don’t care about life, making the tourist experience more fun. Good beaches within reach. Stuff to see. An airport that is easily reachable and a city that is easily maneuverable. My issues with Barcelona (other than my dislike for the Blaugrana) are simple. There isn’t a lot to see in terms of history, mainly because the Catalans want their own history so they destroyed or shunned any Spanish national history. Barcelona is a nice city in terms of seeing the sights for a day or two and then doing nothing the rest of the time, but I do want more from my cities.

3.) Istanbul (2007)

Istanbul is kind of a secret still, but there is really nothing to complain about. It has a waterfront, an easily accessible city center, a lot to see (the palaces, the Bosphuros, the Red & Blue Mosques). Istanbul also has a brilliant food scene, with both Muslim and Meditterannean influences but all sorts of bases (including a ton of seafood). There is little to separate any of the cities this high in the list. My only knock on Istanbul would be the public transport is lacking without a proper Subway (this could have changed since my last visit). Overall, Istanbul combines the palate and affordability of Asia, with the energy and cleanliness of Europe, the best of both worlds.


2.) Cape Town (2013)

I've been wondering whether doing Cape Town first helped increase my perceptions of it. I was at my most curious and excited at the start of the trip. Then, I remember everything amazing about Cape Town, like the incredible scenery and breathtaking views, the active harbor and Long Street areas (for the youngsters among us), the great food of every type and the wine region to one side with the Cape of Good Hope below it. Cape Town is a special place on the total other side of the word (laterally speaking). I've really never been any place quite like it, which is why I want to go back there more than any place in the world.


1.) Madrid (2001 & 2010)

I’ll never forget Madrid. It was where I turned 10 years old, in April of 2001. It was where I saw my first naked woman in real life, as I saw two nude woman near the pool in Madrid (given my age and their age, this wasn’t a good thing). It was where I first traveled alone, and where I learned the inherent joy of visiting a place a 2^nd time. Barcelona might be more ‘fun’, but I can’t think of a place that combines everything I want from a city more than Madrid. Madrid has a dependable airport, and a dependable subway system. More than that, the city is small enough in its center that you can easily walk from the Prado side on the East, to the Palace on the West and not break a sweat. It has some of Spain’s best museums. There is more than enough to see. And, of course, you are still very much in Spain. It isn’t as relaxed as Barcelona, but is just as Spanish, with open squares, easy food and drink,  a lot of youngsters (and a lively area for them at night). This wasn’t a criteria, but a lot of people speak English there to boot. Madrid is basically a perfect city. Small enough to walk, with enough sites to not get bored, enough food to not go hungry, and a relaxed, but not too relaxed nature that you won’t ever get tired of doing nothing for an afternoon or two.

Djokovic's Place

Following Novak Djokovic's 4-set win over Roger Federer in the 2015 Wimbledon Final, a somewhat placcid affair overall after the dramatics of their match one year ago, I engaged a couple friends in a nice debate. The debate was, how many majors does Novak Djokovic end up with, and how many does he need to realistically be compared favorably to Rafael Nadal?

As an unabashed Nadal fan, this question hurts. It doesn't hurt because I don't want to admit Novak is a truly special player, one who is very close to Top-5 all time; but because I never wanted to have to entertain this question.

A quick side-bar; about 15 months ago, right before the 2014 French Open, I made a bet with a friend. The bet was that over the course of the next 7 slams (through 2015), Roger Federer would not win a Grand Slam. My friend is a huge Federer fan, and the bet was $50 bucks. I'll admit Federer's given me way more scares than I could have imagined, but with only one slam left - a slam he hasn't made the Final in since 2009 - I'm fairly confident. Following that year's French Open, when Nadal was his 14th title, having just won two of the last three, making the Final in Australia and being the #1 in the word, I made a more outrageous career bet. It pains me that 5 slams later, not only am I likely losing that career bet, but the question of can Djokovic catch Nadal has to be considered.

Anyway, so given that Novak won his 3rd Wimbledon, his 9th overall slam (moving him past the Connors-Lendl-Agassi group and into a new stratosphere), what does he have to do exactly to get to that level. And, can you start the argument now?

Here are the points in Djokovic's favor. He's been far more consistent over the past 8 years than Rafa Nadal. He's made it to at least the QFs of every slam since the French Open in 2009. He's had a streak of making the semifinals in 14 straight slams. He will almost assuredly end this season at #1, giving him a 4th year-end #1 ranking. He already has more weeks at #1 than Rafael Nadal.

Of course, here are the points in Nadal's favor at the moment: He's won 5 more slams (not meaningless at all). He's completed a career slam, along with a Gold Medal. He's won on more different surfaces. He has a better record in majors, in major finals, in everything, The differences between the two in terms of consistency essentially come down to Nadal's injuries, and his odd inability to play on grass in recent years. Nadal has a slim overall head-to-head lead on Djokovic, but a lead of 9-4 in grand slam matches; couple that with his 9-2 record against Federer, and you're talking about a guy who is 18-6 against two of the other top-6/7 players of all time in Grand Slam matches. By the way, that 9-4 record includes a record of 2-2 on hard court, and 1-1 on grass.

But then it comes to what does Novak realistically have to accomplish, and can he. Any additional slam Nadal wins makes it that much harder, but does Nadal really have slams left in him (I think so, but it can be debated). Novak has to win five more slams to catch Nadal. 5 is a lot. Djokovic has been the unquestioned best player in the world from 2012-15. In that period he's won just 5 slams. He turned 28 this year, and while he just won a slam, we have to look no further than Nadal and Federer to see how important that 28 year age is.

Rafa Nadal won the 2014 French Open the week after turning 28; he hasn't won a slam since. Roger Federer turned 28 in August 2009. He had just won the two slams right before that, and would go on to win the Australian Open as a 28 years old - he's won just one major since despite staying healthy. Age hasn't beaten Federer, but it certainly effected him. It will to Djokovic too.

Even if we assume Novak will get a French Open to complete his career slam, does Novak have to pass Nadal to be considered his equal? What helps Novak is the overall head-to-head (especially if we assume Novak ends up catching Nadal) will be likely close; Novak will likely overtake Nadal's record of Masters 1000 tournament wins (right now it is 27-24 Nadal); and will have many more weeks at #1; but Nadal would likely still have a better winning percentage, and a better head-to-head in Grand Slam matches.

But personally I don't see Novak catching Nadal. Djokovic does look far and away the best player in the World - he is far and away the best; but we have two recent examples of his failings.

Here's what I think I can say: Novak Djokovic is arguably the best best-of-three all-court player in teh sports history. That, though, doesn't translate perfectly into best-of-five. He's just 9-8 in Grand Slam Finals (Federer is 17-9; Nadal is 14-6). He's lost recently in Slams to players he dominates in best-of-three situations (Murray twice, Wawrinka, Nishikori). He has an odd habit of randomly playing a weird, aloof, flighty match in major tournaments. As good as he's been in the past four years following his once-in-a-lifetime 2011, the slam count since 2012 is Djokovic 5 to Nadal 4.

Then the young guys will, at some point, start playing better. We've already seen one of them, Nishikori, beat Novak in a slam match, but guys like Dimitrov, Raonic, Coric, all of these guys are young and entering their primes as Novak reaches the back nine of his prime. They won't all beat him, but they will sometimes - and sometimes is enough. Sometimes is enough especially when you consider that Novak has lost, or been taken to 5, by Murray and Wawrinka in slams, and that Nadal may not be done yet.

It is a strange position to be in - Djokovic is far and away the best player currently, and he's still likely going to be remembered as the 3rd best player of his era. We think of him as an era behind Federer and Nadal; and to some degree he is. When Djokovic made his first Slam Final, the 2007 US Open, Federer was going for his 9th. But Nadal is just one year older; and to put it into perspective how far he is behind Nadal's pace, when Nadal was the same age that Djokovic is currently, he had 14 majors. Nadal's injuries over the past 12 months give Novak an opportunity to make up that gap, but he has to be peerless.

At times he looks peerless. At times, like in the 3rd and 4th set yesterday, he looks unbeatable. His 46-3 record this year shows that as well; but he is beatable, as Wawrinka showed as well - a match he dominated roughly to the same degree Novak dominated yesterday. Djokovic remains the best player in the world, he should finally start getting his due as a guy who should be a Top-5 all time when it is all said and done, but he has just enough peers that I don't think we'll have to entertain the question of Djokovic or Nadal.

Good Night Snake

For Raiders fans (or ex-Fans like me), nostalgia is really the only way we can get by. It is the only thing we have. Back before the internet, before Twitter, before shut-gun based offenses, the Raiders were a power franchise. They were the winningest team by record in the 1970's. They won 10+ games for a long, long time. They were a band of renegades, or outlaws, of unwanteds; a mix and match of amazing talent and amazing personalities.

Who embodied the Raiders? Sure, the obvious answer is Al Davis. There's no real debate there; how could anyone be a better renegade than a man who successfully sued the league he was a part of. But beyond Al, on the field, it doesn't get more Silver and Black than Kenny Stabler.

There were better players on the Raiders - a franchise with a score of HOFers, including Stabler's own teammates like Jim Otto, Art Shell, Gene Upshaw, Willie Brown and Fred Biletnikoff, but those guys were known more for their ability than their personality. Stabler was the opposite, which made him what the Raiders should be.

There are so many Ken Stabler stories that people don't even know, which is amazing given how many stories there are about his antics and personality and championship-level partying. Ken Stabler was Joe Namath without the press, but with as much game. He was a noted partyer, drinker, and lovemaker. The stores of him in a bar the night before the game, playbook in one hand, and mug of beer in the other. The best part was 12 hours later he was leading a team that all they did was win 10+ games year after year.

Stabler may not have made the Hall of Fame (we'll get to that in a minute), but make no mistake of his deserving case. In his 10 years in Oakland (1970-1979), he went 69-26-1 as a starter, had a Y/A of 7.7, threw TDs on 6.0% of his passes; and had a QB rating of 80.2 with a completion percentage of 59.9%. Those are, given this was the 1970's, outrageous numbers.

For that decade, a decade where the Raiders made 5 AFC Championship Games and won a Super Bowl, Stabler ranked #3 in TDs (behind Tarkenton and Staubach), #1 in Y/A, #4 in passer rating (behind Staubach, Bob Griese and Bert Jones), and #1 in completion percentage. Please, don't tell me he didn't deserve a HOF spot. Maybe he wasn't as good as Staubach, Bradshaw, Griese and Tarkenton, but he is right there with Ken Anderson as the best QB not currently in the HOF.

Stabler's best season personally also happened to be the best season for the Raiders. After losing three straight AFC Championship Games in 1973, 1974 and 1975, the Raiders entered 1976 with a can't win the big one label. That year, the Raiders went 13-1 and then rolled through the playoffs. They ended the season 16-1, the second best record in teh Super Bowl era at the time. Stabler himself had a season that was basically unheard of in 1976.

In 1976, Stabler completed 66.7% of his passes (basically like if someone went 73% in 2015), with a TD% of 9.3 of his throws (2nd best all time behind Manning in '04), and a passer rating of 103.4. Having someone play the whole season and do that in the 70's was like what Marino did in 1984.

At his best he was that good. At his best he was also that infamous. Yet despite the hard partying, the great play, he was always a bit under the radar. He was not as notable a womanizer as Joe Namath, and not as notable a player as Staubach; but he was the closest anyone came to doing both at the same time. Kenny Stabler had the memorable games, the memorable personality, and the great performance. Can we get this guy in teh Hall of Fame please!

It is amazing that for a franchise with the amount of success as the Raiders, they've never had a QB make it to the Hall of Fame. Stabler should be the first, and he likely is the best QB the franchise has ever had. He was a Raider for life, a guy that Al Davis swore by; that his more talented, lettered teammates revered. Ken Stabler lived a good life, and I wish he rest in peace; or rest in action, living life and having fun like he always had.

Will This Make the Spurs Hated?

I don't know when it started, but for a while now people have thought the Spurs might be active players in FA. Maybe it was the most apparent aging yet for Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, or the tough luck loss in the 1st round to the Clips, of maybe it was just the idea that it was time to make one last. Whatever it was, for the first time I could remember, the Spurs were expected to do something.

Well, they did.

The Spurs were always big favorites for LMA assuming they could clear the cap space. Somehow though, the equation to keep the cap space meant still keeping Danny Green at a reduced rate, and losing a lot of players. What were the players? There's Corey Joseph, the guy many though was going to replace Patty Mills as the main backup PG. There's Marco Belinelli, who had some nice moments but was overall replaceable. And then there was Jeff Ayres, the main the Spurs tried out as the next Tiago Splitter. Of course, there was also Tiago Splitter, leaving a nice whole for good old LaMarcus Alridge to fill.

But the real story started when the Spurs signed David West for the league minimum. You just don't do that without ruffling some feathers around the league. Soon the stories started. The Spurs are ruining the league, reducing all other competition to little minnows. The Spurs were charged wth playing an unfair game; charged with convincing someone to sign for the minimum. Charged with doing what the Heat did, or all the other teams that were accused of unfairly stockpiling talent for way under market.

But is there really a problem with that. Is there a real issue with the Spurs having created such a good culture, such a good environment for players to excel far beyond their wildest abilities, that maybe they should be rewarded for creating that culture. David West didn't give up money just to chase a title. He did it to chase a title in a place that was going to make his life fun, to give him the freedom to play less minutes, monitor his health, and rest a body that has banging starter minutes for 12 years.

When we get past all the 'Are the Spurs cheating the system' questions, we have to ask ourselves whether this will actually work. The Spurs have relied on depth, something the lost some of this last offseason with other teams stealing away Joseph, Belinelli, Ayres and Splitter. Of course, those guys themselves represent one mid-level free agent signing, one stash player, and two low draft picks. More than anything else, that is the Spurs way. They have the most depth because they develop in. Aaron Baynes can take over for Jeff Ayres. Kyle Anderson can get better. And now they can run this as their second unit:

PG: Mills
SG: Ginobili
SF: Diaw
PF: West
C: Baynes

That's somehow better depth than they had last season, better than they even had during the Title season two years ago. The Spurs are ready, they are loaded. This is going to be a fun 15-16 season... just don't say they broke the system.

The Astros: The Best is Still Yet to Come

I wrote about the Astros back in May. They were 20-12 at the time. They had an expected w-l of 18-14. They were not lucky, but also seemingly playing over their head and having the good fortune of a nice 32 game sample.

Now here we sit, just over halfway through the season, the Astros are 48-36 (28-24 since that first post), with a pythagoreon record of the same. They've not had a long enough sample that the expectation is this is a playoff team. Fangraph's gives them a 75% chance of making the playoffs. They have the 2nd best run differential in the AL, and the best pythagoreon record. They are definitely now not a fluke. Sure, they can still make the playoffs. They can have a September collapse like the 2010 Padres or 2012 Pirates, but chances are they won't. So how do I feel about this team now? Largely the same. This season is not about October, it isn't about making a run for it; it is about another step in the process towards contention, towards dominance.

The Astros are giving me something I haven't felt since 2005, a sense of optimism. Even in their random 86-win season in 2008, there was a sense that this was not sustainable, a rare oasis in a sea of terrible transactions, moves and decisions. The Astros were a horribly run franchise, one that unendingly chose to make moves for the present and sacrifice the future, which works even worse when the moves made for the present fail spectacularly. That all is behind us. They are now among the best run teams in baseball - one that uses analytics, scouting expertise and savvy to build a team with few real weaknesses, good enough to be a true contender in the mediocre AL.

The Astros have none of their 9 top position players with an OPS+ below 80. They have no truly awful hitter, as even Chris Carter and Luis Valbuena have hit for enough power to make up for their ghastly batting averages. They also have four players well above 100, five if you include Jed Lowrie who should be back after the all-star break.

They have an ace in Dallas Kuechel, who leads all AL Pitchers in WAR since the start of 2014 (no, that is not a misprint). Lance McCullers has been great since his call-up. Colin McHugh's peripherals are better than his overall numbers; and they have the 2nd best bullpen in the AL. Combine it all and the Astros have the 4th best ERA in the AL.

When you combine a team with the 4th best ERA in the AL, and the 4th best OPS in the AL, you have a good team. They do a couple things better than anyone, including hit home runs, attack low and away on opposing batters, and defense ground balls. When you do three things better than anyone else, you probably will win enough games in a league where 90 will basically guarantee you a playoff spot.

Still, though, I'm not getting too excited. First, this has been a .500 team for a month now, and the Angels sit just two games back in the loss column. Second, this is still not about this year.

And that brings to me the man I hven't mentioned yet: Carlos Correa. He's the prodigy, he's the guy who was the biggest sign that the Astros rebuild is over, and contention has started. This is what I wrote about Correa's potential call-up in May:

He was promoted to AAA today, and there is a chance he's in the major's this year. That's faster than anticipated, but if it does happen, I don't want it to be because the team wants to squeeze out a few games.

Well, he wasn't brought in just to win a couple games - by WAR he's done that already.

Carlos Correa has been better than I ever could have imagined. Through 25 games played, he's at a .315/.339/.593 mark, with 16 extra-base hits in 25 games, including 7 home runs. He shows prodigous hitting ability, with perfect hitting balance. He plays a clean, if unspectacular short-stop, which is pretty darn good given his 6'4" frame. He's fast, lithe, and unique. He's a young A-Rod (and yes, he's not as good). He's already likely the best shortstop in the AL. He's also 20.

Carlos Correa was kind of infamously taken in what was perceived to be an attempt by the Astros to under-pay the top pick and save money to sign a guy who slipped because of signability. That all did happen; the Astros paid Correa under slot and used the extra bonus money to pay over-slot for Lance McCullers; but Correa has been incredible, well deserving for his #1 draft pick status.

Correa was the final piece, but the one's that came before have all been good. Lance McCullers has been dominant so far; Vincent Velasquez has been spotty but exciting. Domingo Santana has shown more ability than anticipated. It all really started, however, with George Springer, who came up last year. He struck out all the time, but showed ability. This year after a slow start he's become a solid, almost borderline all-star level player. He's improved his patience considerably, with a respectable 2-1 K-BB ratio. He's improved in his fielding and baserunning. He's been on pace for a 5 WAR season. He's also young and under team control for years.

And now he's hurt. That's one reason to temper the excitement, but what I don't want the Astros to do is panic. Sure, they have little depth and these injuries, coupled with inevitable innings limits for McCullers and Velasquez will hurt, but don't panic. Don't trade the rest of the still good farm to get Hamels. Don't do anything dumb. Plug away, hope the current roster is good enough, make a low risk and low commitment return, like get Kazmir for a bag of balls and the #8-9 prospects. Don't ruin what 2015 is starting. Astros fans have waited long enough, we can wait a little bit more.

 

The Blackhawks: The True Dynasty

I picked against the Blackhawks in the Western Conference Finals (Ducks in 7) and the Stanley Cup Final (Lightning in 6). I was wrong both times. I'm not upset to be wrong. I hold nothing against the Blackhawks; they shoved their dominance in my face, in the NHL's face, in everyone's face. The Hawks won the Cup again, doing what they've always done in their three cup runs: grinding teams away in the later stage of the series, pulling away when everyone else is pulling back.

There are a lot of amazing fact and facets to the Blackhawks dynastic last 6 years - and there is no argument, this is a modern dynasty. There's the facet of their core 7 guys, the top seven players that were on each team - Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa, Sharp, Hjalmarsson. That's one top center, two solid two-way wingers, one dynamic winger, and three great defenseman that fit together perfectly. There's the facet of their goaltending, with Corey Crawford now twice outplaying goalies who were Vezina finalists in recent times in the Final without truly being trusted. There's the facet of Coach Q, who's incessant line-switching not only reenergized that team series after series; a game of line switching that he got so good at he at times started dictating matchups on the road. But my favorite as a fact, this fact: In this era, when tied 2-2 in a series, the Blackhawks are 18-1. So not only have they won all those series, only once did they even have to go to Game 7.

The Blackhawks have no real weakness. They aren't the biggest team, but they have the speed and will to get by without being hit happy. The Blackhawks can do basically everything else. They can dominate possession, they can light up the scoreboard when pressed to do so. They can win without their top offensive guys scoring goals. On the other side, they can squeeze offenses down about as well as any other team that prides itself on defense. Note that the last two times the Blackhawks won the Cup they ranked 2nd and 16th in goals scored, but 1st in goals allowed both times. The Blackhawks really could do it all, the logical and geographical heir to the Red Wings from 1995-2008.

The top names have become familiar enough that it underrates how well the Blackhawks have done filling out that roster a few times over. The tear-down the Hawks had to endure after their first Cup is pretty legendary by this point. Back then, before Toews and Kane started getting 'Paid', the Hawks loaded up their roster and built a super team. The 2010 club was amazing, it ran through the playoffs 16-6 (three times sweeping games 5-6 after being tied 2-2), but they knew they were entering cap hell. Gone that offseason were Dustin Byfuglein, Brian Campbell, Andrew Ladd, John Madden, Troy Brouwer, Thomas Kopecky, and Brent Sopel. That is a lot of depth to lose. It showed as the next two years the Hawks struggled with depth issues, and lost in the 1st round to Vancouver and Phoenix. But in those two years they started developing the new depth that would take over the 2013 and 2015 teams.

Brandon Saad, Brian Bickell, Michael Roszival, Andrew Shaw, Johnny Oduya, those are the names of draftees and signings that made up the depth today. They supplemented these with hired guns like Brad Richards or Antoine Vermette. It all worked, though. Toews and Kane were largely shut out of the 2015 Stanley Cup Finals, but Tuevo Teravainen and Antoine Vermette decided to go on a scoring binge. They rotated in the bottom two defenseman, and while they didn't ask much of them they were able to not be totally overmatched in the 15 minutes they had to play. Everything worked, again, for a team that seems to know no bounds when it comes to manufacturing wins.

That last line 'know no bounds when it comes to manufacturing wins' was once said about my New Jersey Devils after they beat the Ottawa Senators in the 2003 Eastern Conference Finals. That Ottawa team won the President's Trophy as the top team in the NHL. They had the league's top offense, and a solid defense. The Devils beat them in Game 7, on the road, after blowing a 3-1 series lead. It truly was the Devils manufacturing a series win. That year capped off a 9-year stretch when they won three Stanley Cups and an additional trip to the Cup Final. The Devils were these Blackhawks. I know what it is like to root for that type of team. And not matter how business-like the Devils were then or the Blackhawks are now, it is still special when they pull this type of thing off.

People are saying that the Blackhawks are unlikely to get back next year with another impending cap crunch coming up, and in a way that is true as the Core 7 will almost definitely be broken up for the first time, whether it is Sharp getting moved, or even Seabrook. Some of the other rentals will likely leave, but will it really matter? Sharp was basically a 3rd line player. They can just move Shaw up, or hope, and more likely than that expect, guys like Teravainen to just get better and make up for it. And of course they still have Toews and Kane.

The franchise's fortunes basically depend on them tanking early in the 2000s, drafting Patrick Kane 1st overall in the 2007 draft, a year after picking Jonathan Toews 3rd overall in the 2006 draft. That 2006 draft is ending up like another famous draft that ended with a Chicago team picking an all-timer with the #3 pick. Right before Toews, the Pittsburgh Penguins, having already gotten Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin in the previous two drafts, decided to pick Jordan Staal - a nice player, but in no way Jonathan Toews. I don't know if Toews would have become the player he did if he went to Pittsburgh, but Chicago definitely wouldn't have become Chicago if they had to take Staal instead.

You can say then that Chicago tanked and got lucky, but it is more than that. Apart from Hossa and Sharp, the core 7 was drafted and developed (and Sharp was nowhere near the player pre-Chicago). They built that team a lot like the 1996-2000 Yankees, which were about as good of a dynasty as I've seen in my lifetime. Those Yankees had their core that they drafted and developed, and then had a bunch of depth and rentals that they bought beacuse they could. It worked a little too well, as the Yankees then turned into a team that basically bought and rented everyone, but the 1996-2000 run was special, and 15 years later this hockey fan has seen another special run.

Cheer for A-Rod? Boo Tiger? Or the Reverse?

Two all time greats, two players that have defined their respective sports over the past 20 years, are in headlines this week. Both players have had their careers tarnished beyond belief - one for his transgressions of the field heightening his strange antics on; the other for transgressions on the field heightening his strange antics off.

Alex Rodriguez has been to hell and back over the past 7 years. 2008 was the first year Alex Rodriguez seemed human. Well, his AL leading .573 slugging would suggest otherwise, but it was the first time since 2000, his last year in Seattle, that he hit the DL. He had just won three MVPs in 5 years. He was the best player in the sport. He then started a long journey to where we are today.

That journey was filled with steroid accusations, steroid admittances, strange times when he tried pinning it on his cousin, and then the revelation three years ago that he had run the 'most disciplined doping cycle' the sport had seen. Despite never failing a drug test, A-Rod was suspended for the entire 2014 season. He was missing his year 38 season. Him breaking the HR mark, which seemed so inevitable when he signed that massive contract during the 2007 World Series, now seemed so far away.

Yes for all the trouble that has befitted A-Rod, Tiger Woods probably has him beat. His life also changed in 2008. That was the year he got hurt, seriously hurt, for the first time. It was also the year he last won a major title. He won the 2008 US Open on one leg, his 14th major win overall, and 12th in 34 tries since 2000. That streak had two ridiculous stretches. The '08 US Open capped off a stretch where he won 6 of 14. Of course before that he won 6 of 9. He left the sport for the rest of 2008. The only thing he's done more of since 2008 than get hurt is have former mistresses turn on him.

Tiger Woods and Alex Rodriguez are similar in a lot of ways. Both, of course, were prodigous talents. Tiger Woods blasted onto the scene as a pro in 1996, winning his first major at 21 in the 1997 Masters. A-Rod, who is the same age, blasted onto the scene as a pro in 1996 as well, putting up a 161+ OPS as a 20-year old.

They are also similar in the boring perfectionism, their manicured persona, their ability to always seem like they're reading off of a teleprompter. They've both had their love lives splattered all over the tabloids - Tiger's having been far more toxic, while A-Rod's far more strange (remember when Cameron Diaz was spotted feeding him in a box during the Super Bowl?). And now, they're both at pivotal moments in their career. A-Rod fought through suspension, fought through the Yankees basically admitting they wanted him gone, only to come back and be the best player on a 1st place team. Tiger fought through his own scandals, but is losing the fight to his body. He just shot an 80 in the 1st round of the US Open, the 3rd worst score of anyone. The thing is, who am I supposed to be upset at, and who am I supposed to pity?

I didn't like the old A-Rod. I found him descipable and laughable in all the ways eeryone else did; and add that on top of being the ultimate sign of the Yankees greed. But through his steroid scandal, through him being made a paraiah, in a way that everyone tried to distance themselves from a man they all profited off of, I grew to like him. I grew to like the way he doubled down on his worst qualities, on his blind faith in his own innocence, on his vapid personality.

A-Rod became the worst version of himself through the suspension, and that drew me to him. I'm not rooting for A-Rod, but it is hard to not root for a guy for whom the Yankees are going to attempt to withhold millions of dollars on performance bonuses for no reason. A-Rod's latest assualt on a hallowed mark, this time 3,000 hits, will be greeted with joy for me.

Tiger on the other hand I feel bad for. I don't feel bad that he got caught cheating, that he had his perfectly fake life crash all around him, that he had his life torn apart. He deserved all those things. He also deserved for the scandals to show his true personality for what it was - a laborious bore off the course, and a cussing jackass on it. What he didn't deserve was then for his body to betray him the way it did. Tiger has rarely been healthy since 2009. The few times he has - most of the 2012-13 seasons - he was the best golfer in the world. He just hasn't been able to win a major.

I pity seeing Woods now. His amazing play from 2000-2008 was so indescribable, so unlike anything golf had seen, it was awful at the time but looking back we didn't appreciate enough. Same with A-Rod really. There is nothing Alex Rodriguez likes to do, or is more natural at, than hitting a baseball. He's been doing that at a ridiculous level his whole life, and at a 'he's one of the best 10 people to do this thing' level for 20 years. Seeing them fight age, fight scandal, and try to do it all over again has been invigorating in the case of A-Rod, and saddening in the case of Tiger.

But then I think, shouldn't I feel happy that Tiger is getting what he deserves, or upset that A-Rod flaunted and cheated the game and is returning a conquering hero? Doesn't Tiger deserve his fate and A-Rod not?

Why I Watch Game of Thrones

Soon after the image of Jon Snow’s blood enwrapping his lifeless body finally left my head, I did a quick checklist of why I still watch this show. This season definitely tested the viewers more than any previously. It broke a few, with quite a few thinkpieces popping up saying ‘I’m done with this show’ after the rape of Sansa committed by Ramsay. That wasn’t the reason why I contemplated my connection to the show. No, I did it because I really wanted to know if it was worth 10 hours (and many more hours reading/listening/researching/debating). Five seasons in, was it really worth it anymore?

This season, it shared a 2-hour block of time with Veep and Silicon Valley. I have no pains in saying that in the last handful of weeks, I looked forward to and enjoyed more the two comedies than Game of Thrones. This was not true in the beginning of the season. I really enjoyed the beginning of Season 5. I thought it was more acute, more structured, more focused, and more themed than any previous season. Cutting out the Bran storyline, limiting the time with the Boltons, opening up Mereen and pairing characters together all over the place. This helped. Overtime that gave way to the same milestone-based show that is brilliant but a bit cold. So, with five seasons in the books, why do I still watch this show?

Actually let’s start with the counter: Why do I have issues when I watch this show:

·         

• The Plot: George RR Martin constructed a breathlessly complex world, with cities and states and regions that all house their own distinctive features and themes. He penned all of this, but in the meantime he forgot to really care about the plot. That’s not always a bad thing. Seinfeld had no plot, after all. But the plot here is so stretched, so circular, that nothing is really getting solved despite so much happening. Take this finale, so much happened, but all that happened is feuds thought dead were re-opened, and stories that were getting fuller took a step back. Two characters with years of lead-up were (likely) killed off. It is more accurate to say, really, that this story has great filler but bad endings.
• The Overall Theme of Negativity: Few great shows have positive world-views (something that made Parks & Recreation so amazing), but few are so negative as Game of Thrones. My all-time favorite show is similarly negative in its general theme (The Wire), but hidden between the decay of Baltimore were so many great moments. Game of Thrones used to have a lot of these moments, and it still does but with the cast of characters and plotlines expanding so much there’s not much time for them
• The War overtaking The Politics: The show was at its best when it becomes about the politics of this magical land, the family drama and connections and marriages and all of that. The show is not at its best when it focuses on the actual warring. Some of the scenes of War are amazing (Blackwater in Season 2, The Watchers on the Wall n Season 4, Hardhome this year) but overall the warring is tiring. It never ends. And now with Hardhome, I have to think that is the endgame here anyway.

But all that said, why do I still watch a show where I don’t much like the plotlines and how they end, the overall theme and the significance given to military strategy, because of the following:

·         

• The Artistic Brilliance: At the end of the day, Game of Thrones is a tv show, and it is made about as spectacularly well as any TV show ever. Each year seemingly the videography becomes more incredible, the special and practical effects more daring, the sets more enchanting. A lot is made of the fact the show has a blockbuster-movie sized budget, but they at least put it to great effect. The camera work displayed by their directors is always unbelievable. The landscapes, the buildings, the details, and even now the CGI, is such an overpowering aspect of the show.
• The Actors and Acting: Not every actor is great on Game of Thrones, but all the ones we are made to care about are, or have their moments. Pretty much everyone with the last name Lannister has been the benefit of a marvelous acting performance. Lena Headey and Peter Dinklage have been unendingly brilliant. Charles Dance was captivating as Tywin. Was so good at making Joffrey so hateable. We’ve seen great performances by so many other actors. Stephen Dillane’s work as Stannis this year was awesome. The actors playing Davos, Melisandra, Jorah, Varys have all been various levels of awesome. Quick repeat shoutout to my man Stephen Dillane. Show Stannis was a boring character, but his performance this year was amazing. Obviously, the killing of Shireen was about as dark as the show gets, but Dillane was awesome portraying the various levels of emotion in that decision, and the realization that it all failed and he was about to send himself into death
• Those Special Moments: On season 4, I said that while it wasn’t my favorite season, it had maybe the most ‘Holy Eff’ moments; just great memorable stuff like the entire Purple Wedding, Tyrion’s trail, and the fight between the Mountain and the Viper. All those things happened in King’s landing, and while Season 5 didn’t have as many moments, it had enough. The ‘Come at me Bro’ moment of the Night’s King staring John Snow down was one, Drogon flying high over Valyria was another. Game of Thrones because of the budget, the actors, the directors, and the source material, has more perfect social media moments than any other show I’ve ever seen.

To me those last three things far outweigh the first three. Who cares that Jon Snow is dead? Who cares if the plot is a little aimless? I don’t watch Game of Thrones to see the good guys win, or to see who sits on the Iron Throne, or to see how in the hell anything matters when the White Walkers are coming to kill em all. I watch for the artistry, for the photography, for this group of people working together to put sequences on television that are so imaginative it is amazing it is on TV. Game of Thrones is far from the perfect TV show. I think Season 5 on the whole was one of the weaker seasons (probably better than Season 2, but that may be it), but it was still worth giving 10 hours of my time to.