AFSL Emergency Post: Carlos Quentin is a Lunkhead

All things considered, we won the game.

And truly, any team that ever wins a championship is faced with adversity, and they overcome it.

It's only 10 games into the season.

This is how I have been consoling myself, and for the most part, I am correct. It is very likely that I have little to worry about. I assume that my reading audience is my reading audience because they care about sports (particularly baseball), heavy metal, and video games. Because I am fairly certain that most of you who are reading this now are aware of the brawl that took place between the Dodgers and the Padres on Thursday (last night, if you are reading this on Friday), I won't waste a lot of space or time explaining it. Vin Scully has already done an excellent job with that.

However, something doesn't sit right. I just can't get Darryl Strawberry, Andruw Jones, Jason Schmidt, Kevin Brown, and Juan Uribe out of my mind. I know I shouldn't panic, but as fan of a team who's 25th anniversary of success is happening this year, I just can't help it. Is this another case of the Dodgers free-agency curse?

We (don't make me explain it again) have had terrible luck with free agents. So there is a part of me that wants to acquiesce to that.

This time, however, it's different. It wasn't our fault. It was THEIRS. "They" are the San Diego
Padres, and "he", in particular, is Carlos Quentin.

Carlos Quentin is the Right Fielder for the San Diego Padres. He made a terribly uninformed baseball decision, and it has cost my team their 147-million-dollar, #2 starter for the next 6 weeks.

Carlos Quentin is the ALL-TIME, MLB LEADER in HBP per at-bat. Yes, Don Baylor holds the record for most career beanings, but NO ONE has been plunked at so prolific a rate as Carlos Quentin.

Zack Greinke, including tonight, has beaned Carlos Quentin 3 times, a number he shares with 4 other major league pitchers.

This evening, Carlos Quentin was beaned with the count set at 3-2. On the 2-1 pitch, he was made to look like a FOOL on a breaking ball, down. He wisely took the next pitch, in the same spot, to make the count full. Zack Greinke was trying to get Carlos Quentin out. On the 3-2 pitch, Zack Greinke lost the handle and smashed Quentin in the SHOULDER. Not the head. Padres fans will dispute this FACT. But, it's still a fact. Refer to Vin's video, above.

Any reasonable baseball fan should know that Greinke's beanball was unintentional. Which is what makes it all the more shocking that Carlos Quentin, a professional ballplayer, would be so stupid as to believe that the Dodgers were throwing at him. May I present some bullet points?

- The count was 3-2. I've said it already, but it bears repeating. Don Drysdale once said that it only takes ONE pitch to intentionally walk a batter. This still holds true. If Greinke meant to hit him, why would he waste the energy to work the count to 3-2? Especially to waste the energy throwing a filthy breaking ball on 2-1? Carlos Quentin hasn't exactly been a Dodger Killer this series, so again, why?

- Carlos Quentin may believe, mistakenly, since Matt Kemp was the recipient of some chin music in the first inning,  that the Dodgers were retaliating by plunking Carlos Quentin. Well, I have news for Carlos Quentin. First of all, your pitcher, Andrew Cashner, MISSED Matt Kemp. We don't retaliate for failure. That's the way LOSERS think. Second of all, Carlos Quentin should get over himself. Even if we WERE retaliating, we wouldn't waste our one good fastball on Carlos Quentin. Chase Headley, sure, but not Carlos Quentin.

- The score of the game was 2-1, and there were no outs. What benefit would we gain by beaning Carlos Quentin, thereby putting the tying run on base with no outs? True retaliation comes in the first inning of our next series at home. You should know that. And if you think that you have it bad now, wait until you get to Dodger Stadium.

- All of that considered, if you still think Carlos Quentin was justified in charging the mound, remember that Zack Greinke received a fractured collarbone. I can already hear some of you Giants fans mocking me, claiming that the Greinke situation is identical to the Buster Posey/Scott Cousins situation, but I tell you that it's not. Zack Greinke was injured by an action that is actually AGAINST THE RULES. Buster Posey was injured on a very unfortunate baseball play, where no rules were broken.

I am very concerned about what might happen to my team. Even though I know I shouldn't be, I probably should.

Breaking it down: Dodgers vs. Giants

I debated very seriously whether or not I should even write this column. I knew, and still know, that any kind thing I may say about the Giants will, undoubtedly, be thrown back in my face 50 million times throughout the season. I ultimately decided that, despite the guaranteed harassment that is bound to result from the publishing of this tome, it would be dastardly, indeed, if were to allow fear of mockery to stop me from speaking the truth. Furthermore, I'm quite sure there will be accusations, cast without irony, of bias and favoritism. Again, I cannot let that stop me. I intend to be an objective commentator. It is with this disclaimer duly mentioned that I proudly present an utterly unbiased breakdown of what I believe has proven to be the most exciting rivalry in baseball, if not all of sports*: The 2013 version of mortal combat that shall be engaged between the Los Angeles Dodgers, and their villainous nemesis, the San Francisco Giants.

Okay, I promise, that is the first and only bit of intentional and obvious bias you will see. They are villains, though. 

I feel like the best way to go about this is to break each team down, position by position, weighing the pros and cons, and gauging just how much of an advantage one team has over the other. Since we all know that baseball games aren't won on paper, I  think it would also be appropriate to discuss the advantages and disadvantages the teams posses in their coaches, farm systems, and front offices.

However, we are American, and we demand instant gratification. What happens on the field is the exciting stuff, so we'll do that first. Just promise me you'll stay with me through the later, ho-hum parts. One further disclaimer: These rankings were made with the thought in mind that both teams are at full strength. These are the rosters that both teams would field on Opening Day, if only they could.

1st Baseman

San Francisco Giants: Brandon Belt

Los Angeles Dodgers: Adrian Gonzalez

Advantage: Heavy, in favor of L.A.

This is not to say that Brandon Belt doesn't have a huge upside. The Giants front office has shown great faith (which counts for a lot, as we'll get to later) and patience with Belt, and in some ways, he has rewarded them. Belt boasted a .360 OBP, and stole 12 bases. His power numbers have NOT panned out yet, and that is a bit of a problem, as first base is traditionally a power position, but he's only 25, and at least his number have continued to grow. Belt had 411 at-bats, which is still about 200 shy of a "full" season, even though he did play in 145 games. In those at-bats, he hit only 7 HR (1 every 59 at-bats), so even if he does get 200 more plate appearances, those numbers won't cut it on a team that already hurts for offense. Still, the on-base percentage is a promising sign, and as the Giants proved last year, you CAN win without a slugging 1st baseman. Think Mark Grace...

Adrian Gonzalez, on the other hand, is a proven commodity. At 30, he still has a few years left on his "prime", and although he only smacked 18 dingers last year, 108 RBI is fine, no matter how many homers come with it, and I think it's inevitable that his total will increase this season. He has garnered 7 Gold Gloves, 4 Silver Sluggers, and led the league in homers as recently as 2009 (a year he also walked 119 times). Sorry, Giants, but this one is a landslide for Team Blue.

2nd Baseman

San Francisco Giants: Marco Scutaro

Los Angeles Dodgers: Mark Ellis

Advantage: Slight, San Francisco Giants

This battle is so close, it doesn't even really come down to statistics. Ellis holds the advantage, as far as best single-season offensive numbers (2007 with Oakland), but Scutaro always seems to play for a winner. It may be unfair, but I consider it a strike against Ellis that he was traded away by Billy Beane. Ellis still gets on base 33% of the time, which averages out to at least once a game, but he is not in the lineup for his offense. Ellis' LOWEST fielding percentage, in his career, has been .926. That is certainly nothing to shake a stick at.

Marco Scutaro, on top of having a very attractive wife, was also traded away by Billy Beane, but because his wife is hot, he wins that one. Scutaro's fielding has been even better than Ellis. He holds a CAREER average of .978, which is absolutely friggin' ludicrous. Steve Sax and Jose Offerman want to kill themselves over it. It could be argued that Scutaro had a CAREER offensive year last season, and in fact, I WILL argue it. There is absolutely NO WAY he repeats the numbers he put up last season with the Giants, and I can't help but be a little pleased by the 3-year contract the Giants gave the 37-year old second baseman. But, because I am so very objective, I still give the advantage to Scutaro. Like Ellis, he is not in the lineup for his bat, and every winner needs guys like that. This all changes if Dee Gordon gets called up and is placed at second base for L.A.

Shortstop:

San Francisco Giants: Brandon Crawford

Los Angeles Dodgers: Hanley Ramirez

Advantage: Heavy, L.A.

Full disclosure: Brandon Crawford holds the distinction of, on a team of 25, being one of my top five LEAST favorite Giants. Even with that being said, there is no way that any honest baseball fan can disagree that Hanley Ramirez is the clear winner here. The only advantage that Crawford holds is in fielding percentage (.971 vs. .967, which is actually better than I thought Ramirez was). There isn't necessarily anything WRONG with Crawford's game, he's a sure-handed shortstop who hits .240. He's entirely typical.

Hanley Ramirez, on the other hand, is anything BUT typical. In 2006, he won Rookie of the Year honors. He has stolen at LEAST 20 bases every year of his career, led the National League in batting average in that magical year of 2009 (.342), has struck out as many as 132 times a year, is an obvious headcase, and, ironically, injured himself playing DEFENSE in the WBC. He's a 30/30 guy when he cares, and it's really hard to hold not caring against him when he's played in Florida his entire career. This season will be a big test for him, and I predict that his injury might lead him to be slightly crazed when he comes back in May. He will be raring to go. Of course, he is aware of the knocks against him,  and he's earned them, but if there is one thing Mattingly is actually good at (more on that later), it's motivating players. 

3rd Baseman:

San Francisco Giants: Pablo Sandoval

Los Angeles Dodgers: platoon, Luis Cruz/Juan Uribe

Advantage: Heavy, S.F.

Now that Brian Wilson, that disgrace to the name "Brian Wilson", is no longer with the team, Fat Panda Sandoval holds the distinction of being my LEAST favorite Giant. How in the hell did he hit that first home run in last year's World Series!? That ball was away, and at the shins! Regardless, if you wanna talk about people I dislike, let's talk about Juan Uribe.

Speaking of fat third basemen, Juan Uribe has spent the last 2 seasons robbing L.A. of money. This guy hit 24 home runs and drove in 85 runs in 2010 for the World Champion Giants (I just threw up in my mouth a little bit),  and now, after 2 years of a 3-year, 21 million dollar contract with the Dodgers, has TOTALED 6 home runs, 45 RBI, with a batting average of .197.  He sucks so bad, I almost wouldn't even care who was playing 3rd for the Giants, they would win. 3rd base has been a black hole for the Dodgers ever since Adrian Beltre unmercifully left town.

It's never a good sign when you have a platoon at any position, especially when one of those players is Juan Uribe. Let me be the first Dodgers fan to be unimpressed with Luis Cruz. There were a whole bunch of "Cruuuuuuuuz" chants emanating from Dodger Stadium last season. Sure, he was great for us**, in limited time, during the stretch last year, but he was also a 29 year-old rookie. He had a cup of coffee in 2008 for (gasp!) Pittsburgh, and then got a nice hot macchiato in Milwaukee in 2010, but only in L.A. did he get to start. Not so amazingly, he was STILL better than Uribe. .297, 6 HR, 40 RBI, .322 OBP. Do I think he has any chance of repeating those numbers? What do you think?

Pablo Sandoval is despicable, unlikable, and generally objectionable. He also has a career batting average of .303. He also hit 3 home runs in one game, in the World Series, off of Justin Verlander, becoming just the 4th player to do so (joining Albert Pujols, Reggie Jackson, and Babe Ruth. No small feat). Opposed to what we said about Scutaro and Ellis earlier, Sandoval is not in the lineup for his glove, although he somehow does better than you would expect (.971 Career). He is there because he is a big, fat, hitting machine, and I hate him for it, but I would still take him over Uribe.

Left Field:

San Francisco Giants: Gregor Blanco

Los Angeles Dodgers: Carl Crawford

Advantage: Slight, L.A.

The most painful part about this is that Carl Crawford is my current favorite baseball player. I was genuinely ecstatic when he was traded to the Dodgers, but I was also aware of the huge risk. Crawford being a Dodger is eerily similar to Darryl Strawberry being a Dodger. I know I said that this list was based on full health for each team, but even if Crawford was at full health, what is he gonna be capable of?

First, let's discuss Blanco. He is a perfectly serviceable Left Fielder, he even stole 26 bases last season. In addition, my life sentence of KNBR being my local channel has led me to believe that he is an above average fielder. His batting average (.244) was unspeakably low for his position, especially considering he ranks a big "zero" in the power department. His OBP of .333 was great for a second baseman, not for a left fielder. Probably the worst part is that he struck out 104 times, which is no good at all for a #2 hitter. 

Crawford gets the advantage strictly based on what we know he can do if fully healthy. The Dodgers don't even need him to be 2010 Tampa Bay Carl Crawford, but we can't stand him to be 2011 Boston Carl Crawford, either. In 2010, he led the league with 19 triples, hit .307, with 19 home runs, 47 SB and 90 RBI. I certainly would not complain about that line, and I do think he is capable of it, but .280, 10 HR, 30 SB, and 75 RBI would be satisfactory for me. But then, there is the issue of his ridiculous contract. He is coming off Tommy John surgery, not so bad if you're a fielder/hitter, but not so good, either. He gets paid like he is going to put up 2010 numbers. This shouldn't count against him, though, as really, the adoption by the Dodgers of his contract is on Ned Colletti. 

Center Field:

San Francisco Giants: Angel Pagan

Los Angeles Dodgers: Matt Kemp

Advantage: Incredibly Heavy, L.A.

I mean, come on, now, Matt Kemp is a guy who only played in 106 games last season, and STILL had a .303 average, with 23 home runs and 63 RBI. I can absolutely guarantee you that Matt Kemp works harder in the off-season than anyone other baseball player. In 2011, an injury free season, he lead the league in HR (39), RBI (126), Runs scored (115), Total Bases (353), and stole 40 bases while hitting .324. I predict a huge comeback season by the Bison. 

Angel Pagan is only a particularly average center fielder, anyway, and the only category he can even touch Kemp in is stolen bases. There is simply no comparison, or conversation, to be had here. Matt Kemp by a landslide.

Right Field:

San Francisco Giants: Hunter Pence

Los Angeles Dodgers: Andre Ethier

Advantage: Virtual deadlock

Pence is 29, Ethier is 30. Both have been in the league since the age of 24. Pence holds a significant advantage in the speed department (although he rarely uses his speed on the base paths anymore), totaling double-digit steals 4 times in 6 seasons. I'll also give Pence a slight advantage in his ability to make consistent, solid contact with the baseball, although Ethier DOES hold a higher career batting average (.290 to Pence's .285, so really, it's a statistical tie). Ethier's well-documented struggles successfully hitting lefties are what cause me to declare the advantage for Pence. I'll give Ethier the edge in power numbers, which again, makes little sense because Pence actually has more career home runs than Ethier (138 to 129). Ethier will undoubtedly have a better offensive lineup around him this season than will Pence, and Pence has never managed to slug 30 home runs in a season, something Ethier has accomplished. See, I'm so confused by this battle that I twice chose a winner in a category where the stats actually show them losing. Ethier has a (admittedly questionable) Gold Glove to his credit, so we'll give him the edge there. These two are so unbelievable close, numbers-wise, in runs scored, hits, OBP, and Slugging %, that there is simply no way to declare a clear-cut winner. Personally, my heart lays with Ethier, but I promised to be fair. Sigh. 

Catcher:

San Francisco Giants: Buster Posey

Los Angeles Dodgers: A.J. Ellis

Advantage: Incredibly Heavy, S.F.

Much like the previous Kemp/Pagan battle, there is virtually no discussion to be had here. This time, however, it favors the Giants. Buster Posey, the 5th overall pick in the 2008 draft, the 2-time World Series Champion, 2010 Rookie of the Year, 2012 NL MVP (after leading the league with a .336 batting average), as well as Silver Slugger and Comeback Player of the Year winner. 2012 was an absolutely transcendent season, especially when you consider he accomplished all of that as a catcher, easily the most mentally taxing and physically demanding, defensively, position on the field. If it wasn't for his overly-dramatic, "crawling-in-the-dirt-hanging-on-for-life" performance in 2011, and the fact that he proceeded to attempt to get the rules changed for himself instead of sucking it up, I would have virtually nothing negative to say about him.  I mean, except for his blatant Giant-hood. 

A.J. Ellis, on the other hand, didn't even make a major league appearance until he was 27 (2 years older than  Posey, currently, and that was 3 years ago). A.J. Ellis is probably an above-average catcher when it comes to OBP, and his 2012 line (..270, 13 HR, 52 RBI) is nothing to thumb your nose at,  but Posey is ridiculous. The best catcher in the game today, by a mile. Yuck. I need to go wash my mouth out.

Starting Rotation:
Dodgers:                                             Giants:
Clayton Kershaw                              Matt Cain
Zack Greinke                                    Madison Bumgarner 
Hyun-Jin Ryu                                    Tim Lincecum
Chad Billingsley                                Ryan Vogelsong
Harang/Capuano/Lilly                       Barry Zito
Advantage: Slight, Giants

Undoubtedly, Clayton Kershaw is the best overall pitcher in this group. The guy has been absolutely FILTHY since his 22nd birthday (he's only 25 now), leading the league in ERA twice (2.28 and 2.53 the past 2 seasons), averages 9.3 K/9 for his career, including 248 in 233 innings in 2011, a career WHIP of 1.137 (nasty), and won the 2011 Cy Young Award when he led the league with 21 wins. That was to go along with his Gold Glove. Barring his arm wearing down (a real possibility, given the infamous history of Dodger coaches over-using their pitchers, riding them to death)***, I don't see any evidence that he won't continue to be absolutely dominant.

Matt Cain, unlike his more obnoxiously-haired teammates, has quietly, and with dignity, become the ace of a very strong Giants staff.  His stats are not as flashy as Kershaw's, or even teammate Tim Lincecum's, but he has definitely been the most consistent member of his squad. For Heaven's sake, the guy chucked a perfect game last season, and pretty much destroyed St. Louis in the NLCS. I seem to have a vague memory of him and his orange-clad buddies slapping the American League around in the All-Star game, too, but I'm not to sure, because any moment of even remotely supporting anything the Giants are doing seems surreal to me.

But man, oh man, Kershaw is an absolute beast. In the head-to-head Battle of the Aces, I gotta go with Kid K.

Zack Greinke hasn't even thrown a regular season pitch for the Dodgers, and he is already making me crazy. Some ill-advised comments about his new contract, coupled with his recent battle with elbow inflammation, have caused me to pace around like a nervous crackhead locked in an empty room. Of course, let's not forget his well-documented battle with Social Anxiety Disorder. That has the potential to be a huge problem in Los Angeles, right? All that said, the guy can be downright dominant when he chooses to be. His 2009 Cy Young Award (for Kansas City, of all sinkholes) is evidence of that. Other than that season, while he has been above average, even very good,  he certainly hasn't been a #1 rotation guy. A very excellent #2 (if he gets enough run support, as a 3.77 Career ERA is a BIT on the high side) who gets paid like a #1, but has the potential to be a head case. Let's not even discuss his opt-out clause. F'ing Colletti.

What can I say about Madison Bumgarner, other than that I always want to call him William VanLandingham? The best argument in his favor was his 2012 World Series Performance (7 IP, 8 K, 2 BB, 0 ER, 1 huge W). Remember, this came after getting absolutely DESTROYED by St. Louis in the NLCS. His ability to bounce back, in an even more stressful situation, shows poise and guts. In fact, in both WS he's pitched, he's been completely dominant. He's left-handed, too, which is almost always a plus on the mound.

If Greinke lives up to expectations, he wins with battle fairly handily. Not to take anything away from Madison VanLandingham (see?), but Greinke's Cy Young Award makes him more desirable. Of course, Greinke living up to expectations is a big "if", so the door is definitely open for Mad Bum, here.

I literally know nothing about Hyun-Jin Ryu except that he is from South Korea and has retired 23 straight batters this spring. It gives me hope, but not faith.

Ahhh, Tim Lincecum. Big Time Timmy Jims. I am absolutely convinced that his struggles last season were caused by Giants fans taunting the Baseball Gods on his behalf. It's a pity, too (well, not for me), because he was as filthy as they come before last season's fall from grace. Back-to-back Cy Young Awards, 3 straight seasons of leading the league in K's (huge numbers, too: 265, 261, 231), a ridiculous career average of 10 K's per 9, and in 2009, at age 25, he possessed a microscopic 1.047 WHIP.  Then, last season it all fell apart. His ERA ballooned to 5.18, and he was booted to the bullpen. FYI: He still led the league in starts last  season. Unfortunately, he didn't even make it to 200 innings pitched, which tells you just how bad it was.

All that said, I fully expect (and dread) a bounce-back season from him. Thank God he cut his hair. How could I possibly choose an unknown Korean over a guy like this?

Chad Billingsley and Ryan Vogelsong are easy. I fully attribute their successes to the parks they play in. Billingsley is younger, but his 16-10 season of 2008 seems like a decade ago. He has proven to be a mystery to pitching coach Rick Honeycutt, but really, that could say a bunch about Honeycutt, too.

Vogelsong was a Pirates cast-off who was out of the league for 5 years before the Giants took a flyer on him in 2011, at age 33. He pitched very well, to be fair, going 13-7 with a 2.71 ERA. I was fully anticipating a regression last season, which did not happen. Prior to joining the Giants and pitching in that dank cavern where home runs go to die known as AT&T Park, he had never had an ERA LOWER than 4.43. That regression? Expect it this year.

Aaron Harang, Chris Capuano, Ted Lilly, and Barry Zito are all embarrassments to the game, but at least those first three aren't paid an outlandish amount of money to be sickeningly below-average. The idea that Zito has 2 World Series rings is enough to make me want to call it a day and leave this mortal coil. There is absolutely NO predicting what the Dodgers may get out of Harang and Capuano, and all we can do is hope that what they get from Lilly is a retirement announcement.

I suppose I should mention that Josh Beckett is also going to be a part of the Dodgers' rotation this year, but where he will be slotted, how he will do, how much chicken and beer he will consume (a dangerous thought, considering now he'll have Uribe in his ear), are all complete mysteries to me. Here's hoping for 2003-2004, 2007 Josh Beckett, but I'll even take a semi-watered down version, as long as it isn't 2011-2012 Josh Beckett.

So for the Dodgers, we've got Kershaw, and a bunch of questions. Those questions, quite possibly, could have glorious answers, but there are basically NO questions in the Giants rotation. If everything goes right for both teams, neither staff will be one you'll want to face in a 7-game playoff series.

Managers:
San Francisco Giants: Bruce Bochy
Los Angeles Dodgers: Don Mattingly
Advantage: Heavy, S.F.

It pains me to say this, because I really do like Donnie Baseball. I just don't think he is a very good manager. I certainly think that, for this team, he is a step up from Joe Torre, because Mattingly is closer to his players' generation. What I mean to say is, this Dodger team is full of guys who grew up watching Mattingly play and become Donnie Baseball, and they can get excited about playing for one of their heroes. It's probably not too hard to hear a motivational speech about baseball, by a guy called "Donnie Baseball", who you grew up watching excel in baseball, and get fired up.  Just what he has done for Matt Kemp, alone, is beautiful. He is clearly a master motivator.

That's where it stops, as far as the positives for Mattingly. Who could forget his embarrassing "2-trips-to-the-mound-for-the-price-of-1" gaffe in 2010. And he wasn't even officially a manager, yet. It is my opinion that it was quite underhanded and unsportsmanlike of Bruce Bochy to make that argument to the umpire, but still, rules are rules, and a manager, if anyone, should be aware of them. Last thing on Mattingly: Can someone explain to me why Hanley Ramirez is batting 5th and Mark Ellis is batting 1st? No? Didn't think so.

Bruce Bochy, on the other hand, has proven to be one of the best in the game. He can do the motivation thing as well as Mattingly, and he is a MASTER at setting the match-ups to his team's advantage. Think about it, on paper, The Giants have no business scoring any runs at all, yet these guys always find a way. They just "out-baseball" their opponents, and a huge amount of credit has to go to Bochy for that. Interesting tidbit: I heard on Buster Olney's podcast today that Bochy now possess 1,454 career victories, which puts him directly behind Hall of Famer Earl Weaver on the All-Time List. After he passes Weaver (which he will most certainly do THIS season), every single other guy ahead of him on that list is ALSO a Hall of Famer. That really speaks volumes. The guy is one of the greats.

Farm Systems: Advantage, L.A.
Not by much. The Dodgers have Puig and Zach Lee, two big studs, but were ranked 18th overall as a farm system.  The Giants rank lower, if only because most of their young talent, with the exception of Gary Brown, is either already in the bigs, or is still a few years away, in the lower levels. Mark my words. Puig is going to be a monster. He will end up driving Ethier out of town.

General Managers:
San Francisco Giants: Brian Sabean
Los Angeles Dodgers: Ned Colletti
Advantage: S.F.

Remember, it's only recently that Sabean finally was able to put together a winner. This is a man who CLUNG to Barroids so defiantly, the rest of the team crumbled around him. Sure, they had a few trips to the post-season, but they were always coming up short. Once that despicable piece of human waste known as Balco Bonds was finally run out of town, Sabean was able to clear the deck, and (rather quickly) build a 2-time World Series champion. Ironically, Ned Colletti worked for Sabean during those Bonds-clinging years.

Apparently, he took those lessons to heart, as he has handed out stupid contract after stupid contract to all of Barry's former teammates. Jason Schmidt, Jeff Kent, Juan Uribe, Brett Tomko, WTF!? This is in addition to his epic fail known as Andruw Jones. Ned Colletti seems to play MLB13: The Show with his new-found riches, and while I must admit, I am excited by what the recent Boston trade brought in, many commentators didn't like it. There is some consensus that Colletti took on too much money, that if the trade doesn't pan out perfectly, he has tied his team's hands. I tend to see this point, even if I don't agree with it fully. I feel like he HAD to take a chance. Ned had already done such a horrific job in previous season that if he didn't make a splash, he may well have been terminated. If it all works out, though, I will be lauding him as a genius in November.


So there you have it, fellow baseball lovers. The finally tally is: Dodgers 5, Giants 6. However, I do feel that the categories in which the Dodgers have advantages, they have much bigger advantages. I predict that both teams will be successful this season, and how awesome would it be to have the first EVER Dodgers-Giants post-season? I genuinely believe this will happen. Of course, there is only one way to know for sure. Play Ball!

* Yankees and Red Sox are a media creation, the Yankees have dominated the Sox so thoroughly that there cannot be any claim of a "rivalry".  The NBA's Celtics-Lakers rivalry comes extremely close, but the fact that they are actually in different conferences, and only play twice during the regular season, thereby having little affect on each other unti the playoffs, counts that one out. Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair could very well be the only rivalry that I would willingly place above Dodgers-Giants.

**Once again, a term used, for my purposes, when describing the Dodgers/Celtics/Vikings, or members of the WWE Universe.

***See Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Fernando Valenzuela, and Orel Hershiser

Pro Wrestling is awesome and must be defended.

 On a random Saturday morning in  1987, in between the hours of 10-11 a.m., following a delicious pancake breakfast and an another side-splitting episode of Pee Wee's Playhouse, I happened upon a program that quite literally changed my life forever. I can't tell you why I decided to stay in that day, most likely because it was cold outside, thereby cancelling swimming or tennis ball home run derby.

I will never forget those glorious strains of 80's saxophone music, nor will I ever stop chasing the wonderful, pastel-colored euphoria that kicked me square in the face as I laid eyes, for the first time, on real-life, gigantic, flesh-and-blood superheroes preening, flexing, and throwing each other around. I had just discovered professional wrestling, and I was immediately hooked.

It is practically impossible to accurately describe pro wrestling to the uninitiated without using a whole bunch of homo-erotic verbage.  At the age of 7, none of this ever occurred to me, and even after coming to the realization, years later (thanks to my skeptical friends who enjoyed disparaging the sport), that pro wrestling is essentially 2 muscular men in their underpants, oiled up, and performing a choreographed, interpretive dance based on a soap opera, I was in far too deeply to care. They had no idea what they were talking about, anyhow. They had never seen Ric Flair with his entourage of ladies, or Miss Elizabeth holding the ropes open for the "Macho Man", or "Ravishing" Rick Rude select one lucky, swooning lady to receive a kiss after each victory. I knew. I was initiated.

Being initiated, and proud of it, has led to a lifetime of being forced to defend my sport from all types of nay-saying. Besides the aforementioned homo-erotic-ness of it all, Vince McMahon, the Godfather of the WWF (I'll never say "E") had the gall(!), in an effort to avoid paying fees to various state athletic commissions, to come on television and admit that my beloved sport was "pre-determined". That pro wrestling was, in fact, not an athletic contest, but "sports entertainment". Notice, he never says "fake".

I suppose, looking back, that we (the initiated) always had an inkling of this, but we WANTED to believe. Pro wrestling is far more fun when we can suspend our disbelief. Those guys in the 1980's and 1990's at least TRIED to make me believe it was real. Gorilla Monsoon and Jesse Ventura called the "matches" like they were legitimate contests, and the whole package just had a big fight, main event-type feel to it. Once McMahon made his confession, WWF could start heading in a more ridiculous, over-the-top direction, and that's exactly what they did, although it's hard to argue that there was anyone more over-the-top and ridiculous than the Honky Tonk Man, and he was around for years prior to the announcement.

The Honky Tonk Man, the longest reigning  Intercontinental Champion in  history. We really believed this man could beat up another man.

Of course, this led to the antagonistic skeptics  publicly shunning wrestling once again, this time, not for it's gayness, but for it's phoniness. This argument really bugged me, and on multiple levels. First of all, if wrestling is so fake, let me put you in a Boston Crab. Tell me if it hurts. If that doesn't convince you, let me bash you in the face with a folding steel chair, then pick you up and drop you, head-first, onto a canvas mat. Do you have some amazing power over gravity that I am unaware of? If so, please feel free to criticize wrestling to your heart's content.

Second of all, what is this insistence on "informing" me, every time I bring wrestling up, that it is fake? I don't inform you of how Sons of Anarchy, or Gilmore Girls, or Family Guy, or any number of stupid "reality" shows you watch are fake each time you set your DVR to record them, or when you are discussing them the next day. Do you think you are telling me something I don't already know? Are you mercifully rescuing me from my own stupidity? Thanks, but if you want to rescue someone from their own stupidity, you should try writing a letter to one of those vapid broads on The Bachelor.

Note: This is the LAST TIME I will ever discuss, admit, or even acknowledge any comments about pro wrestling's "fake-ness"

Now, there is a new criticism of wrestling that has come to light, and it could very well be the most annoying of them all. Recently, the WWF re-introduced Jack Swagger, a character that up until 3 weeks ago, had met with only mild success (despite a brief heavyweight championship reign) and, even more damning for a pro wrestler, only a  luke-warm crowd response. He was best known for being an accomplished amateur athlete who couldn't cut in in the professional "catch-as-catch-can" style, and for his speech impediment. Then, this happened:

Notice that Swagger still has very little personal charisma. Most of the talking is done by Zeb Coulter (a fantastic name, I hope it IS a mockery of that horrific train wreck known as Mann Coulter). Notice the Don't Tread on Me flag hanging behind them. When I saw this, my original thought was: "Wow. This guy is incredibly unlikable. He sounds just like a Tea Bagger. This will get a TON of heat from the audience."

It never, ever crossed my mind that Swagger and Coulter were misrepresenting the Tea Party, or that they were ACTUALLY associated with it. I  simply believed that they were lampooning it for the enjoyment/aggravation of the wrestling audience, which is exactly what it's all about. We pay our money for them to harass/annoy/enrage us, then to watch them get their butts kicked by "the good guys.

After emerging victorious in the Elimination Chamber, Swagger earned  the right to face Alberto Del Rio at WrestleMania. Del Rio is the current heavyweight champion, and also happens to be Mexican. On Monday night, the night after the EC, Swagger and Coulter returned with this:

At another point that same evening, during Swagger's match, color commentator Jerry Lawler mentioned, obviously tongue-in-cheek, that Zeb Coulter has been receiving fan mail from Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. As a regular viewer of wrestling, and as someone who has spent the majority of his life listening to people criticize, ridicule, and mock the sport, it never occurred to me then that anyone outside of my circle of initiates would ever hear or see this. Sure, the WWF hoped to get people talking, as word of mouth leads to  more eyes on their product, and that certainly wouldn't upset them. But anyone who watches wrestling regularly would never bat an eyelid at any of this, not really, not enough to get mad OUTSIDE the pro wrestling universe. This sort of this happens CONSTANTLY. Google search for Sgt. Slaughter, Iron Shiek, Mohammed Hassan, Nikolai Volkoff, or John Bradshaw Layfield. See what I mean? 

So, on Tuesday morning, when I was perusing the interwebs, looking at the news, I was quite shocked, and mildly amused, to find out that Alex Jones and Glenn Beck were OFFENDED by Swagger and Coulter. I never really pegged them as the pro-wrestling-viewing type. Anyhow, Jones and Beck both believe that this Swagger gentleman's character is an attempt by WWF/Vince McMahon to embarrass the Tea Party, or to exact revenge on it for not supporting Linda McMahon in the Connecticut senatorial race. Imagine that. Someone embarrassing the Tea Party! As if they have any shame, or are capable of being embarrassed. Clearly, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck are not among the initiated. Here's what Beck had to say. Pay special attention to how many times he uses the word "hate", being that he is a God-loving Mormon and all:

Glenn Beck's egotistical, paranoid insanity

Trust me, the viewing is worth it. 

Now, according to Beck, wrestling fans are stupid, Linda McMahon is a neo-con (but the higher-ups there at WWF are liberals), Panda people are wussies, and calling someone a "great American" is a mockery of Sean Hannity. Notice that Glenn Beck never spends a moment attacking what Coulter actually SAID. Not one of the parallels he points out dawned on me, because I don't pay attention to him, which, in turn, is because he is a lunatic. Which also happens to be why he DID see all those parallels.

Of course, Beck is uninitiated, so I wouldn't expect him to "get it". My question is this: If wrestling fans are so stupid, and the whole thing is so beneath you, why are you so frustrated with this character? If it is so silly and inaccurate, why does it threaten you? Methinks thou doth protest too much...

Here is a select sampling of some comments left by Beck's followers:

"WWE is desperate for ratings. Wish they would tell the public and their fans how fake everything about wrestling really is."

"Given their miserable ratings their flagging sales, this whole stunt reeks of desperation. I predict they will soon go the way of AOL."

"Fuck the WWE!  It's just a bunch of gay ass dudes in spandex!"

"Glenn should go and convert all the wrestling fans with logic. Wait that is impossible they probably suck off the government tit and sit on there(sic) asses while we fight for our rights as afforded to us through our founding documents. Just saying beeeeouch!"

All of those arguments are totally original, and I've never heard them before. O.K., so that last one is pretty good. Maybe all the initiated just need to be converted with logic. The kind of logic that dictates we should take a "sport" that they insist is "fake" and "gay" super-seriously. So seriously, in fact, that when these characters, who are otherwise worthy of my disdain and mockery, says something I may agree with, I should protest mercilessly.  These are the people who are calling ME stupid.

I am so accustomed to defending pro wrestling that I would like to think I am the Grand Supreme Champion of the art.

I think I shall allow "Dr. D." David Schultz the last word.

The Rondo Theories.

Rajon Rondo is probably my favorite team's most exciting player. This causes me tremendous pain.

I have been closely acquainted with Rajon Rondo ever since he got lucky enough for me to intensely doubt his talent, all the way back at the beginning of the 2007-2008 season. 

After a string of high-quality, post-Danny Ainge point guards like Sherman Douglas, Dee Brown, Dana Barros, and Sebastian Telfair, I had grown accustomed to excellence at the 1.  Especially considering we had just traded Chauncey Billups away.

Rajon Rondo had the starting point guard job thrust upon him in the summer of Ray Allen and KG. Along with Kendrick Perkins, he was the only guy Kevin McHale DIDN'T want in exchange for Kevin Garnett. It is my opinion that on that day, they (Rondo and Perkins) became some form of basketball soul mates. They were the scraps, the 2 "other" guys on this 5-man team. 

Rondo had already "survived" a draft day roster purge when "we"* acquired Ray Allen, and now, he was the only person left after the KG robbery. We literally gave up our whole team for KG, and it was worth it.

Therein lies the beginning of my love for, and frustration with, Rajon Rondo. I will never forget Rondo's performance in game 6 of the 2008 NBA Finals. I have never enjoyed watching NBA defense as much as I enjoyed watching Rondo vs. Kobe in the 4th quarter of that game. 

Prior to that 2007-2008 season, I had little/no faith in Rajon Rondo's abilities. I was swiftly proven wrong, as Rondo began a 3-year arc (peak?) that culminated in career highs of 13.5 PPG, a .508 FG%, and a league-leading 2.3 SPG in 2010.

Something I could not possibly have realized that day in 2008, was just how much Rondo LOVES the national stage. Yes, he had performed dominantly in that game 6, but since I had no sample size, I could never have fathomed the depths of hunger and will-to-win that the 6' 3" point guard possesses.

Rondo actually GROWS whenever his team is being shown on national television. He seems to particularly relish beating the Lakers and Heat, which, whether the stats bare it out or not (I don't actually want to know), goes a long way towards endearing him to me.

This leads to the first of my Rondo theories, which I have learned I do not have sole possession of, even though I insist I did come up with it first. Rondo turns in his best performances while on the national stage. Google "Rondo National TV".  This first Rondo theory has become so commonplace, that it is now accepted as fact.

So why do I have frustration? Is there an asset an NBA team can possess that is as valuable as crunch-time, big-game dominance?

Rondo's numbers, in every category but assists, have decreased since that enchanted 2010 season. You may be asking why that is a bad thing, since a point guard averaging 11.5 assists per game is nothing to sneeze at. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, if he has become so utterly dominant on the national stage, but his overall numbers have dropped, doesn't that mean his day-in, day-out performance has suffered? His FG% has never been above 45% since 2010, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if, as Coach Rivers has IMPLORED him to do, he took more shots. Rondo's commitment to passing is so intense that he actually takes it too far, passing on quality shots time and time again. A large majority of the shots he does take are ludicrously contested lay-ups, and when he actually gets good looks, it's usually because opposing defenses have backed off of him. They are practically daring him to hit 15-foot, wide open jumpers, and he often fails. Couple this with the fact that he, as a point guard, only shoots 60% from the foul line (a Shaq-esque number, to be sure), and know that cheering for Rondo on any given night can be incredibly taxing.

We continue to adore Rajon Rondo because, despite his obvious short-comings, he also leads the league this year in triple-doubles (5). This is more than TWICE the amount of triple-doubles the man who is second on the list (much to my delight, LeBron, with a mere 2) has turned in. In the last 5 postseasons (nationally televised), Rondo has achieved 8 triple-doubles, placing him atop THAT leaderboard, as well.   Rajon is capable of a transcendent basketball performance on any given night, and  they all seem to happen when it REALLY matters.

So I say again, Rajon Rondo is my team's most exciting player. KG may be the soul of the team, and Paul Pierce may be the best player, but Rondo is the most exciting.

This leads to my second, and just recently-formed, Rondo Theory. Any team who's point guard leads the league in assists and triple-doubles, then goes down with a season ending ACL injury, is bound to suffer because of the loss, right? Clearly, said point guard makes his teammates exponentially better.

Rondo is that point guard, and common wisdom was that when he went down, in the cruelest of nationally-televised-against-the-Miami-Heat ironies, the Celtics would be forced to blow up the team, trading Pierce and Garnett, ending an era, and entering re-building mode.

Rondo's teammates played that game with no knowledge of his injury. They won in double OT. Paul Pierce was informed of Rondo's injury by Doris Burke during the post-game interview.

Since Rondo's injury, the Celtics have played 6 games, and are undefeated.

How can this be? Ah yes, it all comes full circle. Remember how Rondo achieved the starting point guard job in 2007-2008? How he basically backed into it? No one had much faith in his ability to succeed, and many had faith that the Celtics would essentially be a 3-man team.

Rondo's overall numbers that season were not terrible, by any means, but they were not incredibly spectacular, either. KG was (essentially) healthy the entire season, the only season since he joined Boston he has been able to accomplish that feat. Pierce became the cold-blooded, clutch-time, Bird-esque finisher Celtic's fans had always hoped he would be, and Ray Allen was the dignified elder statesmen who seemingly shot 95% from beyond the arc. KG's killer instinct and swagger wore off on Rondo, and it was a frequent sight to see KG playing the big brother, patting his head, getting in his ear, and generally firing him up.

After that glorious 2008 Finals series, and having spent a year under the tutelage of the Big Three, version 2.0, Rondo began to grow in confidence. KG and Doc both publicly stated, by 2010, that the Celtics were Rondo's team. Those doubts about Rondo's abilities had evaporated.  He was the future of the franchise, the superstar on a squad full of them, the prototypical point guard that made his teammates better.

So how is it possible that the aging Celtics, who were a sub-.500 team this season while Rondo played, are now 6-0 in his absence, and have an overall winning percentage above .500?

Because we were wrong about Rajon Rondo. He is NOT the prototypical point guard that makes his teammates better.

Think about it. When you have guys like Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce at the receiving end of your passes, you are bound to have high assist totals. When Kevin Garnett, 2008 Defensive Player of the Year and multi-time 1st Team All-NBA Defensive Team member is orchestrating the defense behind you, you are bound to look better than you otherwise would on that end.

My second Rondo theory is this: Rondo is made better by Paul Pierce and KG, not the other way around. How else could the Celtic suffer this supposedly team-crippling loss and go 6-0 since? Because the Celtics still have their best player and their heart and soul on the court. I would go so far as to say that Rondo was created by KG. He is KG's point guard, warts and all.

We were just wrong about Rajon Rondo. He is an excellent point guard, but we were putting him in the discussion with Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, and Steve Nash for best point guard in the league. This simply isn't so. Those guys make their teams better, Nash's current season notwithstanding. What would happen if Rondo was traded to Indiana, for example? Would they immediately improve? Honestly?

Don't get me wrong. I love Rondo, in all his triple-doubling, ref-bumping, trick-shooting glory. I would be absolutely crestfallen if he were traded. Part of his charm lies in his flaws. He may not be the best point guard, but he is our point guard, and we* feel like he loves being a Celtic.That counts for a lot. I am completely convinced that we could not get equal value for him in a trade, and believe that it would literally KILL Kevin Garnett if Rondo were to be traded.

Rajon Rondo is probably my team's most exciting player. This causes me tremendous pain.


*a term used as a synonym for the Dodgers, the Celtics, and the Vikings. I have earned the right to call us "we", even though I have no membership on any of those teams, nor can I make any impact on any of their games. Except that I can. If you don't get it, you never will. 

Retro Friday: What's More Metal?

Jan 5, 2010

     What's more metal?

Certainly, a good question. Anytime you do anything awesome, and someone gives you a hassle, you could respond by asking them:

Oh yeah? Well, what's more metal?


If you are metal, yourself, you already know exactly what this question implies.  To be "metal" is to be completely and totally awesome in the awesomest of ways. Therefore, if you are being metal, you are being totally, mind-crushingly awesome.

This, however, is not the point today, my loyal and metal readers. The object today is to decipher which, of all the metal-ass things a person could be, is the most metal? The Brown Note is aware of your abundant intelligence, readers, so The Brown Note knows that while that question may be confusing, you will catch on quickly without further explanation. Let The Brown Note begin:

- Medieval Knight: From the suit of armor, the sprawling castles, to the Catholic imagery, the medieval knight is a very metal entity. This brand of metalness is upheld by bands like Candlemass, Dio, and Led Zeppelin. Now, the point here is not those bands, but the actual knight himself. Here is a guy who goes out literally dressed, from head to toe, in metal. While he's out, he conquers dragons, goes on conquest, and kills in the name of a higher power. His symbols include crosses (not upside-down), swords, lightning, and most important to the knight, a noble purpose. The knight kills because he believes he is righteous, which is pretty fuckin' metal of him, but ultimately, the knight is an underling, which is not. Conquest in the name of a monarch is most likely his goal. One thing the night does have is an incredible tale to weave. The knight also has guillotines. You can't be much more metal that a guillotine.

- Evil Monk/Dragon Overlord: This brand of metal is represented by bands like Goblin Cock and and Sunn 0))). Dragon Overlords are the arch-rivals of medieval knights, but no less metal. They wear robes, which is not only a sure sign of evil, but also of extreme metalness. Instead of slaying dragons, they conjure them.  Metal points are always awarded for evil. The evil monk is interested in affecting your brain, as opposed to your heart. While knights are chivalrous, evil monks are sinister.  Monks like to use magic to awaken malignant forces, and those forces will gladly fight beside the evil monk's twisted form. Twisted Form. Hmmm. Yep, it's true. Darth Vader is an evil monk. How much more metal can you get than Darth Fuckin' Vader?

- The Viking: Giant fuckin' battleships, horned helmets, and loincloths. This form of metal is represented best by bands like Man-O-War and.... well... Man-O-War. The viking, unlike the knight, is interested in killing for the viking's own sake. The Viking has no leader, save for the Gods of Asgard, which makes the viking incredibly metal. Being polytheistic is a sure sign of metaldom. The Brown Note is considering switching to polytheism, just to increase his metal quotient. The vikings drink mead, live in places called Niflberg and Isaholm, and, like the knight, fights dragons. They also have to deal with Loki, who pretty much is as metal as gods get.

- Satan: This is the man who gave birth to metal. He wants us to be happy. Best represented by Slayer and Morbid Angel, Satan decided that the best thing to do, in life, is fight God. Metal. Satan is the one who brings us fire, blood, axes, crosses (upside-down). Satan loses metal points for using psychological weapons, as only a pussy fights like that. Someone should make some T-shirts that say "Satan is a Pussy". That would be the most metal thing ever, because Xtians wouldn't buy them, they say "pussy" on them. Only people who are metal would buy that T-shirt. Satan would appreciate it. Satan holds the disadvanage of being the only entity listed that we aren't sure actually exists. Satan gave us Mario Party, Britney Spears, and Teletubbies, but he also gave us Iron Maiden, pornography, and marijuana. Don't argue, it's called "The Devil's Weed".

- Greeks/Romans: Whoa, whoa. Let's not give the greeks too much credit. It just so happens that the Spartans, who were technically greek, were as metal as fuck. The Romans, for their part, gave us chariots, crucifixion, and booze. Yes, The Brown Note knows that booze existed prior to the Roman Empire, but alcoholism was a uniquely Roman creation. The reason these two are grouped together is because they both believed in Zeus as supreme leader (if you are a knight, this is a result of Satan, which means that all metal ultimately interacts).  The Greeks/Romans gain points for being so metal that all bands spout their metalness in some way, but lose points for that exact same reason. At the risk of being uber-nerdy, God of War best represents why the Greeks/Romans are so metal.

So that's that. Here's the thing. All of those entities are metal as hell. Disregarding the bands that represent them, which of those creature is most metal, or do you have another suggestion?

The Brown Note's prediction is that Satan will win, by virtue of being Satan. Beelzebub. Lucifer.

The Brown Note's personal vote is to put a Viking helmet on Joe Preston and declare him the winner.


THRONES

Famous couples, winners and losers.

We all know celebrities aren't real people. They are vapid, shallow, ridiculously good/freakish-looking, rich, and generally unlikable. That is unless, of course, they are wearing the correct laundry. I am not referring to Lady GaGa's stupid meat dress (one of the more unlikable celebrities today), but to the button-up, wool jersey of the correct city and colors. And for each of us that loves a man for his laundry, there is another that despises him equally.

How come not one single passerby was tempted to simply let their German Shepard off it's leash that day? Where was I?

Where is a K-9 unit when you need one?

Because celebrities aren't people, despite what they may insist, we are completely justified, nay, REQUIRED, in mocking them and hoping they fail. The protestations of intrusions made upon them, or their insistence on privacy, we all know, are farcical. Sure, at times, they may be the objects of our desires, which could very well be a part of why we hate them so, but this is not jealousy or envy. We love to see them fail, and in fact, we wish for it to happen, so that we can gloat, and be secure in the knowledge that while we (I) may be frumpier, poorer, and really not very well-liked, at least we are actually people, and we feel crappy about lots of stuff, all the time. Watching them have to deal with human feelings (even in the most shallow of ways) is reaffirming. 

One of the ways we demonstrate our superiority over them is through our relationships. Celebrities divorce more, fight more, and sue each other more often and for more money, and it is this that gives us our greatest satisfaction. Sure, we don't really CARE about them, or even really KNOW them, but whenever a well-known break-up occurs, we always at least LIKE one of them more than the other. So we keep score. Hell, we do it to ourselves. How many of us have an ex that we hope dates someone uglier or more pathetic than us, next time? We conjure up images of how unhappy they are, or how they sit awake at night looking at their new significant other, pining for us. Whenever we can get invested in a relationship, and win (or lose) in it, without any real consequence, it is only natural for us to soak it up.  Besides, celebrites aren't real people. 

So, for your reading pleasure, may I submit to you the Brown Note's Ranking List of Celebrity Break-Ups, the winners and the losers. Enjoy!

1. Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston

Let's start with possibly the most well-known, and perhaps one of the easiest, celebrity break-up winner/loser scenarios of all-time. These two were despicably attractive and successful, and it seemed serendipitous that they would be married. Then, Brad Pitt did something that had men and women alike hating him: He dumped Jennifer Aniston (arguably "America's Sweetheart") and shacked up with Angelina Jolie. Everybody was incensed at Brad for kicking Jenny (I feel like I can call her that) to the curb, but deep-down, nobody could really blame him. Men and women alike knew that Angelina Jolie was the stuff that fantasies are made of.

Sure, women were ticked about the circumstances of the hook-up (I refuse to go into it), and probably also ticked that if Brad had to leave his wife, he should have rode in on a cloud for them, not Angelina Jolie. More than a few of those same women probably had the same feelings about Ms. Jolie being off the market. Men were ticked because it just wasn't fair. This guy, who already had a hot wife, and who we couldn't hate for it because he actually made good movies, just moved on to another incredibly hot woman, thereby ruining our chances of picking up the pieces of Billy Bob's sloppy seconds. We didn't care that she was a blood vial-carrying lunatic, or that she made out with her brother. Glance back up to the black dress shown above.

Meanwhile, tabloids ran story after story about how poor Ms. Aniston was losing her mind, couldn't find love, and was horribly jealous of Brangelina, even writing letters and starting fights. We believed it, because it is so incredibly believable. There were no two more physically gifted (in a manner of speaking) people than Brad and Angelina. This seemed like an easy win for Brad, and even Jenny knew it. However, people always love an underdog, and Jenny seemed to actually gain popularity. Women didn't hate her anymore, in fact, they felt for her, losing a spartan like Brad, and men decided that, shit, she can only go down from Brad Pitt, so maybe I've got a chance. 

But then... something started to happen...

Angelina Jolie started to look like Judy Garland. Maybe all the African children she adopted ran her ragged, but clearly, something was taking it's toll on her. She's starting to look like the things Lara Croft finds in a tomb.

Meanwhile, this also started happening...

Ms. Aniston got fed up and started taking off her clothes. The headline of this magazine says it all. No kids, films that didn't necessarily make you want to scoop out your own kneecaps (if you're a man), heart-warming romantic comedies that reflect reality's boundless possibilities for love (if you're a woman),  and still decidedly likable. Jenny starts appearing on "Most Desirable" lists. Then, she starts appearing on them ranked above Billy Bob's sloppy seconds. Men start denying ever being that in to Angelina Jolie. Men start lying about always having found Jenny attractive. Women still hate Jolie, for keeping that Trojan Brad Pitt away from them.

Winner: Jennifer Aniston

2. Shaquille O' Neal/Kobe Bryant

In 1997, the Lakers, for the umpteenth time in their existence, opened up their considerable wallets and wooed a giant, marble-mouthed, bald-headed, basketball monster from a less fortunate team. Oddly, and not the least bit ironically, it would not be the last time this would occur. Shaquille O'Neal was always a media whore, so Los Angeles was the perfect place for him. Just as long as he never wins a title. 

All this talent, and he could RAP, too!?

While Shaq was out making high-quality films and records, not concentrating on basketball, the Lakers were trading Vlade Divac to Charlotte for a draft pick that they would turn into Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant was a 17-year-old Michael Jordan disciple who wore his I.Q. on his jersey for the first half of his career. He didn't really get a chance to start until his 3rd year in the league, in which he developed a penchant for ball-hogging and averaged 19.9 points a game. Then, it happened. In the 1999-2000 season, Shaq, Kobe, and a bunch of ham n' eggers won their first of 3 consecutive NBA titles. Besides receiving more than a little assistance from the refs in 2001 against a superior Kings team, and the fact that their competition in the Finals was a pathetically put-together Nets team, they totally deserved it. Kobe and Shaq combined to score 85% of their teams' points while taking 99% of the shots (Disclaimer: I may be exaggerating a bit), and were, quite simply, the talk of tinsel-town. 

I can only think of ONE thing these two woulda rather been kissing...

Then, in a break-up that was apparently orchestrated by coach Phil Jackson, because it makes total sense for a coach to intentionally pit his two utterly dominant All-Stars against each other, Kobe and Shaq had a somewhat indescribable falling out. I mean, egos couldn't possibly be the reason, right? The Lakers made the choice to trade Shaq to the Miami Heat in 2004, and this is where the winner/loser saga really started to take flight...

Most writers at the time (do NOT let them lie to you), thought it was a terrible mistake to trade Shaq and keep Kobe. Shaq was a center, at the time considered a much more important position (different from today's NBA), and Kobe was developing a reputation for being entitled and insolent (well...).  After the trade, Shaq would join forces with Dywane Wade (another terribly likable young man, these days) to bring the first championship to Miami in 2006. Kobe would, on his own, take 99% of the Lakers' shots, score 100% of their points, and shoot 40%. The Lakers failed to make the playoffs for a couple of years. Much to the delight of yours truly, the Lakers were looking rather flaccid (which, considering Kobe's vacations in Colorado, was not easy to do). 

In 2008, Kobe got his ass handed to him by Paul Pierce and lost the first and only 6-game sweep in NBA Finals history. Shaq graciously wrote a rap song about it. The lyrics:

"You know how I be, last week Kobe couldn't do it without me."

Well, how could Kobe possibly, ever, come back from THAT!? 

He won back-to-back championships in 2009 and 2010. Excuse me while I wipe the vomit off my chin.

Shaq took up space in Cleveland while LeBron played hot potato with the basketball whenever the clock had anything below 5:00 on it. The best part of this section is I got to insult Kobe, Shaq, Wade, and LeBron. To hell with both of these guys, I WIN!

Final ring tally:

Shaq: 4

Kobe: 5

Winner: Kobe Bryant

3. Kim Kardashian/Kris Humphries

Nope, let's just move on....

Winner: Kris Jenner

4. Bruce Willis/Demi Moore

He makes awesome movies, she makes crappy ones. They have a daughter together that most definitely did NOT win the genetic lottery and looks exactly like Bruce, so coupled with the fact that she actually IS Bruce's daughter, no man who loves his own life would ever consider dating her. Better movies, an untouched-by-a-man daughter, and being generally badass enough to never lose anything because he's Bruce Willis. This one should be cut and dry, right? Not so fast...

Rumer Willis, Daddy's little girl. Ewwww...

Demi Moore is ridiculously good-looking. She's also obviously a cougar, which means Bruce Willis doesn't fit the bill anymore. We all know cougars are awesome, especially hot ones, so even if those aren't necessarily marks AGAINST Bruce, they are certainly marks in favor of Demi Moore.

Unfortunately, we know now that Demi Moore is BATSHIT INSANE. I suppose we should have known this all along, as usually, cougar-hood is a dead giveaway. We didn't want to believe it, though. Her and Ashton Kutcher (who needs to be punched in the face RIGHT NOW) seemed fairly happy and normal. Sure, we never really believed it would last, but it wasn't outright offensive (like those Kardashian broads). Then, Ashton Kutcher, much like Brad Pitt before him, did something that every single man under the sun (except Bruce Willis) would've done. He traded in Demi Moore for Mila Kunis. 

Tales of mid-life crises behavior began to flood to us. She begain writing strange letters or making strange statements, appearing incredibly intoxicated in public (with no prior history) and making a drunken fool of herself, and throwing herself at Lenny Kravitz. Nobody had any sympathy for her though, because unlike our friend Jenny, Demi Moore was never entirely likable. Sure, she gave the ladies Ghost, but since she had the terrible haircut, and there was NOTHING redeeming about that film if you are not a female, the menfolk couldn't get behind her. She tried to buy our sympathies with Striptease, but she was still married to Bruce, and in the film she was getting naked for BURT FUCKIN' REYNOLDS. Nobody wants to think about the object of their desires and Burt Reynolds simultaneously, so that little ploy failed, drastically.

The last piece of evidence needs no words:

If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does. The looks on Bruce's and Kutcher's faces are self-explanatory. Kutcher is encroaching on Willis' sloppy seconds, and Bruce had her in her prime. Bruce knows it, and not only that, Bruce is gonna go have sex with Brooke Burns when this is all over. Yippee-Ki-Yay!

Winner: Bruce Willis 

5. The Beatles

There is no need, whatsoever, for me to get into the history of the break-up of the Beatles, so let's just examine the facts:

John Lennon - Became something of an American hero, which is especially strange since his legendary "Bed-In" took place in Canada, and he was British. John was unquestionably the lynch pin for the Beatles' fame, and was often the focal-point for the group, particularly in the early years. His detestable wife, Yoko Ono, is often blamed for the break-up of the Beatles, although I tend to disagree (more on that when we get to Paul). Still, she is Yoko Ono. Anybody ever seen the cover of Two Virgins? John Lennon was shot outside of his apartment in New York at the age of 40 in 1980, so it's pretty hard to make a case for him as the winner in any circumstance. 

Trust me, you've seen enough...

In the interest of this contest, let's consider his post-Beatles work:

1. Imagine
2. Instant Karma
3. Regular appearances on The Mike Douglas Show
4. Jealous Guy
5. The Plastic Ono Band

 Reason No. 5 could possibly be the finest solo work of all the post-Beatles records by any members. If you prefer that sort of thing.

Paul McCartney - In my opinion, the real reason the Beatles broke up. By FAR the most prolific writer in the Beatles, though certainly not always the best. In fact, is responsible for some of the worst trash the band ever put out. Paul often excluded the other members of the Beatles, even when still in the band. Of course, he is now known as Sir Paul McCartney, which is pretty cool, but it would be a whole lot cooler if got to wear chain mail and carry a halberd. The Norse would still rock his puny British ass in a fight. Perhaps, he gets sympathy points for suffering through a marriage to that detestable cripple, Heather Mills, who not only robbed him of a decent amount of cash (if you consider divorce settlements robbery), but convinced him to turn vegetarian. Egad! Somehow, he was the Beatle who got caught trying to smuggle pot into another country, which anyone who knows anything about the Beatles knows is more than slightly ironic. 

Post-Beatles work:

1. Ram
2. Maybe I'm Amazed
3. Wings
4. Live and Let Die
5. Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time

He definitely LOSES points for that last one. Christmas music is the worst.

Ringo Starr - Was the drummer for the Beatles, and a good one, but now he makes his living making children's television and touring with Todd Rundgren. Decidedly un-cool. let's move on...

George Harrison - I confess to bias here, as Dear Sweet George is by far my favorite Beatle. He definitely had the hottest wife of them all (Patty Boyd) but she was disgusting and left George for his best friend, Eric Clapton. This, of course, after he wrote Something for her. To be fair, George also banged Ringo's wife, and that's just not cool. I mean, hell, he's already Ringo, why are you messin' with his wife!? In fact, it seems like there is a whole other break-up contest within a break-up contest, here. Harrison/Boyd/Clapton/Ringo. Perhaps another time...

Post-Beatles work:

1. Traveling Wilburys
2. Concert for Bangladesh
3. Isn't It a Pity?
4. Generally being George Harrison

I declined to put a fifth entry for George, because it would have to be that insipid single from the 80's that I would rather not discuss. To be honest, I don't have it in me to make a case against George, and since this contest is NOT who was the best Beatle, but who won the break-up, let's just take a good look at all the respect the man was given, and by whom, upon his passing. True power, this:

Winner: George Harrison

So, that's it for now, lovely readers. I have plenty more, but I think I'll reserve that for a part 2 somewhere down the road. Can't just give up all my good work right away, y'know? Until next time, thank you for your patronage, and remember.... Be excellent to each other.