First Post

Well, this is my first post, and it'll probably be a little rough. Actually, I'm just going to cut and paste a chat I had with my buddy Brian on G-Chat a little while ago.

I'm posting this "chat" ("chat" in quotes because it basically involved me typing my rant while Brian patiently waited for me to stop), because it is what inspired me to start this blog. I needed an outlet for my rantings and ravings, so I could save my girlfriend, brother, friends, and anyone else who happens to be in the room, from my (sometimes) endless need to make my point clear, and convince everyone of my position. Maybe releasing my thoughts and opinions here will help mitigate (though not eliminate) the amount of me that I subject the aforementioned people to (I've been told I can be a bit much at times - thanks Ami and Katie).

The following rant starts out about the Astros and Cardinals, as arguments with me often do, and ends with a brief summary of one of my main pet peeves when it comes to MLB analysts - That may seem random, and make very little sense, but that's how I work sometimes (I have slightly edited it from its original chat form, to make it a bit more readable):

me: i was reading something about the NL central, that article that debated the Brewers vs. the cards vs. the Cubs as the best team in the central it was actually a chat 9:06 AM

Some guy asked the supposed expert who was on the chat, "what about the Astros, they've been on a roll lately" (this was a week ago or so). The guy was like - after Oswalt you've got Wandy, Backe, Chacon and Sampson, not exactly top class.

Well what about the Cards, a team they considered above the Astros?9:07 AM After Wainright, they've got who - Lohse, Reyes, Pinero, Wellemeyer? They're doing good, but they're not top guys.

Stupid chat guy. Pitchers can get better, ya know?! 9:08 AM Just b/c Wandy has been average to bad his first few years, doesn't mean he'll always be that way - I'm actaully excited about his return.

Same w/ the Cards - just b/c Wellemeyer has been an average bullpen guy in the past, doesn't mean he can't be a good starter now. 9:09 AM

That's my #1 peeve about baseball analysis "experts", whenever they talk about a team's pitching, they bascially name the team's ace, then say "but after him, you have no other top class guys"9:10 AM. That's the dumbest argument ever. Aces can develop over time and very few teams ever have more than one. Who thought Wainright was a dominant ace 1.5 years ago? No one. Now he's considered a top guy. 9:11 AM. Guys can go from middle of the rotation guys to top line borderline aces over the course of even one year. Happens all the time, like with Wainright last year (or Haren last year).

I'm just saying that I always hear that stupid argument, and its just a cheap way to get out of actually answering a question about a team's pitching - just criticize their chances by pointing out that they have an ace, but no other great pitchers after that. It sounds good, but its really a dumb argument, as it only takes into account past performance in our assessment of what constitutes an "ace", and doesn't take into account the potential of some formerly middle of the road guys to take a step up to potential ace status during the course of the year.

Sorry bri, too much to say. I need to write a blog or something - get my shit out....


And so it began....