Cruz Control

The fifth and deciding game of the American League Divisional Series between the underdog Texas Rangers and the Tampa Bay Rays was tied 1-1 with two outs in the top of the fourth inning when the Rangers' young slugger Nelson Cruz came up to face the Rays' All-Star pitcher David Price.

Tampa Bay entered the postseason with the best record baseball, and Price was not only their best pitcher, but was one of the one best pitchers in baseball. On the other hand, Texas entered the post season with the worst record of any playoff team and had not been expected to even make it to the fifth game of this series.

But with two balls and two strikes in the fourth inning of a 1-1 game, Cruz crushed a pitch to left center field and -- abandoning baseball etiquette -- stood in the batter's box and admired his shot for a couple of seconds before beginning his slow celebratory home-run trot around the bases.

As Cruz approached first base, he realized that the ball had not left the park, but had actually bounced off the wall and back into the field of play, so he hustled to second base.


It is considered showboating for a hitter to stand in the batter's box and admire his shot after hitting a home-run. However, ever since players like Barry Bonds and Manny Ramirez began doing it regularly, more players have taken to admiring their home-run balls and trotting around the bases. (If a hitter did this before the Bonds/Ramirez era, he was likely to get a ball thrown at him in his next at-bat.)

Cruz has slightly above average speed, so he could have easily made it to third base on the play if he had hustled -- some especially fast runners might have even scored. But instead, the home-run trot cost Cruz third base, and so with two outs in the top of the 4th, Cruz was stuck on second base.


The chances of a runner with Cruz's speed scoring from third base on a single is similar to his chances of scoring from second. So in that sense, being on second base with two outs versus being on third base was not a significant disadvantage. However, there is a definite advantage to being at third base because in addition to the greater chances of scoring on a single, there is also the possibility of scoring on a wild pitch (which can't be done from second.)

Johnnie O and I got quite a kick out this. We laughed at Cruz for trotting around the bases on a ball that didn't go out of the park, and we imagined how angry his coaches and teammates must have been. Even more, we laughed at how embarrassed Cruz himself must have been for showboating and costing his team a base at the most important moment of the most important game of his life.

We imagined what must have been going through Cruz's mind as he stood there on second base, helpless, knowing that every player on both teams, plus the thousands of fans in attendance and millions of fans watching on national television had just seen him make an incredibly dumb play.


Another rule of thumb in baseball is that a baserunner should never make the final out of an inning at third base, because like I said above, the chances of scoring from third on a single are only slightly greater than they are from second (so a runner shouldn't take the chance of being thrown out at third and completely wiping out any scoring possibility.) (And the possibility of scoring on a wild pitch is negligible compared to a runner's chances of being thrown out trying to steal third base.)

Stealing third base is a difficult task in major league baseball. The throw from home plate to third base is much shorter than the throw from home plate to second base, and since being on third base with two outs is not much of an upgrade over being at second base with two outs, stealing third base with two outs is something that almost never happens.

But Cruz knew he had messed up by admiring his shot, so on Price's very first pitch to the next batter, Cruz took off to steal third!

Cruz is a player known more for his power than his speed, but not being one to abide by conventional wisdom, he attempted to atone for his showboating by trying to steal third base with two outs in a tie game of the deciding game of a playoff series against the best team in baseball!


"Oh my God, what an idiot!!" I shouted as he took off for third.

I imagined the wrath that Cruz -- who had only stolen third base 12 times in his entire six year career, and probably never with two outs -- would face as he went back to the dugout to get his glove after being thrown out to end the inning and wiping out his team's chance to take the lead in the final game of the series.

Johnnie O said what Texas manager Ron Washington was likely thinking, "Oh nooooo!"

"He's either dumb, or he's crazy!"I shouted.


Not only did Cruz's steal attempt surprise me and Johnnie O, but it also surprised the Rays. Pitcher David Price barely even looked back to hold Cruz at second base before going into a full windup and throwing a slow breaking ball -- both of which are more susceptible to a stolen base. And catcher Kelly Shoppach didn't seem ready to make a throw, because the throw he made to catch Cruz at third was off target.

As third baseman Evan Longoria jumped to try and catch the errant throw from Shoppach, Cruz slid in underneath him and safely into third base.

And when the ball went flying over Longoria's head and into left field, Cruz got up and ran in to score the go-ahead run!


Looking back, I think maybe Cruz is smarter than I initially gave him credit. Maybe he trotted to second on purpose because he wanted to catch the Rays off guard by trying to steal third and forcing a bad throw that would allow him to score the go-ahead run. If he had hustled to third like he was supposed to on his long fly ball, then he would have had to rely on the next batter to drive him in. Instead, Nelson Cruz -- the pride of Monte Cristi -- took matters into his own hands.

Nelson Cruz, I salute you!!

Here's the highlight.


And for all of my female fans who didn't care much for this baseball post, here's a picture of Nelson Cruz naked:

(Well, he's naked, but you can't see anything more than the top of his buttcrack. So I apologize to women and gay men (and straight men) who were hoping to see his penis or his asshole.)

Picture of the Day (and probably a bunch of other bullshit)

I walked outside last Saturday morning with Cindy and said, "You know what? I may not have the best hair in the city, but I have the most important hair in the city."

She wasn't sure how to respond, so I gave her my phone and told her to take a picture of my hair. Here's the picture she took.

(That aura always follows my hair)

...

Chicago made a push for the 2016 Olympic games last year, but ended up losing out to Rio Di Janeiro. Although it seemed kind of obvious, no one really explained what it takes to be selected to host the Olympic games, so I checked out the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Olympic Games website and took a look for myself.

Here's what I found on the site:


How are the host cities of the Olympic Games chosen?

After a detailed evaluation of the candidate cities, the International Olympic Committee awards the right to organize the Olympic Games to the city that offers the largest bribe.


...


We take clothes for granted. Big time.

Imagine if you were dropped off on a desert island naked. How long do you think it would be before you were wearing a pair of pants?

...


I was fighting to stay awake at work this afternoon (which is pretty much what I do every afternoon) and I thought to myself, "Man, if there is a God, then that motherfucker's really got sick sense of humor. He really does."

...


He really fucking does, man.

...


Speaking of God, I went to a wedding in a Catholic church a few weeks ago. The church was huge and spectacularly ornate, and some of its art was very unique for a Catholic church.

This was the front of the church. You can see the priest on the left. 

And this was the mural on the domed ceiling

And here was some stained glass

And here was even more stained glass.

And this was one of the many murals of Jesus

Picture of the Day

I saw a few pieces I liked at an art gallery this weekend, which led me to this question:

(I'll get to the question)

This was one of the paintings I liked (it was huge, five feet by three feet):

I once got fixated on a close-up picture of a gorilla at the Old Town Art Fair a couple of years ago because it looked like the gorilla had a lot on his mind. And this seagull painting kind of captured the same thing.

It especially caught my attention because I had once tried to get a similar image of a seagull a couple of years ago (but I couldn't zoom in as far as I liked.)

I'm fascinated by urban birds. They have absolutely no fear of people. A big group of them nest under the bridge at Diversey harbor, and even when huge crowds of people congregate out there, the seagulls just go about their business like nothing is out of the ordinary.

I'd hang this painting up in my apartment, but I imagined it took a very long time to paint and would cost a lot more than I can afford.

I looked at the tag just in case:

I loved the title! It added even more to the painting. But unfortunately, it would take me a long time to make $2,800. And since my job is extremely boring, I'd probably buy that painting and look at it hanging on my wall and think to myself, "Was this painting really worth three weeks off?"

(An unfortunate side effect of having a boring job that pays by the hour is that you think of every potential purchase in terms of how much time off you could take if you didn't buy it.)

So I didn't buy the painting, but I took a picture of it. And I wondered: What if I took my picture of it and printed it out and hung it up in my apartment (along with a picture of the title, and maybe even a small version of my original picture of the seagull on the beach) and then sent the artist a small donation? (very small, like $10)

How would the artist feel about that?

Picture of the Day (and a bunch of other bullshit)

(That last post was pretty good -- I thought about taking a break. But no -- I'm back to provide electric prose to electric prose addicts.)

I'd love to find another blog like mine. Is some guy -- or girl -- sitting around in Birmingham Alabama doing what I'm doing?

Most of my friends' blogs have died unceremonious deaths. I don't have many friends left who blog consistently. It ain't easy.

Nania blogs consistently. She's still in the honeymoon phase with her blog, but she could be different because she knows she's a writer and expressing herself seems to come naturally. (Although I think she prefers writing fiction.)

Dirk is inconsistent, but you'll get the occasional gem like this to sum up a rant about being annoyed by airport security,

I wish I had the time and money to travel by train and ocean liner.

Pretty much sums up exactly what Dirk and I stand for.

And John's movie review blog is updated consistently, but I'm not as into movies as those guys.

Here are a few quick tangents from John's blog (Reel Nerds):

I saw a preview for Catfish over the weekend. It looked interesting, and I was kind of curious to see the outcome of the big cliffhanger they hyped up, but not curious enough to remember that I had been kind of curious about it. (I completely forgot about it.) But then last night I read the Reel Nerds preview of Catfish and got curious about it again, but didn't want to actually sit through the entire movie, so I just googled "Catfish spoiler" and read about what happens.

I also saw a preview for Life As We Know It over the weekend and thought about the men who are going to get dragged to go see it. And I appreciated Cindy for never trying to drag me to stuff like that. (Not to say that I'm immune to stuff like that -- I enjoyed One Fine Day and Knotting Hill (in the comfort of my home)) (And speaking of Hugh Grant, I know this is an extremely old topic, but what the hell was that guy doing trying to buy sex on the street? That's just funny to me. (Seriously, it's making me laugh out loud right now.) Not so much that he'd hire a prostitute, but just that a rich celebrity like Hugh Grant would just roll down the street, pull up next to the sluttiest looking woman he saw and offer her money for a blowjob.) (I'll tell you what: That's on his people. I don't even blame Hugh Grant. It's just like Tiger Woods. That is 100% on his people. If a guy like Hugh Grant wants to purchase fellatio, he should have a manager or a fixer to whom he can make a phone call and be directed to a reliable madame. Unless of course, Hugh Grant is not into the sex act itself as much as he's into the idea of picking up random slutty women on the street and purchasing dick suckings for trivial amounts of money. In that case, I guess it is what it is.)

(I remember getting a kick out of Juice referring to getting his dick sucked as getting "slobbed." Which was short for "slobbering on your knob." That still makes me laugh. I've never thought of the woman as actually slobbering, and I've never referred to my dick as my knob. (I only refer to it as, "my dick" and "my big dick"))

(And sometimes I'll refer to my balls as "the future")

(Just kidding about referring to it as "my big dick", but I kind of wish I wasn't --- not so much about having a big dick, but just referring to it as "my big dick")

(And I'm not kidding about "the future")

But anyway, back towards my original point: The movie reviewers for Reel Nerds are fairly highbrow and proudly pretentious. So it was also funny to think about one of their learned and proudly pretentious film buffs -- in this case Allen Grindley II -- sitting through Life As We Know It.

I love the line Grindley uses to start the third paragraph of his review,

I was somewhat surprised to learn that this film is not as terrible as I expected it to be.

The entire paragraph is great. Here, I'll just give you the whole thing:

I was somewhat surprised to learn that this film is not as terrible as I expected it to be. It has a handful of chuckles and a few really sweet moments. The leads play their part to the best of the story's abilities, and considering I normally can't stand Heigl or Duhamel that is as close to a complement as I'm going to give. The fatal sin that this film is guilty of committing is its absolutely painful predictability. Once the setup has been established the film essentially turns into a massive montage segment where these two use a series of trial and error methods of child rearing techniques that come complete with plenty of the stereotypical poop and puke jokes.

That's just good writing.

...


Riding public transportation everyday gives me sample of what people are reading (and what mobile devices people are using.) (and by "people" I mean, young professionals who live on the north side of Chicago.)

I never ask anyone for an opinion on what they're reading on public transportation because I don't like bothering people during their commute. Yesterday I even fought the urge to interrupt a guy who was starting Blink -- even though I desperately wanted to do him a favor and say, "Listen, I've never said a word to anyone about a book during their commute in my life, but trust me on this: read only Chapters 1 and 6, and then put this book down. Or, don't listen to me and read the whole thing, and then at least you'll know I was being honest with you, and you'll know to trust the next asshole who says something like this to you."

(but I wasn't sure about the chapter numbers)

(and I really liked the thesis in that book, it just seemed like it could have been summed up in a quarter of the space)


My favorite story about reading on public transportation came from Johnnie O, who once saw a guy on the train reading the big John Adams biography. But when Johnnie took a closer look, he noticed that the guy had put the John Adams hardcover jacket over a Harry Potter book.

So that gets me closer to what was supposed to be the point of this post:

Here is a list of the three books I've seen most often read by commuters on Chicago public transportation between Lakeview and the Loop this decade (excluding 2004-2006):

3. Harry Potter -- What was the John Adams guy worried about? From 2002-2003, I don't think I went a single train ride without seeing someone reading Harry Potter. (Although, the #3 ranking is disproportionately high because there are seven Harry Potter books.) (I've never read one.)

And I hate people who recommend Harry Potter to me.

Fuck you. Do I look like the kind of asshole who wants to sit around and read about wizards and dragons and shit?

(Ok, I'm exaggerating. I won't knock Harry Potter until I've tried it.)


2. Eat Pray Love -- This ranking is even more remarkable given that I have never seen a man reading it.


1. The Breast -- Just kidding. But I actually read this, and it's pretty bad. (And that's coming from a guy who likes some of Roth's other stuff (especially the Kepesh series.))


1. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo -- I see this book in someone's hands at least twice a day. At least.

How popular is this book? When I type "the" into the search bar on Amazon.com, the first autofill suggestion is "The Office" and the second is "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

Cindy has read the first two. I read the first chapter of the first one and liked it, so I'll probably read it at some point.

When we went to Turks and Caicos for our honeymoon, we saw people reading it at the airport, on the plane, on the beach, and even the native girl working the convenient store outside our hotel was reading it.

Cindy was reading the sequel on the beach one day, and guess what the woman in the very next chair was reading?

...

YouTube is a good place to listen to music. I listened to Metal on Metal by Anvil today, and after the video ended, one of the related videos was a cover of the song by a band called Six Feet Under. Even if you don't like the song, just listen to the first 40 seconds of each version.

Anvil's Original Version of Metal on Metal

Six Feet Under's Version of Metal on Metal

...

I like politics, but I hate politics.

I saw at least 15 negative campaign ads during the Bears game Sunday night.

And not one positive ad.


And then I read a few scathing political op-ed's today.

If you only read the New York Times, you'd think that the Republican party is nothing more than a handful of billionaires and major corporations who secretly fund political organizations with the sole purpose of indoctrinating uneducated voters in order to decrease taxes and financial regulations so that rich people can preserve their wealth.

And if you only read the Wall Street Journal, you'd think that the Democratic party is nothing more than a handful of organized labor groups who secretly fund political organizations with the sole purpose of indoctrinating uneducated voters in order to raise taxes and disproportionately distribute the nation's wealth to the aforementioned labor groups.

...

Here's a short post on the Economist about a proposed "Taxpayer receipt" that would give everyone an itemized listing of what their federal tax dollars went towards.

I think it's a good idea -- it kind of reminds me of John Kass's idea to make people write a check for their tax payments at the end of the year rather than have taxes automatically deducted from each paycheck.

(I'm definitely not one of those anti-tax lunatics. I agree with the saying "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society", but I think that itemizing the expenses might encourage a little more responsibility)

Speaking of the Economist: I like going on their website once in a while and getting their take things. But it takes a certain kind of person have a subscription and read that thing cover to cover.

...

Ok I'm going to add to the title of this post