Best MLB uniforms ever

One day I looked at the page taken out of Sports Illustrated featuring Charlie Sheen as Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn in Major League, and decided to pay homage to some of the best uniforms in MLB history. Here is what I think each team's best uniform was, with years worn.

Arizona Diamondbacks Away (2001-2006)

Atlanta Braves Away (1983-present)

Baltimore Orioles Home (1995-2003)

Boston Red Sox Home (1979-2009)

Chicago White Sox Alternate Home (1991-1999)

Chicago Cubs Alternate Home (2008-present)

Cincinnati Reds Home (2000-2003)

Cleveland Indians Alternate Home (2000-2001)

Colorado Rockies Alternate Home (2000-present)

Detroit Tigers Away (2000-present)

Florida/Miami Marlins Home (1993-1995)

Houston Astros Home (2000-present)

Kansas City Royals Away (2002-2005)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Home (1997-2001)

Los Angeles Dodgers Alternate Home (1999)

Milwaukee Brewers Alternate Home (2000-present)

Minnesota Twins Road (1987-1999)

New York Mets Road (2000-2011)

New York Yankees Road (1973-present)

Oakland Athletics Alternate Home (1995-1999)

Philadelphia Phillies Alternate Home (2008-present)

Pittsburgh Pirates Home (2001-2008)

San Diego Padres Home (circa 1998)

San Francisco Giants Home (1983-1993)

Seattle Mariners Alternate Home (2011)

St. Louis Cardinals Away (2000-present)

Tampa Bay Rays Alternate Home (2010-present)

Texas Rangers Home (1995-1999)

Toronto Blue Jays Alternate Home (1997-2002)

Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos Away (1989-1991)

I have to give major props to this website, where I got all but one of the pictures for the uniforms (San Diego Padres). For the most part, these uniforms are spectacularly awesome, and I would love to own all of them. What was also really fun to do (for anyone familiar with MLB players at the turn of the millennium) was think about which players wore these uniforms (Juan Gonzalez in Texas, Roger Clemens in Toronto, Mo Vaughn in Anaheim). So there are my top uniforms!

The rivalry power of the NHL Playoffs

Yes, our Bruins are out of the playoffs. But you know what? They lost a hell of a series to an I-never-wanted-to-play-this-team team. On paper, it was one of the most even series of all time (four overtimes, all seven games decided by one goal, a total of 2:54 of playing time in the entire SERIES where EITHER team led by two goals or more). On the ice, what does it mean for the future? I'm going to try and answer that question by looking back at last year's playoffs. I'm interested to see if having a playoff series creates a rivalry - for anyone immediately failing to see the validity in this, just look back to this year's Bruins/Canucks 2011 Stanley Cup Final rematch.

So. What to do. I'll take the penalty minutes (PIM) and fighting majors of the games played between two eventual playoff teams in the 2010-2011 regular season, look at the PIM/fighting majors for the 2011 playoff series, and see if the PIM/fighting majors in the 2011-2012 regular season games increased significantly. I suspect the most significant to be that Stanley Cup Final. Now to actually carry out a statistical analysis for all 15 playoff series, I would require more time than I currently have. So maybe this will be a summer study. After all, I will have access to the cool stats programs at Stonehill since I'll be here for the summer.

Think about it though - does playoff hockey create rivalries?

Choosing my religion

I want to get into something way more in-depth regarding sports than what I'm about to talk about, but I do just want to mention one thing first. Sports is very much like religion. In my freshman year GenEd Religious Studies class, we actually looked at how the Red Sox could be considered a religion. Here's my argument for the parallel between sports and religion:

I grew up going to church every Sunday. Not because I wanted to, but because my parents woke me up at 9:15 and told me to get ready for church. I obliged in fear of being disobedient. By the time high school rolled around, and we had practices, homework, and other activities on Sunday, we didn't go to church nearly as much. For a few years now, we've been an Easter/Christmas Eve family. Now that I'm able to make my own decisions about religion and what it means to me, I'm not forced into anything regarding religion. My parents trust that whatever I believe is what I want to believe, and they won't get in the way.

How are sports any different? Most of us, myself included, liking a particular sports team because of two things - location and family. Having lived near Boston my entire life, and having passionate Boston sports fans as parents, it was destined that I would love the Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, and Patriots. I still do. But only now am I starting to realize that I don't have to. I'm intelligent enough about sports to know what makes me want to root for certain teams (in baseball, it's good, young pitching, smart baserunning/fielding, and a solid lineup). At this point in my sports-watching career, who's to tell me I still have to like the Red Sox? (Editor's Note: If you can't tell, I've been at an internal crisis with myself for the entire season with the Red Sox on how much I actually like this team.) I'm not saying I dislike the Red Sox. I still do. I promise. There is still no better feeling in the sports world to walk into Fenway and see the sun shining on the grass, bleachers, and entire park. There are few better feelings at all in life.

All I'm saying is, if we're old enough and smart enough to choose our religion, why can't we choose our sports, as well?

(Editor's Note: Also excuse the R.E.M. reference in the post title. It was too good to pass up, even if this post is about sports.)

22 games

I don't get it. Maybe we need more time. Maybe it actually is Valentine's fault. Maybe our pitchers just suck. But right now, Felix Doubront is the best pitcher on the Red Sox. And he has zero wins in three starts this season. And a 3.94 ERA. Giving up 1.50 BB/H per inning pitched.

Our 9th inning man (Andrew Bailey) is out until the All-Star Break. Our 8th inning man (Daniel Bard) is in the rotation. Our 7th inning man (Mark Melancon) has an ERA well above the barometer. Our 6th inning man (Alfredo Aceves) is in the 9th inning role, having posted TWO outings of 0.0 IP with 3 or more earned runs. And it's still April.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this team? We're 2-2 in games where we've scored 9 or more runs; 2-3 when allowing three or fewer runs. We're a game ahead of the Royals (3-11) for the worst record in the MLB. I don't care what I said last week. After that post, the Red Sox reeled off three wins against the Rays, only to drop their next five against AL Pennant contenders (one against Tampa Bay, a two-game set against Texas, and the first two of the weekend series against the Yankees).

The one glimmer of hope is the upcoming schedule. After tonight's game against New York, Boston will play Minnesota, Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore, Kansas City, Cleveland, and Seattle. Twenty-two games over seven series. If the Red Sox want any chance to make a run back to the top of the AL East, they have to do it now.

What diversity means to me

"At Stonehill, how many of your good friends and acquaintances are diverse (i.e., different from you)?"

This is a question on a survey being sent out to the Stonehill student-body by the Diversity Task Force on campus. To be honest, I don't know as much as I should about what they're trying to do, or what their goals are. I can assume that they're trying to make Stonehill more diverse and inclusive, as well as accepting of all differences. I'm all for that. But I'm for the right differences. As in, thoughts/ideas. Not race, not socioeconomic status...what you have to say is more important to me. Which is why I hated answering the question, "At Stonehill, how many of your good friends and acquaintances are diverse (i.e., different from you)?" Everyone is different from me! If everyone were the same as me, it would be a drone-filled world where no one would do anything but sloth around.

I can find an example of how not only my good friends, but every person, is different from me. In just my friend group at Stonehill...some are female, some like history, some are signing up to fight for our country, some hate the music I like...if there was a person who was exactly like me in every single way, I wouldn't gain anything by interacting with that person. I'd basically be talking to myself. Which is uninteresting.

However, the fact that I now find that uninteresting is very interesting. I remember saying at the end of my college application essay that I was crazy, and that it would be a good day in my life when I would find someone else to be crazy with. I don't want that anymore. I'm not even crazy any...it doesn't matter that I'm still crazy. I'm crazy in a different way. I have new insights, new visions, and new ideas. The Stonehill community has fostered a part of me that is open to listening to any thought or idea. Stonehill has made me the right kind of crazy. And Stonehill should be okay with that, and leave things at that. It shouldn't be about what our prejudices are. It should be about our thoughts and ideas, and how we interact with others.

The Rulebook: "Why are we here?"

"Why are we here?"

In The 40 Year Old Virgin, there's a scene where Andy (Steve Carell)'s girlfriend asks him, rhetorically, what the object in her hand is. It is a plastic vagina. When she asks him why he has it, he replies, "To learn!"

Thanks to that awful description of a scene, you now know the background for what went on in AP Psych. Our teacher would often ask us why were were here when we were being rowdy in class. (Which was also often.) One day, one of my friends cried out, "To learn!" What was funny is that he was actually right - our teacher always reminded us that we were here to learn. We didn't go to high school to goof off or not pay attention in class. We went to learn about psychology, physics, calculus, French, and other stuff.

While the back-and-forth carried with our friend group from home throughout the subsequent couple of years, the idea is coming back to me stronger than ever. This is because of the Relay for Life last night at Stonehill. The student organizer asked us why we were here. And when I thought about it, "To learn" sounded like a pretty viable answer. And when I thought about the concept more, learning is a driving force for anything we do. Why do we go to class? Why do we volunteer our services in the community? Why do we attend mass? This is to learn. We learn about ideas and subjects, others, and ourselves. I remember saying that learning is one of the coolest things we can do with our life, and that we should take every opportunity we can get to learn. It will add to our already deep understanding of the world around us.

So ask yourself, "Why are we here?" from time to time. Even if it's not to learn, make sure you have a good reason for doing something. If you can't think of one, don't try and justify it under false pretense. Just don't do it.

156 games

Here we go again.

The Red Sox have started out 1-5, a game better than their start last season. This year, they've lost a number of games that could have been theirs. Yes, it's early. Yes, it's a long season. Yes, the Red Sox will probably be fine. But every game counts. Allow me:

Game 1: @ Detroit, L 3-2. Sure, it's Justin Verlander, but if the Red Sox want to consider Jon Lester to be some of the best in the game, they need to play like he is. Lester pitched well, giving up one run in seven innings. Unfortunately, Verlander pitched better. The reigning AL MVP and Cy Young shut down the Red Sox offense, but the bullpen left the door open, giving up two runs in the top of the ninth. What started as an extremely promising bullpen, now reduced to an enormous question mark, gave up a run in the bottom of the inning to lose the first game of the season. The combined line of Padilla, Melancon, and Aceves: 0.2 IP, 4 H, 2 R, and a loss. So much for that bullpen.

Game 3: @ Detroit, L 13-12, F/11. This was one they had a chance to win. Twice. With a three-run lead. Twice. In a game they really didn't deserve to win anyway, the Red Sox still should have come away with a win. Alas, the bullpen blew it yet again. Aceves looked awful, facing his three batters. Watching the game, I kind of had this horrible feeling that Miguel Cabrera was going to hit it 400 feet on the first pitch. I hate it when I'm right. Then it was Melancon, who everyone thought was going to close once Andrew Bailey went down, up next. Another three runs later, the number in the loss column changed for the third time in as many games. The Red Sox had lost the near-five-hour affair due to terrible pitching in the bullpen. Credit the Tigers for being an extremely good overall team, but this is a series that the Red Sox absolutely should have come out of with at least one win.

Game 6: @ Toronto, L 3-1. Lester's pitching line for the season after today's loss: 2 GS, 15 IP, 9 H, 4 ER, 10 K. Respectable. Two quality starts. Worthy of an expectation of one or two victories. However, Lester's record currently stands at 0-1. This is because the offense has provided him with a total of one run over those 15 innings. Lester's run support was second-highest in the majors last season, and only managed 15 wins out of it. Hard to imagine what could happen if the Red Sox average anything under 4 runs a game for the ace.

But it's not that this team is losing that's pissing me off, it's how they're losing. The kind of baseball the play makes me almost want to not root for them. They take themselves out of opportunities to get breaks, which is one of the biggest keys in baseball. Nick Punto got himself in a rundown between third and home after running on contact with the infield in and less than two outs, in the final game of the Detroit series. Bad baserunning that led to an out. An out that would have scored, and would have later given the Red Sox a win. If luck really is where preparation meets opportunity, then the Red Sox need to prepare better. They have the opportunities for success, but aren't a good team at doing things with them. That's how the 2008 Rays were so successful; they were a team that capitalized on the bases. That's how the 2010 Giants were so successful; they had a pitching staff that limited the opportunities of the other team.

Like I said, it's a long season. Maybe Bobby Valentine just needs a week or two to find the best way to light a fire under the Red Sox. I know that he'll manage this team differently from Francona. He'll put this team in a position to win, but then it falls on the shoulders of the players. This team can be good. But it can't afford to spend the entire month of April figuring out how.

Highlights from Easter break

Well it's seemed like a long time since my last post, but it's only been...well, a week actually. Never mind. It has been a long time since my last post. But that's because a lot has happened, and I haven't had the time to blog recently. Vicki came to Watertown for all of Easter break, and it was the perfect combination of relaxing, productive, and active, until we got back to Stonehill yesterday. Here are some fun things that happened:

- We saw Titanic in 3D. More importantly, I cried my eyes out three times watching Titanic in 3D. Which says a lot about this girl - we watched the movie last year one night and I didn't cry at all. Obviously things have changed, and equally as obviously, for the better. Things changed for me too, however - I'm now able to hold on to scenes and quotes in movies that are incredibly powerful.

- Even though they lost the first three games of the season, it was still good to see the Red Sox back in action. Sort of. At least Lester got off to a good start. More on the beginning of the 2012 campaign in a different blog post.

- We hold Easter at our house every year, so it was nice to see all my relatives in one place, talking, catching up, and eating with all of them. Cadbury Creme Eggs are literally the greatest thing ever, too. Best thing about Easter, for sure. Not to mention the endless amount of food and dessert we had.

- Vicki and I also finished some work, too. I wrote a seven-page Sociology paper. She finished an eighty-page book. No big deal or anything. I happen to think it's a very good paper, too. (Editor's Note: Hehe.) In all seriousness though, props to her for completing it. Vicki also worked on her friendship bracelets, which was for another project in Creative Process. I thought of something to do if I ever take that class, which I definitely hope to. The project is something that "puts fire in your belly," as Vicki told me when she learned of the assignment. What I think would be awesome is to take pictures from various places, with the catch being that they are all really high up. I've become increasingly afraid of heights, and looking over railings and ledges where I might fall dozens of feet. It's just a bad feeling for me. So for the project, I would take pictures from up above, ultimately sending my heart up through my throat, but hey...isn't that the point?

I have a piece of advice for everyone, too. If you think of something good, cool, interesting, useful, whatever...immediately write down as much of it as you can. I felt like I had a lot more to say about the weekend, and was going to blog either yesterday or Sunday, but put it off until today. Do things as soon as you think about them.

The Rulebook: "Believe what you want"

"Brilliant" is a word that I hardly use to describe someone. Actually, I'm pretty sure I've never described someone as brilliant. Things, maybe. But not people. I'm going to change that right now.

Our Physics teacher in high school was absolutely brilliant. The dude knew everything there was to know about physics and astronomy, and knew a ton about more or less everything else. Brilliant. He often indulged us about the political battle between the administration and the teachers. (There's been a contract battle for a couple of years now.) And by indulge, I mean he tore apart the administration. He was the students' champion because he didn't listen to what anyone said except himself. But that's what made him so brilliant! A couple of my friends and I started drafting Duggan Principles in the back of our agenda books. Sometimes he just talked about stuff for the first 20 minutes of class, and there was always some "Wow, he's totally right" feeling when he was finished.

The first Duggan Principle I'll talk about is "Believe what you want." It's something that I feel is prevalent all over the place. One of my professors at Stonehill always says that math is just whoever can yell out their answer louder than everyone else. I've always held the belief that humanities papers are subjective and had a different interpretation for each person who read them. To hell with anyone who tells you something you don't want to hear! This coincides harmoniously with the concept of moral relativism that I enjoyed blogging about last year in philosophy. I eventually came to the conclusion that the truth is that there is no truth. That is to say, believe what you want. Sometimes, you might be in the vast minority (say, if you were to argue that 1+1=3), but when it's matters of what's relative, it's all you.

So believe what you want. This is your rulebook. Don't listen to what I'm saying unless it agrees with what you have to say. Hell, don't listen to what I have to say at all. Just take in what I say, and formulate your own thoughts from it.

THE RULEBOOK

"It's about how to live your life."

The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch is one of my favorite books ever. I say this because it's one of the few books I've voluntarily read, and read multiple times. (Yes, those are the only two qualifications for being one of my favorite books ever.) For those who don't know, Randy Pausch was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He gave a "last lecture" to about 400 people, and wrote a book after the lecture. The book, which I enjoyed more, had anecdotes from Pausch's life that served as a foundation for viewing our own lives. Little tidbits of advice that can go a long way and mean a lot to people. Pausch wasn't trying to be a hero - he was giving the lecture for his three children, who were all under the age of six at the time of his talk. Even though his lecture was intended for an audience of three, everyone can draw something from this book and incorporate it into their own lives. What I've decided to do is exactly that, but from sources other than the book. Including, and in no way limited to, my own beliefs, The Last Lecture, my AP Physics teacher in high school, conversations with people, and other quotes and readings.

I thought about dedicating an entirely separate blog for this concept. I'm still considering that as an option, but for now, I'm keeping it here. Separating The Rulebook from One Day, One Room would kind of nullify the meaning of this blog. So, I'll go with a tab on the blog with links to each rule I talk about.

And don't think of these as rules. Think of them as someone's opinion that you have entirely no obligation to adhere to. That's what makes your own belief system so effective. You'll see exactly what I mean soon.

10 great game shows

When I was in elementary school, I would walk over to my aunt's house after every half day, and watch the Game Show Network. We didn't have it at home (and still don't (Mom, take note)), so it was always awesome when I got to see some of my favorite shows. Back then, it was just something to have on the TV and relax to, but now, game shows are all about the competition and being right. I think there are many people out there (like me) who yell at the contestants because they don't know the obvious answer, or because they're playing the strategy horribly wrong. Alas, here are some of my favorite game shows - old, new, and everything in between.

1. Lingo. Lingo is a combination of Bingo, Mastermind, and the English language. Teams of two must solve a five-letter word give only the first letter. When they guess a word, they will be shown which letters are in exactly the right spot, or are in the word, but need to go somewhere else. If they guess the word correctly, they get two squares on a Bingo board, and win mad money if they get a Bingo. This might be on the higher end of intelligence as far as game shows go, but it's still really fun to watch and yell at people that have no idea what they're doing.

2. $100,000 Pyramid. This is as close as you can get to Catch Phrase, except that, you know, you can win $100,000. And get really excited when it happens. What was cool about this show is that they always had a celebrity on. What wasn't cool about it is that I never knew who the celebrity was. Something about the 1980s...

3. Dog Eat Dog. I'm actually not sure why I watched this. Maybe because it seems like the adult version of Nickelodeon GUTS? I dunno...it definitely seems like something that belongs on MTV now. I'm blaming this as the trendsetter for reality TV game shows that you never intend on watching, but end up watching the entire episode anyway.

4. Friend or Foe? We ended up doing something exactly like this in AP Psych, and I remember rallying my team to take everyone else's money. The premise of this game is that two partners can choose either friend or foe. If they both choose friend, they split the money they've earned in the trivia round. If they both choose foe, neither of them gets anything. If one chooses foe, and one friend, then the foe receives all the money. Exactly how awesome is that? Try it at home. (Go to 2:30 for the friend/foe decision.)

5. Press Your Luck. This was one of my favorite games to watch, because the contestants got extremely invested in random chance. Or was it random chance? One contestant figured out the system to the board that awarded money and free spins, which led to more money and free spins, which ultimately led to the most money won in a single game show. It was really interesting to read about, and even cooler to watch. Yes, it's 80 minutes long, but watch the first few minutes. You might get hooked.

6. Weakest Link. This game show surprisingly drew you in within minutes of watching it. There was a lot going on during the question round, and you always seemed to root for a favorite to win the game. Questions were asked to a panel of contestants, who could at any time bank the amount of money the group has received from correct responses. After the round was over, the group voted off one "weakest link." But the best part about this show was the host. Ice in her veins.

7. 1 vs. 100. Definitely my favorite game. As much as I've talked up the other games, there was nothing as cool as this game. Maybe because it had the numbers, the trivia, the celebrities, the excitement...although I suppose most game shows do. Maybe it was Bob Saget. Maybe it was because everyone seemed to yell louder on this show than others. All I know is that it's awesome.

8. Supermarket Sweep. After watching this video, I'm not really sure why I ever watched this show. Nothing made sense, but it was surprisingly incredibly exciting. Come on, I was ten.

9. Family Feud. I was going to hold off on putting this on the list because it's still aired today with new episodes, but I'm talking about the Family Feud on the Game Show Network with awesome hosts. No Steve Harvey. Family Feud was the ultimate "yell at the contestants because they are wrong" game, as well as the ultimate "watch and play against someone else to prove your superiority over them" game. And then there's this.

10. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? The classic. The one with Regis. The way it should be. None of this double dip lifeline nonsense, none of this Meredith nonsense, none of this timed answers nonsense. That one note that the strings played the entire time. So much excitement and intensity. SO MUCH.