Predicting the 2014 MLB playoffs

For the fourth time, establishing itself as the longest-standing tradition of One Day, One Room (I think), I bring you MLB postseason predictions! After successfully predicting exactly one series outcome in two years between 2011-12, I totally nailed it last season, getting each series right. So to be honest, I have no idea what will happen in 2014. But I suppose that's what I'm here to figure out.

League Division Series
Angels vs. Royals
For the better part of the past two months, it's looked as though everyone else is playing a different game than the LA Angels. They've played better than .600 baseball during that stretch, and save a freak injury to Garrett Richards, have the most complete team in the American League. A balanced offense and the experience of Jered Weaver propel them past the feel-good Royals, who enjoy their first postseason series since they captured the 1985 World Series, but make little noise against the team with the best record.

Orioles vs. Tigers
This is going to be an interesting series featuring two very different kinds of teams. Detroit, one of the juggernauts of the AL for the past few years, hasn't cashed in, while the Orioles have had a quiet yet very successful season under Buck Showalter. Baltimore, led by MVP candidate Nelson Cruz, who is definitely maybe still on steriods, surprise Detroit and advance to the ALCS.

Nationals vs. Pirates
It doesn't matter which team wins the NL Wild Card game - the way the Nationals' pitching rotation has shined, they coast into the next round on the heels of Stephen Strasburg, Doug Fister, and he-of-the-Game-162-no-hitter Jordan Zimmermann. Washington has been atop the NL East for a majority of the season, but they have their sights set much higher in 2014.

Dodgers vs. Cardinals
This will surely be a highly-anticipated rematch of the 2013 NCLS, which the Cardinals took in six games. Saint Louis hasn't had the firepower this season, but got hot at the right time. The Dodgers, meanwhile, have cruised through this season, largely in part to the best pitcher in the game, Clayton Kershaw. The dude went 21-3, and this was after missing SIX starts to begin the year. Los Angeles went 24-3 in Kershaw's starts, and will go 2-0 en route to another NCLS berth.

League Championship Series
Angels vs. Orioles
There are two interesting World Series that I could set up, although my 2012 Orioles-Nationals World Series didn't quite pan out as I had hoped. It's tough for me to conceive of a team beating the Angels in a best-of-seven series, but if there's a team that can do it, it's Baltimore. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. The Angels are too strong across the board, so unless the Orioles catch a lot of breaks over the next few weeks, the top seed from the American League will advance to the World Series.

Nationals vs. Dodgers
Last season featured a World Series in which each league's best team represented in the final matchup. Skeptics may say it's unlikely for it to happen again. I say nay! At the beginning of the season, I picked Washington to win the World Series, and they haven't disappointed thus far. I don't think either team gets a two-game lead in this series, but I do think that Washington takes it eventually. If we can get this series to happen, it could be the best one of the playoffs.

World Series
Angels vs. Nationals
As exciting as a Trout-Kershaw World Series would be, a Trout-Harper World Series is probably the next best thing (from an individual standpoint). Two of the game's brightest young stars could face off for baseball glory, but until now, not much has been made of the Angels' pitching staff beyond their ace. These two teams match up very evenly on paper - well-rounded offenses, deep pitching staffs, and an excellent bullpen. We've seen that outstanding pitching rotations doesn't guarantee victories (read: 2013 ALCS), and when you've got Mike Trout and Albert Pujols in the same lineup, you have to feel confident about scoring runs in any game. The Angels, who have had one losing streak longer than two games (four, August 5-8) all season long, will be the 2014 World Series Champions.

Best of The Office B-List characters

The Office will go down as one of my favorite shows of all time. It was one of only three shows that I watched as it aired on TV each week (Lost and House being the two others), although I will admit I stopped watching once Michael Scott (Steve Carell) left in the seventh of nine seasons. However, plenty of time to kill on the weekends offered me an opportunity to go through the entire series, and while it may be worth my while to talk about the series as a whole, I'm going to talk about some of the characters that made the show what it was. No, not the Michaels and the Dwights or Jims or Pams, but the B-list characters, making intermittent appearances but bringing many laughs along the way.

Thanks for Stopping By: Josh Porter, Hunter, Nick the IT Guy

These three gentlemen arrived at various points throughout the show, but each of them brought interesting times with them. Josh Porter, manager of the Stamford branch, was actually a relatively important character in seasons two and three when there was discussion of the Stamford and Scranton branches being merged. Hunter was Jan's assistant for all of three episodes, but he will be most remembered for his music. Nick the IT Guy was actually shown as someone representing a graphic design school in the fourth season, but later reappeared as the office's IT guy. Again, he was in and out of the office quickly, but not before making a departure worth remembering.

Who's the New Guy?: Nate and Hide, warehouse workers

Nate and Hide were primarily seen in the later seasons of the show, after the old warehouse crew left. Neither of them were particularly useful, although that perfectly fit each character's charm. While not having any lasting memory, these two gentlemen were prominent B-listers in the later seasons, part of the effort to keep the show surviving as it did. Perhaps the shining moment out of this category is the story of Hidetoshi Hasagawa and how he came to Scranton, PA:

Wait, They're Still Here?: Carol Stills, Elizabeth the Stripper, Hank the Security Guard

Of these three, Hank is the one who is in the most episodes, but each has had their moments over the years on The Office. Carol is remembered mainly for being Michael's girlfriend for a little while, and always finds her way back on the show, just when you forgot that she was ever around. Elizabeth the Stripper appeared in three episodes, the same number as Hunter and Nick the IT Guy, but she was certainly more memorable in her appearances. Her 15 minutes of fame included stripping for Michael at Bob Vance's warehouse bachelor party, accepting a check in the name of science, and making a second stripper appearance at Dwight's bachelor party. Hank, despite appearing in 23 episodes, never really did anything vitally important. He had useless input on the copier/chair dilemma, although in my opinion he did have a nice sound when he sang at C.R.I.M.E. A.I.D.

The A+ B-Listers: David Wallace, Bob Vance, Todd Packer, Mose Schrute

Where to begin with this group...one could argue that the two-time CFO of Dunder-Mifflin would be an A-list character, but David Wallace's appearances are intermittent enough to earn him the highest honor a B-lister can achieve. While not perennially hilarious, Wallace is around enough to be the most important B-lister, appearing in 37 episodes over the nine seasons. His crowning moment? Suck It.

Now, on to Bob Vance, Vance Refrigeration. While having an air about him that always reminded me of this guy from Lost, Bob Vance was always around to protect Phyllis by any means necessary. As was with Wallace, Bob Vance wasn't so funny himself, but it was the situations that he entered into that made it worth the while of having him around. And he's always one for introductions.

Todd Packer is another character who could potentially be a list higher, especially because he has an episode named after him, but again, he was around the perfect frequency to be an excellent character. Sure, his humor might not be reach all audiences, but with the raunchy crowd, he's on top of the world. Bonus points for actor David Koechner for being in this role with Steve Carell, if you're that big a fan of Anchorman. This clip pretty much summarizes everything that Todd Packer stood for.

And finally, Mose. By far the most hilarious person not regularly seen on the show, and even if you were to include that group, Mose finds his way near the top. Whether it's how he runs, what his relationship with Dwight is, or this, Mose just wins at everything. Everything he stands for is what makes The Office what it is. Every good show has its core group of characters, but only the great shows have characters that add more than what their lone value is worth. Or something like that. Here's to you, Mose.

Holocene

Something that has recently occurred to me: we're not going to be here long enough to learn everything there is to learn about life. And that is awesome. Think about it...there are so many unanswered questions, so many philosophies and doctrines and beliefs that we're going to be able to have these discussions forever. I believe that our beliefs are in a constant state of flux, that they cannot resist the gradual change as a result of our life's experiences. Overarching themes may persist, but there are so many facets to belief systems and philosophies for everything to remain perfectly intact.

We are always learning, we are always experiencing, and we are always changing. I remember one afternoon during sophomore year, probably a Sunday, listening to Holocene by Bon Iver and quietly playing along on guitar, minutes away from a nap. (Either that or Ocean.) This is the first time I've thought about that moment since it happened, and it's a nice reminder that little moments can carry their way through our lives, reappearing every now and then. I like the idea that we are not magnificent, despite prior allusions to the idea. As Justin Vernon says when describing the mood behind Holocene, "I think there's a significance in that insignificance that I was trying to look at in that song."

You are one of seven billion people currently alive. Eventually, maybe today, maybe in a year, maybe in 50 years, you will become one of way more than seven billion people who are dead. In the ultimate, grand scheme of the universe and your place in it, you are insignificant. But in the ultimate, grand scheme of you and your place in your own existence, nothing is more significant.

The end is never the end

This post is going to be somewhat along the lines of one that I had late last year, just an amalgam of thoughts about things that kind of have to do with one another. Actually no, I feel like bullet points right now. Here is my path of thought:

• I came across this article, in which German scientists have apparently proved that there is life after death.
• I had the following reaction upon seeing that this article even existed, before reading one word of it:

• This whole time, I've been listening to the newest album by This Will Destroy You. Their first song, "New Topia," is very awesome, and you should listen to it.

• I went back and forth between deciding whether or not to name this post "Life after death after life after death" or something along those lines. For a brief moment I used ||:, like a musical repeat, but then recalled the main theme from The Stanley Parable, which is a philosophical masterpiece. See post title for main theme.
• Anyway, this quote..."Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist." Brilliant quote (by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher) and one that I thought applicable in this situation.

So that was pretty much how I spent the past 30 minutes of my life, and I'm glad that I wrote it down here, because I'll bet a decent amount of money that I'll come back to this post at some other point in time. Thanks for reading.

Read between the signs

(And here I am, thinking that nothing good could ever come out of Tinder or BuzzFeed...)

So I just read an incredibly fascinating article on BuzzFeed about Tinder and all of our preconceived notions about, well, everything. It's a lengthy article, but the long-and-short of it is that for a few seconds, in the time between our eyes casting first sight upon a picture of another person, and our thumb swiping left or right, there is a lot more going on in our mind than we're aware of.

First, my thoughts on how exactly this works. Think about the seconds that an NFL quarterback has between receiving the ball from the center, and passing to one of his receivers. There are dozens of judgments and decisions being made on a subconscious level, all within a few seconds. The quarterback doesn't have time to stand around and think about who to pass to...he just knows.

But how does the quarterback excel at making a decision? He does so based on a prior knowledge of formations and plays, and in the seconds between snap and pass, his brain is sifting through all that prior knowledge to reach a decision. We're no different when we're on Tinder. There exist many cues that fire certain signals in our brain, and when all of these cues fire in a span of seconds, out comes a decision - yes or no - that we didn't have to think about at all.

In the article, there are many examples of preconceived notions taking over the decision-making process, based on the social reinforcements of our culture - what a certain hairstyle implies, what a certain clothing choice says about that person's character. Tinder, despite its primary use, turns out to be a really interesting look into the signs of our society and what we find attractive.

In just one picture, there are many things that are being said, without actually being said by the person in the picture. I have long hair and a beard, so I'm probably not religious. I'm not smiling in my picture, so I must not be fun to be around. The thing is that they're not saying this. Instead, we're projecting our suppositions onto this person's character based on what our society has deemed attractive. Is that fair?

Culture shock

Alright, I can't wait. I need to blog about the NFL and how much I despise it. I'm going to do my best to avoid writing this as an angry rant. I'm going to make as many efforts as I can to write a well-constructed set of claims about the culture of the league and how there's no way that it's okay as a sport. As with my previous post, and with any post that I have, my goal is not to impose a belief upon you - it is to get you to think about your own life and why you place value on the things you believe.

My first problem with the NFL is one that can be extrapolated throughout the world of sports, but a problem with which the NFL provides the greatest number of examples. There are things that professional athletes do that they get an equivalent of a slap on the wrist for, a handful of games and a handful of cash as a penalty, that us normal folk would be arrested for. Fired-on-the-spot, don't-bother-packing-up-your-things acts that equate to a suspension of a few games for professional athletes.

The larger issue that I have is regarding the culture of the sport. It shouldn't matter that the sport is predicated on successfully bringing down someone else to the ground. It seems as though very few players in the league have a keen, publicly-stated understanding of what the sport is truly like. There's this incredibly vivid image of what a football player is supposed to be like. Tough. Macho-man. Strong. Warrior. Substitute any synonym for 'masculine' that you want, and you're going to have an accurate description of what people think a football player should be. The problem is that this is what makes the game worse - it's a self-generating loop where the more we see bone-crushing hits, the more we expect the rest of the league to do the same, and the rest of the league reacts in response to what our expectations are. Players, past and current, are blind to this because they're in too deep.

Football is not a good outlet for aggression, either. Go find any study regarding violent video games and school shooting and you're going to find a similar argument. Football is what makes the aggression worse. The culture of the sport trickles into the personal lives of a number of football players, and you see guys doing things that make absolutely no sense for someone to be doing. And I'm done with it. I'm done thinking that the NFL can exist in a positive light in this regard. There are too many people doing too many stupid things, and it's a result of having to live up to the expectations of the fans and everyone in the game. If you're not tough, you don't belong in football, and what we end up with is a group of people who have no idea how to conduct themselves.

I'm not making sweeping generalizations here. I'm not saying that there are no NFL players who should be role models. Some of them are worth paying attention to. There are just more who aren't.

(Don't) look back in anger

I'm angry at the world right now.

I'm angry at all of these celebrities who are making complete fools of themselves, and then trying to put on a façade of being apologetic and repentant and remorseful. Cee Lo Green for comments about rape. Justin Bieber's arrest for dangerous driving and assault. Wes Welker for doing drugs at the Kentucky Derby. (Welker's example also BARELY scrapes at the surface of the problems I have with the NFL. That's a rant for another time, although I'm sure that time will come soon enough.) I'm hoping to have some more concrete evidence with this, but my guess is that at least once a day on Twitter (or that trending-esque feature Facebook has) a celebrity is trending for the wrong reasons. I know that there are hundreds of people doing these exact same things as celebrities, but the so-called role models that we pay all this attention to and that we give all of these TV shows to are the ones we hear about most. Yes, I have a problem with the choices that these people make. There's a bigger problem I have with this, though.

WHY DO WE STILL CARE?!

I'm at a point in my life where nothing surprises me anymore. At least with this kind of stuff.

[Insert NFL player] got suspended for [insert act that would get you and me fired from our jobs, and arrested]? And he still gets to play in a majority of his teams' games?

[Insert celebrity] did [insert (again) something that would get you and me arrested] and as a result, everyone is talking even more about them?

Why do we put so much value into following these peoples' lives? The number of people whose lives are actually affected by what Justin Bieber did today, or will do tomorrow, upsets me. And yes, I'm fully aware that there are people in this world who I will never meet, and yet I follow their lives intently. If you really care that much about Bieber, or anyone who you think fits in to the general group of people that I'm pissed off at, go ahead and tell me I'm an idiot.

I'm not telling you that you're wrong. I'm asking you to think about why you think you're right.