Reprise the Baseball Hall of Fame debate

One of the most fascinating things to debate is who deserves admission to a Hall of Fame, particularly the Baseball HoF in Cooperstown.  You don’t hear many debates over the football Hall in Canton, other than they elect too many quarterbacks and how long will they keep Terrell Owens out?  The Basketball Hal in Springfield, Massachusetts also doesn’t seem to generate the debates that arise every January when the Baseball Writers do their annual vote for Cooperstown.

The reason why entry to the Baseball Hall of Fame creates great discussions is that THERE ARE NO STANDARDS.  It’s like debating which film deserves the Best Picture Oscar, or who was hotter, Mary Ann or Ginger (Okay, that last one is clearly Mary Ann, but as the kids say, YMMV)?  It’s not like the system in place for the LPGA, where you get into their Hall of Fame based on reaching certain numerical career milestones.  Derek Jeter will be a slam dunk, but for anyone else it is debatable.

With the rise of Sabermetrics there has been more emphasis on quantitative evaluations of player careers, and while I do appreciate this I worry when it becomes close to the LPGA model where anyone with, say, a lifetime WAR of 60 gets in.  I’ve written elsewhere about my dismissal of Raphael Palmiero’s HoF resume, even before he failed a drug test after wagging his finger at Congress.  Yeah, he has 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, but what did he ever DO?  He made the post season three times and lost in the first round each time (and was never instrumental in his team getting there); he only led the league in a significant offensive category twice, and that was most hits in 1990 and most doubles in 1991; he never came close to winning an MVP award, and he only made 6 all-star teams in a 19 year career, and only started one. 

To me that is not a Hall of Famer, it is a guy who had a long, injury-free career during a high-offense era, playing in hitter’s parks, who was never thought of as one of the 3 or 4 best players at his position while he was active.  But, had he not failed that drug test, 3,000 hits and 500 home runs would have gotten him in to Cooperstown, probably on the first ballot (I suspect in several years the Veteran’s Committee will start fixing some of the steroid era omission “mistakes” like Palmiero and Mark McGwire).

I like to stress that the institution is called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of good players who put up good numbers for several years.  In addition to outstanding offensive (or defensive) numbers, I want to know that the player made a contribution other than just showing up to play every day.  The rules for induction (what rules there are) say that entry should be based on a player’s whole career and not on individual season achievements, but those achievements do bolster a player’s Hall cred.

One criterion posited by Bill James in his book Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame was, could you write the history of baseball during the player’s career and NOT mention him?  Some people have criticized the induction of Reggie Jackson, given his low batting average and high strikeout rate; fair enough, but could you talk about baseball in the 1970’s and not mention “the straw that stirs the drink” with the New York Yankees? 

Bill Mazerowski was a controversial inclusion in the Hall, given his frankly anemic batting statistics.  But he is considered the best defensive second baseman, a key defensive position, of all time.  But it helps that he hit one of the most famous home runs in baseball history, a walk-off shot to win Game 7 of the 1960 World Series.  An exceptional career absent post-season heroics may make a player a marginal candidate, but memorable post-season theatrics lowers the bar on how exceptional a player’s career stats have to be.

On the flip side, Jack Morris got a lot of support for induction into Cooperstown (67.7% of ballots on his last year of eligibility, just short of the 75% needed) despite posting fairly mediocre numbers over his career.  But he had two factoids helping him; his 10-inning shutout in Game 7 to help the Twins win a World Series in 1991, and the fact that “he won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980’s.”  But pitcher wins are an overrated stat, the coincidence of the prime of his career coinciding with a decade is just that, a coincidence, and his World Series performance in one game should not be a ticket to Cooperstown absent exceptional performance elsewhere.

It matters a lot to me how players were thought of while they were playing.  How many All-Star games did they go to?  How often were they in the MVP, or Cy Young Award, top 5 or 10, or won a Silver Slugger?  While these things shouldn’t be over-valued (Roger Maris and Dale Murphy both have two MVP awards and deservedly are not in the HoF; Mike Piazza doesn’t have any MVP awards but should have been a first round inductee), but they give a better idea of who was FAMOUS while they were playing than looking over a player’s stats five years after retirement and saying, “Gee, I never realized he was that good.”

ESPN analyst Keith Law, in his book Smart Baseball, makes the point that, while he was playing, Detroit Tigers’ second baseman Lou Whittaker was frequently spoken of as a lock for the Hall of Fame, along with his double play partner Alan Trammel.  Law notes that his lifetime WAR of 74.9 is the highest of any player not in the Hall, and if that new-fangled stat is too new-fangled for you, Whitaker would be in the top 8 among Hall of Fame second basemen in virtually every important old-school offensive category.  Yet, in his one appearance on the Hall of Fame ballot he got only 15 votes, a figure so low it disqualified him from future consideration.

Law speculates on why Whitaker received such scant support, citing a crowded ballot (for many years there has been a backlog of qualified Hall candidates, and since voters are limited on how many votes that can give some players get lost in the crowd), the fact that Whitaker’s skills were atypical for second basemen, and the possibility that there was a hint of racism concerning his attitude toward the mostly white baseball writers.  Here is a case where I would value contemporaneous judgment about Whitaker over the retroactive evaluation after his career had ended and vote him in.

Two pitchers with marginal Hall credentials are Jim Kaat and Tommy John.  I think both should be in for contributions other than their pitching stats; Kaat won 14 consecutive Gold Gloves at pitcher and is considered one of the best fielding pitchers ever (Greg Maddux eventually won more Gold Gloves, but his pitching stats are impeccable), and Tommy John had a surgical procedure named after him that is nearly ubiquitous.  To me these elevate Kaat and John for enshrinement even if their career win totals are slightly less than 300.

I hope there will never be universal agreement on who deserves to get into the Hall of Fame.  Except, of course, when it comes to players like Willie Mays; whoever voted against admitting him should have had his voting privileges taken away.

Buffy vs. Angel

As an analytical sort of person, I sometimes pose questions to myself that other, less analytical people, wouldn’t waste a second considering. Would it save driving time if I only chose routes that did not require making a left turn?  Could a baseball team win using essentially only relievers and no starters, that is putting a three inning cap on how long any pitcher would be left in the game?  There are no answers, although I suspect the most likely answers are a) not significantly and b) no, but wait a few years.

One debate I’ve had with myself for several years now is the question: which TV show is better, the first 5 seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or the entire 5 season run of its spin-off, Angel?  The general rule of thumb is that spin-offs and sequels rarely surpass their origins, but there are exceptions.  The Empire Strikes Back is generally considered to be better than Star Wars (Okay, A New Hope); Aliens is considered better than Alien.  Um, can I say Good Times was better than Maude?

I am limiting the comparison to the first 5 seasons of Buffy and not the show’s entire run for two reasons.  First, comparing the same number of seasons seems fairer than letting Buffy have the benefit of an additional two seasons of product (although the comparison isn’t exact as Buffy’s first season was truncated, so we’re comparing 110 episodes of Angel to 101 episodes of season 1-5 Buffy).  The more important reason is that seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy seriously sucked, so if I were taking an average episode rating those seasons would pull the Buffy average WAY down.

Obviously, given the entwined nature of the two shows, with shared writers, actors, and producers, they have a lot in common.  Both had relatively weak first seasons, although this is easier to forgive for Buffy as it was starting de novo, while Angel should have hit the ground running but took a while to find its footing.  Both employed an episodic format but had seasonal arcs.  Both tended to push the envelope of TV standards and practices in terms of subject matter and violence, although in retrospect these incidents seem trite compared to what’s allowed on network TV today.

During some down time I went back and re-read a couple of episode guides I had for both series, and decided to revisit the question of which show was better.  I COULD re-watch every episode of both series (I own them on DVD), but I have a life.  I did selectively go through my Angel DVDs, viewing a little more than half of the episodes in all 5 seasons (more in season 4, which was highly serialized).  My conclusion is that Angel was the superior show by a nose. 

I will concede that Buffy hit higher highs than Angel.  Buffy had a number of classic episodes, including the Emmy nominated Hush, the controversial Earshot (delayed for broadcast for several months after the Columbine shooting), and the spectacular end to season 3, Graduation Day.  Angel never quite reached those heights, although Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been and Smile Time do rate as classics.

Of course if you have higher highs, you also tend to have lower lows.  Buffy had a small number of klunkers, but they are there.  Angel had bad episodes too, but they can be somewhat forgiven because a) they usually fit into a seasonal arc whose overall quality made you accept some less-than-great story telling in service of the greater arc; and b) the episode that failed were usually trying to be a little more ambitious than the format or budget was capable of.  Angel produced a few cringe-inducing episodes during the season 4 arc, but given that they were dealing with an honest-to-goodness apocalypse you can get through them for the greater good.  As for Buffy, there is no excuse for the episodes Inca Mummy Girl or Dead Man’s Party.

While the characters on Buffy did grow incrementally as the series progressed, the characters on Angel evolved to the point where it was a tribute to the actors that they could change along with them.  Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter) went from spoiled rich girl to heroine, and Wesley Wyndom-Price (Alexis Denisof) went from comic relief to badass to tragic hero.  And Fred (Amy Acker) went from mild-mannered cave-dwelling physicist to Illyria, Bitch Goddess of the universe (which is quite a range).  The fact that the show could produce consistently good writing, straddling the line between drama and comedy, while swinging for the fences is an impressive feat.

Angel was, after season one, very consistent yet at the same time very ambitious.  When I say that I think Angel was a tad better than Buffy seasons 1-5, I mean no disrespect to Buffy.  Both shows should be firmly placed in the pantheon of great horror TV series (alongside The X-Files and Kolchak: The Night Stalker).  It’s like saying Willie Mays was a better outfielder than Mickey Mantle, a silly comparison that should only be made by someone with way too much free time.

Angel had a head start as it could build off of Buffy’s solid infrastructure, but the bottom line is I have to acknowledge the show’s consistency and ambition while also acknowledging that Buffy had a few imperfections in seasons 4 and 5.  Buffy had season-long arcs, but nothing like the hubris of Season 4 of Angel, which involved an evil goddess from another dimension giving birth to itself and enslaving the entire world.  The goddess Glory on Buffy Season 5 was nothing but Cordelia with some super powers; Jasmine in season 4 of Angel was a terrifying threat to humanity.

So, there is one less question to keep you awake before going off to dreamland—Angel seasons 1-5 is a slightly better show than Buffy seasons 1-5. 

Joss Whedon, we really hardly knew ye

There is something about celebrity break-ups that makes people choose up sides, despite the fact that virtually everything we know about the dirt is being spoon fed by press agents.  I don’t know who is right in the Woody Allen/Mia Farrow brouhaha; all I know is he used to make great movies and she wanted to adopt about 150 kids, so which was more emotionally stable?  People say Allen seduced his step daughter, but he and Farrow were never married, and in fact didn’t even live together, so there was no taboo relationship between him and Soon-yi Previn.  I’ll grant the ick factor, but that’s about it.

The past two days have been filled with the revelation that sometimes-genius writer and well-known feminist Joss Whedon has been accused of serial infidelity by his ex-wife, Kai Cole.  They were divorced in 2012 but this week Cole posted a blog addressing Whedon's infidelities.  This led one commentator to declare that given his actions, Whedon should forfeit his title as "feminist."

I noticed something after the huge success of The Avengers, a stupendous triumph for Whedon after helming a low rated TV series (Buffy), a short-lived series (Firefly), and a low-budget internet sensation (Dr. Horrible’s Sing a Long Blog); fans of Whedon took his accomplishment personally.  Whedon has a unique relationship with his (dare I call us) followers, one that makes us think of him maybe not as a friend, but someone who knows us and writes material directed to us personally.  That makes these revelations difficult to hear, but truth will out.

As disappointed as I am to hear of Whedon’s alleged philandering, even taking it at face value I don’t think that it makes Whedon a hypocrite for claiming to be a feminist.  The commentary by Laura Browning at AV Club, linked to above, mocks Whedon’s claim that he was surrounded by “beautiful, needy, aggressive young women” by saying those are the words of a predator.  But is it “feminist” to apply the term “victim” to the women Whedon strayed with, if any?  Were these women not adults, capable of making their own choices?  Isn’t claiming they were powerless against Whedon taking away their, um power?  We’re not talking about what Whedon is, we’re talking about who these women were, and calling them victims just because they are female seems demeaning.

Once again, we don’t know any specifics.  There was another well-known TV science fiction producer who had a well-documented libido, Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek.  For years he accused NBC of demanding that Majel Barret’s character be eliminated after the pilot episode because of their sexism; I’ve read that the real reason was that NBC executives knew that Roddenberry was cheating on his wife with Barret and they didn’t want him putting his mistress on the NBC payroll.  I’ve also read he had a casting couch and that virtually all of the actresses on the show were on it (I’ve always assumed this referred to the extras and not guest stars like Joan Collins and Diana Muldaur). 

If Whedon had a similar casting couch, that’s an indefensible abuse of his power.  If, as Whedon seems to be saying, young women threw themselves at him and he failed to get out of the way, that’s another matter.  Roddenberry often linked his views on male-female equality with a rather carefree approach to sexual activity; he once said he wanted the crew of the Enterprise to be 50-50 male female but NBC balked as it would look like something was going on, and they compromised on a 2/3 male, 1/3 female combination.  Roddenberry said he assumed that if the 1/3 of crew were relative healthy young women, they could handle the 2/3 who were men.

Or maybe Whedon is claiming the Krusty the Clown defense; when Bart Simpson asked Krusty why he endorsed inferior products, Krusty sobbed and said, “They drove a dump truck of money up to my house; I’m not made of stone!”  Again, not great, but not necessarily anti-feminist as it goes to Whedon’s weaknesses, not the strength of the fairer sex (kidding).

I can’t even start to comment on Browning’s claim that women of color object to his portrayal of the First Slayer as a Black woman whose status as a vampire-slayer was forced upon her by white men.  In the context of the show, the portrayal was seen as akin to rape and evidence of the weakness of men who can’t fight evil themselves but have to conscript a young woman to do their dirty work.  I’m not a big fan of season 7 of Buffy, but even I got how that plotline reinforced the concept of The Slayer was one of female empowerment.

Whedon famously said that with Buffy he intended to create an icon.  That’s amazing.  Most people in the entertainment industry just want to make a paycheck, not create an enduring symbol.  Maybe the split with Cole explains his drop in production; since The Age of Ultron (in my opinion easily the worst thing he’s ever written/directed) two years ago he’s hasn’t had anything in the pipeline.  At the risk of sounding selfish, I hope he gets back to work soon and comes out with that Dr. Horrible sequel he’s been promising for years.  There are lots of artists whose personal life I may disapprove of, but I still admire their art.

Whither the baseball trade deadline

Whither the trade deadline

In case you missed it, the baseball trade deadline just passed. You couldn’t have missed it if you paid any attention to the sports pages, as the number of transactions dizzied the mind.  If nothing else, the trade deadline always reminds me of the folly of betting on a World Series winner in April; even if you pick the team with the best pre-August record, trades made at the end of July can fundamentally revamp the power distribution in baseball.

The biggest transaction was all-star pitcher Yu Darvish going from the Rangers to the Dodgers, who had the best record in baseball before they acquired to best pitcher on the trading block.  The move represents so wisdom on behalf of the Rangers, who despite having a record below .500 are not that far out of the second wild card spot.  That second wild card spot tempts a lot of teams with poor records into think that if they can just put together a good month, they can make the post-season and then it is anybody’s ball game.  But the fact is that if you have a losing record on August 1^st, your team just isn’t that good.  

The trade signals that the Dodgers are in win-now mode.  The Dodgers haven’t been to a World Series since 1988, which isn’t exactly Cub-like in its futility but it is getting there.  Great starting pitching is essential for post-season success, and in prior years the Dodger formula was Clayton Kershaw and pray for three days of rain.  Picking up another ace, especially with Kershaw’s back issues, means the Dodgers mean business.

A team that doesn’t mean business is the Oakland A’s, who traded ace Sonny Gray to a little team I like to call the Yankees.  A few years ago, the A’s traded Josh Donaldson to the Blue Jays and the next season he won the MVP award and led the Jays to the post-season.  Let’s face it, with the A’s 23 games out of first place and having one of the worst records in MLB, the only way an A’s player will reach the post-season is through a trade to a contender.  They traded Grey for prospects, and once those prospects show any signs of talent they’ll be traded off for more prospects, and so on and so on ad infinitem.

The trade deadline is like the inverse of the draft, where the rich get richer and the poor get prospects.  I don’t know the history, but I would guess that it was never intended to be such a big deal.  It was probably decided that it would be really unfair for a team headed for the World Series (before all these layers of playoffs) to pick up a bunch of superstars the week before the series started, like Mr. Burns hiring nine ringers for his softball team in the classic Simpsons episode Homer at the Bat.  But you couldn’t ban making trades, so any late season trades just wouldn’t be able to play in the post season, and the line was drawn at about the 2/3 point in the season.

This wasn’t a big deal before free agency, because you didn’t just acquire a player for the season but forever.  But once the players achieved free agency, the trade deadline became a key date when teams with aspirations could load up on stars with expiring contracts peddled by non-contenders who didn’t want to “lose the player and get nothing in return.”  I’ve said before, I despise that phrase because it presumes that teams are entitled to own players forever, and they aren’t.  You get the star for as long as you have him signed for, no more.  If the player plays out his contract then goes, you didn’t “get nothing in return” as you got his services until the end of the contract.

And besides, you never get equal value.  If Yu Darvish’s contract expires in two months and you trade him, you don’t get Yu Darvish in return but a couple of guys who may be close to as good in a few years, maybe.  Which would get your fans to come to the ballpark, watching Yu Darvish in his last five starts before he leaves or calling up some guy from AAA take a shot against major league hitters?  Of course, if the team is too anxious to make the deal, maybe you can get more value than you should.

The bottom line is, no team ever won the World Series in April.  Or on July 31^st.

Roger is the GOAT; case closed

Sports media live on debate.  Did the Warriors win or did the Cavs choke (answer: Warriors won)?  Who’s better, Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera (answer: Trout, by a wide margin)?  Who would win if the 1927 Yankees played the 1998 Yankees (according to the TV show Sports Night, the 1927 Yankees would probably be distracted by all the jets flying overhead). 

Who is the greatest men’s tennis player of all time?  The answer is obviously John McEnroe.  What, that answer isn’t obvious?  What about Sampras, Borg, Federer and Nadal?  All great players, but Mac is a top ten singles player who is arguably the greatest doubles player of all time.  Mac has 77 singles titles and 78 doubles titles, a total of 155, which is a lot more titles than those other guys who eschewed doubles like Roger Federer who only has 101 singles and doubles titles.

So, let us turn to the question of who is the greatest men’s singles player of all time.  I attempted to answer this for women's tennis, but the results were difficult to interpret; Serena seems dominant, but Steffi Graf won more majors faster against better opponents, and Martina Navratilova was winning major doubles titles when she was 50.   It’s a little clearer for the men, as the game has evolved linearly and we can focus on recent champions.  Yes, maybe the answer is Rod Laver but since he played with wooden rackets he might as well have been hitting the ball with the femur of a brontosaurus.

The answer boils down to Roger Federer versus Rafael Nadal.  Roger has more major titles, 19 and counting.  But Nadal enjoys a 23-14 edge in head to head match-ups, plus he had more success at a younger age.  Then he broke down and Federer, instead of gently going into that good night, resurrected himself and is now back on top at age 35.

I think the answer is Fed.  I don’t care if Nadal wins the next 5 French Opens and passes Federer with 20 majors, and I don’t care about their head-to-head.  The head-to-head is easily explained by two factors; first, Nadal is four years younger than Roger, so naturally he should have an edge as they both approach their prime and then move beyond it.  Would it have proven anything if Pete Sampras had beaten a 60 year old Rod Laver in 1998? 

Secondly, Nadal is a clay court specialist who is also kind of good on other surfaces.  His edge over Federer on clay is 13-2, so if you disregard clay his record against Federer is 10-12.

This is one time when I want to just disregard the numbers and say Roger Federer is the best because he just is.  Nadal has a crashing, bruising style of play that is effective, but destructive to his body. Federer developed a way of playing that is not only very, very effective, but keeps him from being injured.  He seems to hover a quarter inch above the court.  It is hard to play tennis well, even harder to play tennis well and avoid injuries.

Also, Federer has been able to evolve his game more than any player ever.  He came up and was number one when Nadal arrived and challenged him.  Faced with a younger rival and needed to shorten points, Federer developed a big serve, so big that he is now third all-time in career aces and got his 10,000^th ace at Wimbledon this year.

A few years went by and he realized he needed another weapon to stay on top, so he invented SABR, the Sneak Attack By Roger, where he would suddenly run up and take an opponent’s second serve as a half volley.  Since the invention of the backhand, who else has invented a new tennis technique?

But time went on and Roger’s body started to fail him.  So, he took 6 months off, and instead of rust he came back refreshed and won the Aussie Open. Then he skipped the clay court season and came to Wimbledon rested, with the result that he became the oldest winner of the event by four years, AND didn’t drop a set.

Numbers don’t begin to encompass all the reasons why Roger Federer is the greatest men’s singles player of all time.  Nadal might catch his career majors total by continuing to dominate at the French Open, but again, Nadal is the only the greatest clay court singles tennis player of all time.  When looking at the big picture (and leaving out doubles) Nadal can never really catch up with Roger for the title of Greatest Of All Time (in men’s singles).

The 2017 Emmy Nominations--Who cares?

I could do a long, thoughtful analysis f the recently announced nominees for the Primetime Emmy awards, but frankly who cares?  The number of series available for nomination now that we have broadcast networks, basic cable networks, premium cable networks, streaming services and digital platforms (for god sakes, Facebook and Snapchat got a nomination!) that the whole thing is ridiculous.  Instead of throwing everyone into a big hopper, maybe we should go back to when only the broadcast networks competed for Emmies.  Cable shows competed for Cable Ace Awards. We could invent new awards for Netflix and Hulu to fight over.  It would make more sense that considering there are now over 1,400 series on TV (and that number is 18 months old).

Before I start griping, a couple of shout outs.  I am pleased that Stranger Things got a Best Drama Nomination, and that Millie Bobbie Brown snagged a Supporting Actress nod.  In a time when the category of Best Drama has gotten increasingly pompous, with only “serious dramas” being considered, it is nice that a fun little science fiction-ish show made the final cut.  Shows like the old 60’s series Mission Impossible used to win Best Drama, but lately it’s been all The Sopranos, Mad Men and Breaking Bad type heavy dramas.  Good for Stranger things, although why it is a series and not a limited run series I don’t understand; yes, a second season is planned, but there were three seasons of Fargo and it’s a limited series.  Oh, and the actress who played Barb got a nomination; how wild is that?

I am also thrilled that Ellie Kemper FINALLY got a nomination for Best Actress for Unbreakable Kimie Schmidt.  How they nominated the show for Best Comedy and failed to nominate her makes no sense.  Her performance is so central to the success of that show, you can’t appreciate the show without appreciating her.

I was also pleased, but not surprised, that Ewen McGregor was nominated for his astonishing work on Fargo.  This season’s version seemed like a let down from the first two, but McGregor and fellow co-stars Carrie Coon and David Thewlis all were recognized.  Playing twin brothers is difficult, but playing non-identical brothers must be even harder.

Now for the griping.  For the love of all that is good and holy, can someone explain to me why the show with the most primetime Emmy nominations is Saturday Night Live, a show that isn’t even in prime time.  In fact, the actors are called the “not ready for prime-time platers.”  There are six nominees in the best supporting actress in a comedy category, and half of them are from SNL.  These are performers who do not create a character week-in and week-out, do not do consistent character work, and just do skits in a free form variety show; they should not be confused with REAL actors who attempt to create REAL characters that are supposedly based on some semblance of reality. The show also takes up 5 nominees in the guest actor/actress categories.  With so few nominations and so many shows, a show that is not in prime time (and hasn’t been consistently funny in 35 years) shouldn’t be hogging so many slots.

Possibly the single greatest acting performance I saw last season was Ted Danson’s brilliant turn around in the final episode of The Good Place, when the seemingly feckless Michael was revealed to be (spoilers!) the architect of the scheme to put Kristen Bell’s character through perpetual torment.  Maybe the academy has gotten so used to Danson being so good for so long that him being brilliant isn’t enough.  Or maybe too few people saw the show, or got the context of his performance within the show.  Whatever, he should have won the Emmy for Supporting Actor in a Comedy.

And any season in which Andre Braugher isn’t nominated for Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a travesty. 

Ok, Mr. Robot’s second season wasn’t as good as its first (how could it have been?) but no love for last year’s winner, Rami Malik?  Is it because his performance is so one note, because he had several episodes where the usual Elliott persona was dropped and he showed real range. 

And The Simpsons was nominated for Best Animated Series.  Remember when the show was good, twenty years ago?  And people complain that Modern Family gets nominated based on reputation.

That’s it, I’m out of bile.  It’s just impossible.  It’s like the debate between the critics at Hollywood Reporter who argue whether the answer is putting ten nominees in every category, or just getting the Academy to not nominate shows that have passed their sell-by date (House of Cards, Modern family, The Simpsons).  There is no answer.  There are too many shows, and the categories are too blurry.  Series or Limited Series?  Drama, Comedy or Dramedy? 

As the great sage (and Nobel Lauriat) Bob Dylan once said in an Oscar winning song, I used to care but things have changed.  I think I will stop worrying about the Emmy Awards.  Maybe I’ll start taking the ESPYs seriously.

There is No Big Four in Men's Tennis!

This is going to be a rant about tennis, and unfortunately Andy Murray is on the receiving end of two separate rants.

First of all, I am sick and tired of ESPN sticking to their nomenclature that there is a “Big Four” in men’s tennis, those being Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Andy Murray.  The problem is that there is no “Big Four,” there is a Big Three and everyone else.

The definitive piece on this was written by the FiveThirtyEight website four years ago.  Of course things have changed since then, Andy Murray has now won three majors, not two.  So, does that make him one of the four?

Well, the Big Three all have double digit wins in majors, and Murray . . . doesn’t.  He has three, which last time I checked (and I do have a graduate degree in mathematics) is not anywhere close to ten.  So when Murray has won 7 more majors, let me know and we can talk about a Big Four. 

The other problem is that Murray isn’t alone in 4^th place among active men’s tennis major winners.  Stan “The Man” Warwinka also has three major titles, having won the 2014 Aussie Open, the 2015 French Open, and the 2016 US Open.  Since Murray has won Wimbledon twice and one US Open, that also makes Stan closer to a career Grand Slam than Murray.  So why is Warwinka left out of the Big Five?

This is a classic example of making a prediction and then molding the facts to fit the prediction.  Murray was supposed to be the next challenger to the Big Three, and he is currently ranked number one, but he never developed into a consistent thorn in the side of the Big Three as far as Winning majors.  But the sports cognoscente insist on shoehorning Murray into a mythical Big Four that doesn’t actually exist. 

My second complaint is the attempt to rechristen the section of Wimbledon known as Henman Hill into Mount Murray or Murray Mound.  No, no, no!  I realize that Andy Murray is the first Brit to win Wimbledon in ages (assuming you consider a Scot to be a member of the British empire, which is how the vote went but there was some dissent).  But don’t do a disservice to Tim Henman by taking his name off of a key part of Wimbledon.

Why?  Because Henman was never good enough to win Wimbledon.  He was the top British men’s player at the time, but he wasn’t in the same league as Pete Sampras, who was dominating at the time.  Despite that, every year Tim Henman put his nation on his back and he usually went one round further than he had any right to at Wimbledon.  He made it to the Wimbledon semi-finals four times, and the quarter finals another four times.  Not bad for a guy whose year-end ranking during that time was between 8 to 11.  Overall, he had five wins against top ten players at Wimbledon.

So, let’s not forget Tim Henman’s noble efforts at Wimbledon by taking away Henman Hill.  Sure, he was awarded an Order of the British Empire in 2004, but remaining at fixture at his country’s biggest tennis event is a more fitting tribute.