MrRain422

If I were a GM, if I could choose any one player, it would probably be a young, awesome, still improving player, rather than a guy who's already in his peak and just finished having his career year, which is often who the MVP is (though not really this year -- this may have been Pujols's career year, but he'll have a lot more GREAT years, and Pedroia...I don't know, he's young enough that he could still be improving, but he may have already hit his ceiling, sort of tough to tell with him). I think there are probably a couple dozen players I'd pick for my team over Pedroia who would have been

Seattle is further north than Ann Arbor is. These kinds of things are never really official until a guy actually enrolls somewhere else -- players change their minds on these kinds of things all the time -- but it does seem to be a pretty credible rumor. Really sucks.

Lieberman has undermined a lot of the most important battles though.

Aside from the fact that he campaigned against Democrats in this last election, he's also done a pretty poor job with that chairmanship in the time he's had it. Shouldn't someone who is going to do a good job get the important chairmanships? Wouldn't awarding the most important and prestigious jobs to the most capable Senators be truly post-partisan?

By the way, the article by the Milwaukee writer who voted Pujols 7th came from this as always fantastic King Kaufman article on the subject:

It doesn't matter that they won the World Series. Voting was done before the playoffs began. And there are other Phillies who had good years at the plate but aren't such defensive liabilities, so I think it could be pretty easily argued that Howard wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team. Chase Utley, for example, was a better hitter throughout the season than Howard was, and plays a harder position better than Howard plays his easier one. Howard was very good down the stretch. He was also absolutely terrible for several other lengthy stretches of the season. The award is f

Ryan Howard got second place. They play the same position. Pujols dominated Howard offensively this year, by no matter what measure you use. Pujols is an excellent fielder, and Howard is a terrible one. There is absolutely no facet of the game at which Pujols wasn't substantially better than Howard. There are several other Phillies who have a better case for MVP than Ryan Howard. To give the award to Ryan Howard instead of Albert Pujols would be to pretty much award the MVP by selecting a random player from the best team.

The Senate Democrats are truly a bunch of spineless losers. I give up.

New criteria for selecting the MVP: ask the players who they think deserves it.

I was defending Pujols's baseball skills, not his reasoning abilities.

I guess. But it's also pretty hard to have any sort of conversation of people can just throw around phrases that have a specific meaning as if they mean something else entirely. Communication would be pretty difficult if everyone is just sort of making up their own definitions as they go along. You can use a phrase any way that you want, but if you're using it to mean something different from what the rest of the world understands it to mean, you're inevitably going to run into a little bit of confusion if nothing else.

I miss 3-13 seasons.

This guy had Pujols 7th on his ballot, and the 4th best firstbaseman, behind Ryan Howard, Carlos Delgado(!), and Prince Fielder. The guys he voted for 2nd and 3rd place both played 2/3rds of the season in the American League. Some writers shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Also, I was under the impression that they still hadn't fully vetted Bill Clinton yet. A lot of foreign leaders and businessmen have donated to the Clinton Foundation and to the Clinton Presidential Library, and I think there was some concern that that could lead to some sort of conflict of interest.

Pretty good interview with the FJM guys here

The one guy I always go back to is Ornette Coleman.

There are actual official criteria for the MVP voting, you know. 1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team. Nothing in the official criteria says anything about the quality of the team a guy plays for. I understand that the definition of "valuable" is vague, and for that I agree that in cases where there are multiple candidates that team success is a decent ti

Perhaps, but Steve Kerr is still pretty dumb.

I saw the interview and enjoyed it. A good balance of policy questions with Barack on his own, and then the schmaltzy stuff everyone likes to hear about with the two of them together in the second half of the interview. I never got the impression that the Bushes' marriage wasn't a loving one, though there's no doubt that Michelle Obama is a whole lot more comfortable on TV than Laura Bush is.

Sure, but who gives a shit about actual people? Commies, that's who. Go back to Russia!

Hi, I'm from Detroit.

I'm pretty sure they're doing this anyway.

And the financial crisis isn't our only massive problem.

Possible trade brewing: Julio Lugo for either Dontrelle Willis or Nate Robertson.

Haha, I might have to use that.