5 No Hitters in 3 Months???

Following the "Perfect Game That Wasn't" for Detroit a few weeks ago, I said that we've seen a surprising number of no hitters this season. Last night we had another one, courtesy of Arizona's Edwin Jackson and his 149 pitch effort, making it 5 this season (6 if you were to count the Jim Joyce one.)

How is that possible? No hitters are still extremely rare - to give up no hits in a game. I believe it's the pitcher along with the team he's facing - everything has to work on that specific night. Yet we would go seasons without a no hitter.

I'm not sure if 2010 is just unique of if the moon is in retrograde, but this certainly is a collection of amazing feats. It's too easy to say it's because players are off the juice - but there has to be something going on. This all can't happen by chance, can it? I don't believe it.

It's gotten to a point where they happen too often. It doesn't feel like a big deal because it happens too much. I was home and heard about how Jackson had no hit thru seven innings, and didn't care to watch, even though it had a direct impact on the standings of my favorite team. Didn't really make a difference to me. I saw Ubaldo's, Braden's, Halladay's, and Galaragga's non-perfect game. Why do I need to see another one this year?

That's a terrible attitude, but it's true. It's not rare or special if it seems like it's done all the time. No hitters and perfect games are supposed to be a remarkable event. I remember most of the one's I've seen - specifically Millwood's, Lowe's, Randy Johnson's perfect game (a game I actually watched all of on TV,) I was witness to Buchholz no hitter, and Mark Buehrle's last year. They're great moments. This year feels like a free for all.

Maybe I'm being cynical. I'm sure ESPN will have a segment on it to make sense of it all. I also wouldn't be surprised if we see another no hitter in the final three months of the season. I could just really do without it. Let the special moments be special, let's not make them too common because we need something to get excited about.

Entourage Season 7 Preview

Entourage Season 7 starts Sunday, and I've finally gotten excited about it.

I thought season 6 was alright. I watched it again yesterday, and it seemed a lot about E & Sloan more than anyone else. I hated Ashley (besides the fact that she looks like she's 12) and that whole storyline, but it lead to E being back with Sloan, so that was huge.

I thought the last three episodes of the season were the best of the entire series. Amazing acting, writing, and overall story. Especially the Ari-takeover. Ari going Terminator was his best scene ever.

But after six ended, I thought, what could they do to keep it going? The whole landscape of the show will change with E engaged/married. How many more times can the gang go down and then back up? After seven years, I felt like they couldn't keep this going forever.

I saw the trailer for season 7 and was pretty stunned. Of course, that's the point of a trailer, so mission accomplished. I'm really hoping it's just another fun season like 6 was. I bet there will be some more E/Sloan problems, most likely with E's assistant. I hope it doesn't suck. The premise is four best friends having fun in Hollywood. Let them have fun. Do crazy stuff. No more downs. Everyone be successful. Sure, it's not as interesting, but it makes the show more feel-good. The story is secondary to the friendship.

Rumor is they will have season 8, then a movie (a la Sex and the City.) It's sad to see a show like Entourage come to an end eventually since it's been a show that SO many people enjoy and would love to live that life with their buddies. And as art imitates life, the superstar Hollywood life can't last forever either, so neither will the show.

Let's hug it out.

I've been blogging for over 6 months?

This isn't my "greatest hits." This is more like a "wow, I've actually done this for 6 months, haven't gotten bored, haven't really found a focus, but still seem to write a lot and am getting a lot of compliments." type deal. Don't think I'm patting myself on the back, because if you know me, I don't do that.

It's been fun, I think it still will be fun. I'm glad LOST is over so I can finally find other things to talk about. I realized I've had 15 LOST related posts. I wouldn't expect anything else, but wow, that show got me. I also seemed to rip on NBC quite a bit. I forgot how angry I was over that Conan situation. It still blows my mind. I literally haven't watched any late night shows since.

This is really just a random reflection that I've been doing this for a while, I've been enjoying it, and I plan to continue it. Even when I get a job (which is the big shock.)

Thanks for reading!!!! All 3 of you!!!

Cup Crazy

It's World Cup time, also known as the only time every four years when America seems to care about soccer (or football as everyone else calls it.)

I have to say, every four years, I really do enjoy it. I never really know about how good the teams are supposed to be, other than Brazil's going to be good, England will compete, and the USA has some high-hopes. I've always like Argentina, mainly because I love their colors and they did well for me freshman year when we would play FIFA in my dorm.

I go back and forth on the actual legitimacy on the sport. Mainly because the players are on the diva-level of the NBA. Christiano Ronaldo of Portugal is notorious for taking falls and acting like it was a malicious attempt on his life. The commentator even said "he will fall if the wind blows too hard and look for a yellow card." This is one of the games best players? Yikes.

Seriously though, these players are unbelievable (and terrible) actors. They fall and milk injuries to try to allow their players to catch a breather and also try to draw a penalty in their favor. How is that sportsmanship? NBA players do the same thing, but not as dramatic. At least they typically are right. I watched a World Cup yesterday where the player got kicked in the arm and held his head. It was painfully clear it was not close to his head. The player was on the ground for four minutes.

The sport sometimes takes too long. All the extra time everyone standing around waiting to set up. People talk about football and baseball being slow, sometimes I think this sport is slow. It goes back and forth, the goals seem to be few and far between (we are supposedly en route to the lowest scoring World Cup in quite a while.) At least during baseball and football we have bathroom breaks, and time to watch a replay, which are both good and bad. I'm just not sure if I could watch soccer everyday. I know I could watch baseball everyday. Maybe I'm just boring. I also don't blow horns for 30 consecutive days.

Speaking of those horns - who cares? I feel like whenever I watch there's always a loud noise anyway of fans, just tune it out. It's not that bad. The thundersticks from the Angels were MUCH worse.

There's two things I don't understand about this event:

One thing I don't follow is how the World Cup is the most watched event in the world. It's only 32 countries. Granted, most of them are the largest, most populated countries, but more countries participate in the Winter & Summer Olympics, which should make that the most watched sporting event. Maybe they're playing with the term "most watched," or maybe not.

Other issue: Why did FIFA pick South Africa in June? Game temperature is around 30 degrees FAHRENHEIT during the night game. That's cold for almost every sport - why play that cold in soccer? I'm surprised the players aren't crying about how cold their feet are from the weather.

Something else I just thought of - What would the US do if team USA won? Do we have a parade around the country? Do we care? A curious thing to think of, it'd be interesting to see the outcome.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying this month, and look forward to seeing it's conclusion. !Viva Futbol!

Who Wants Tickets?

I've found a reason to hate the Internet: Ticketmaster.

The concept makes sense ORIGINALLY. Allow for fans to buy tickets via the Internet and they can also have them sent electronically to their e-mail database. Makes sense. My first problem with this is the service fees that come in. There's always fees. Data fee, e-mail fee, stadium fee, convenience charge, there's about $10-15 in fees per ticket.

If you've bought (or tried to) buy tickets through the system, which is likely, you've most likely struck out right away. But Ticketmaster is so kind that they encourage you to go to their site-operated TicketExchange, where people who bought tickets and "can't go" can sell them - for whatever price they please. Ticket scalping is considered illegal or controlled in most states. But the Internet is free from those rules.

Since anyone can access the Internet, they can buy the tickets. So I can buy tickets to the show in California from PA and have 0 intention of going - but know that if I get good seats from Ticketmaster, I can probably flip them on a site like StubHub (or the TicketMaster CREATED TicketExchange where they basically APPROVE OF SCALPING SO THEY CAN MAKE MONEY MONEY) for a high multiple of what I paid. Sounds like a nice way to make some money. But how gutless and brutal. Not only that, there's ANOTHER service charge on StubHub to keep the price increase going.

I don't know why this is allowed. I just looked up some concert tickets in my area. John Mayer is performing in Philly in early August. Highest FACE VALUE is $75. On StubHub, those same seats are going for $500. For the Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals, the maximum price is $5,000 on StubHub. I don't know highest face value, but I will bet $5,000 it's not that high.

HOW IS THIS LEGAL

Seriously. These bastards should be stopped somehow. They prevent the fairness of everyone having the opportunity to go. Most people could afford the $75 to see Mayer if they wanted. Not everyone could afford the $500. $500 on a two hour event. Who really pays that?

I know following a Bruce Springsteen ticket incident that some bands and somewhat Ticketmaster are taking it into their own hand and making it a bit harder to crack - your credit card is your ticket. You HAVE to bring your credit card you paid with to get in. I REALLY like this idea. Of course, it's flawed too - if you can't attend and give your tickets to a friend, I don't really know how that works out.

That's the only instance where I approve selling the ticket online again - if you can't go. And if that's the case, then make your money back and move on. Don't take advantage of other people.

I love when people buy them - with never having any intention of going - and end up selling them online and have to slash the price so they actually LOSE money. I've taken advantage of this a few times and gotten into games and concerts for less than face value, and I laugh because most of the time it's sellers trying to make sure they don't get completely burned.

In the meantime, there should be something REAL done to try to prevent the massive increase of prices from sale. I don't know how this is done, and I'm not in charge of the company. It just makes Ticketmaster look bad that they approve of raising prices on tickets that were meant to be sold at a fair face value so that EVERYONE has an opportunity to go. Instead Ticketmaster just looks greedy. Good job Corporate America!

Why Bud Selig Can't Change The Call

The story broke last night. It knocked Ken Griffey Jr's retirement off the headlines (and off my topics of blog posts today.) Jim Joyce blew the call [video]. Bud Selig said he won't change it.

Before I comment, I should mention how much I despise Bud Selig. He's incompetent and a moron. Anyone who calls the All-Star game as a tie should be fired. It's a joke that he's commissioner. We deserve better.

Anyway, I actually agree with Bud on this one. And that's not easy for me to type. Here's why though: It ruins the integrity of the game. By Selig invoking the "Best Interest of the Game" clause, it takes away all credibility from the umpires and bastardizes the game. Even when Jim Joyce says that he screwed up, it doesn't matter. At least he is able to admit it rather than pull a Joe West and be an asshole about it.

I originally thought the call should of been changed. Give the kid his perfect game. But I realized that's wrong.

If this call was changed, think about how many other changes that people could argue should be reviewed. Umpires have screwed up before. They will screw up again. We can't change every single call after the game. It's the same as how we can't put an asterisk on Bonds and everyone else that took steroids and ruined the home run records. It happened. It's over. Unfortunately, we have to move on.

In the eyes of everyone, it already was a perfect game. This will be one of the great baseball stories we can tell. The Perfect Game That Wasn't. Every baseball fan will remember this game and the events that took place. People who aren't even into baseball have taken notice because of the way it's happened. This is a story that goes beyond sports. It won't always be relevant, but it can always be something to bring up every now and again. It's captured everyone's attention.

Also, if Selig recalled it, how anti-climatic would that be? Part of the fun of a no hitter or perfect game is the final out, and watching the pitcher truly celebrate with his team and the fans cheer him. There was some excitement after the final out, but not the appropriate celebration for what should of been a perfect game - the 3rd this year (and there have only been 18 before going into this year.) Not sure if this speaks to hitters going off the juice or what - but it's definitely a pitchers age in baseball.

MLB should institute some kind of instant replay system that allows for one challenge from each team. It can't argue balls and strikes, because that's something that can't be proved easily. The only thing that can really be challenged should be: safe/out, fair/foul, and ensuring the catch was indeed a catch and not a trap. Balls and strikes can never be challenged. Make it quick. Don't make the game much longer than it already it is.

MLB can take a cue from the NHL, who is very quick on their challenges and don't waste time like the NFL does. In last night's Stanley Cup Final Game 3, there were 3 challenges that the NHL reviewed quickly to make the right call. I know that the NHL has a much easier time determining calls than any other league - all they have are goals - but they have it down.

Anyways, serious congrats to Galarraga. He'll go down in history as the pitcher who was denied a perfect game by the league he plays for. And quite possibly the reason why instant replay is instituted into the league. Plus, he got a car from Ford for his effort. Kinda stupid considering he could probably afford 200 of them, but whatever. He was a professional about it, as was Joyce. If I was denied a perfect game like that I think I would have raised some serious hell. His teammates and managers were furious. But Galarraga was poised the whole time, even able to talk to Joyce today and give the scorecard.

Finally, doesn't Joyce have an awesome mustache? That thing is for real.

E-Mail is Dead. Seriously.

In the late 90's, e-mail was a huge hit. The concept was so simple - sending mail electronically to someone else's "inbox." It would be a huge productivity helper. Sending information to co-workers, clients, friends, and family - all over this quick and effective system.

It's obviously grown. It started off just being the @AOL.com and @Hotmail.com accounts, and now almost everyone has a @gmail.com. There is talk about a @facebook.com becoming a reality soon. Every company has their own e-mail. I have my own e-mail (patrick@patrickwentling.com - I never use it so don't e-mail me)

Now we've gotten e-mail overload. Most people have at least 3 accounts. Even more that they have but don't use. We can get e-mails sent to our plethora of devices that it's become spam. I'll receive an e-mail at a time I can't immediately respond to. I then tend to forget about it - which defeats the purpose of e-mail. I can't imagine I'm alone in this process. In my internships I've gotten responses a few days later with the message "sorry, I forgot to respond right away."

We expect e-mail's to warrant instant response. They aren't necessarily doing that anymore. We're becoming much more demanding and short term. If I really needed something from a co-worker, I would probably send a text to their cell-phone. It may not say everything I will want, but I know it yields a faster response rate.

My other problem with e-mail is how the system creates dysfunctional communication. Someone sitting right next to me will send an e-mail but not say a word in person. It's just common courtesy to speak. The art of speaking using your mouth is not dead, but e-mail is trying to cripple it.

Same can be said for text messages too - and I'm just as guilty. For example, I'll text a girl before I call her. Don't know why or how, it's just what we've become comfortable with. It's the tragedy of our generation. We've lost normal communication abilities. We're in constant communication but can't communicate like generations past because of the technological advancements.

Right now I'm finding e-mails frustrating in the process of applying for jobs. I'll send e-mails to careers@company.com with a well written cover letter and resume, and will not hear ANYTHING. I'm sure these e-mails get overflowed with applicants. Some over-qualified, some-under. I'm not sure everyone can be given a fair chance because of the huge pool of applicants. I still believe that every applicant warrants a response - yes or no towards the position. It helps build a positive professional relationship - even if the answer is no.

My point is that e-mail used to be a great tool. But we have evolved. We need something that's even more instant and satisfies our ever-growing ADD mentality.