Actors: Smarter than 5th Graders?

A case can be made that film acting is the lowest of all the art forms - and perhaps the world's most overrated profession. In fact, I'm going to make that case, and as usual, I'll be overstating it.

Let me start by saying this is not a diatribe against celebrity culture. I understand why people are interested, or at least entertained, by the Tramp Trio. In fact, I plucked my quarter down when I saw the NY Post headline "Britney's Shear Madness", in order to see pictures of Ms. Spears' bald head.

Celebrity culture is as much about mocking these people as celebrating them. No, this is a look at acting as its performed at its highest level, and the ridiculously high regard we have for these people.



How Easy is Acting?

At the expense of being unfair, one might define acting as saying words that other people wrote while wearing clothes other people picked out, surrounded by scenery designed and selected by others. Even the essence of acting - the speaking of lines and physical movement that accompanies it - are done under the direction of someone else.

Unlike the novelist or songwriter, the architect or composer, the sculptor or choreographer, a significant part of an actor's art is created by others. Unlike a stage actor, scenes are filmed in short snippets - and you can always take a mulligan if you mess up.

Film acting is easy enough that it may be the world's only profession that can be performed at the very highest levels by children (not to mention their intellectual equals, models). Who was not mesmerized by Haley Joel Osment, who was 10 years old during the filming of The Sixth Sense? Abigail Breslin was captivating and completely believable as Little Miss Sunshine. Anna Paquin was 11 in The Piano. Justin Henry was 8 years old in Kramer v. Kramer. Eight!

Those four were all nominated for Academy Awards, the highest honor in the profession of film acting. And Tatum O'Neal actually won an Oscar at 10 for her performance in Paper Moon (though I thought her best work was in Bad News Bears).

Can you imagine any other profession having an annual awards ceremony in which children are regularly honored as the best in the business? Pharmaceutical research? Actuary? Plumber? Manufacturing foreman? Bank teller? ER nurse? Oncologist?

Or to keep in in the arts...painting? architecture? cellist? Is there any chance whatsoever that the Pulitzer Prize for Non-Fiction will be given to a 3rd grader? It's impossible, in fact, to even imagine a child winning any of the non-acting Academy Awards ("And the Oscar for Sound Editing goes to...Little Ricky Horton from Truman Elementary School!")

And yet we revere these people. John Wayne and Katherine Hepburn are legends. Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep are among the most admired people in the world. I'm not saying they aren't good at what they do - of course they are. But so are Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon, at a much harder job, and nobody cares about them.


It Wasn't Always This Way

Let's play a little game. Try to think of a novelist who made his mark before 1900. Got one? Probably more, right? Now, think of a playwright...a composer...a painter...a sculptor...a poet? You have more than a few names in your head. In fact, you can probably even picture what some of these people look like...Mark Twain, for example. Shakespeare, Beethoven, maybe even Emily Dickinson.


Now, think of an actor from before 1900...got anyone? Still waiting...no, John Wilkes Booth doesn't count, even if he did make his mark on the stage.


Now, how many actors can you name from the last 75 years? Given enough time, you can probably crank out more an impressive list. Actor worship is a relatively new phenomenon.

I'll Wrap Up Now

Alright, I've rambled on long enough on this subject. Besides, it's New Year's Day and I think one of the cable stations is doing a Clint Eastwood marathon. And I love Clint Eastwood...

The Johnny Bingo Awards

It is time for the annual Johnny Bingo Awards, in which I honor the best books read by me this year. Eligible books could have been published at any time - all that matters is that I read it in 07.

Johnny Bingo is the first book I ever remember calling "my favorite book". I can't recall the details now, but I think it had a bank robbery, two kids, and a dog. Normally I just pick one winner, but this year I'm going to have some new categories...

Best History Book
A tough choice this year, as usual.

I learned the most from Mayflower, the National Book Award winner from Nathaniel Philbrick. It is about far more than the ship; it covers the founding of New England from the Pilgrim's start in England, their exile in Amsterdam, through King Philip's War 50 years after Plymouth Rock.

I finally read The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman's masterfully written account about the causes and opening battles of WWI, and it lived up to its considerable advance billing.

But the award goes to The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944. This is Volume 2 of Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy, and it will be the definitive book on the European theater of operations in WWII for years to come. While we wait for Volume III, I encourage you to read the first two volumes.

Best Genre Fiction
I was introduced to Harlan Coben 's Bolitar novels this year, and they made me laugh. I read two of Daniel Silva's book on Gabriel Allon, the art restorer-assasin, and found them to be the most intelligent thrillers this side of Alan Furst.

But the nod goes to Michael Connelly's The Lincoln Lawyer. I've been a fan of Connelly's Harry Bosch novels for years, but I couldn't quite love them. I like my genre fiction leavened with wit, and Bosch's world was as dark as his namesake's paintings. The Lincoln Lawyer, featuring defense attorney Mickey Haller, had all of Connelly's brilliant plotting and dialogue, and certainly had its dark side. But it was also fun to read.

Biggest Disappointment
Like most longtime Cormac McCarthy fans, I didn't like The Road quite as much as his legions of new fans did. But it was still a powerful book, and not deserving of this dubious award.

The nod here goes to Thirteen Moons, Charles Frazier's long-awaited follow-up to Cold Mountain. I'd tell you what it was about, but I've forgotten already...

(One who didn't disappoint, by the way, was JK Rowling, who blew me away with the final installment of the Potter series.)

Best Literary Fiction
As I look over my book log for the year, I can see I've been a bit of a lazy reader. Lots of history, yes, but far more genre fiction than literary fiction. Still, I think Martin Amis' brilliant House of Meetings would have taken the title, even if I'd read nothing but lit fiction.

Lifetime Achievement Award
It was a sad day indeed when I read the final page of Blue at the Mizzen, the 20th and final book in Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels. This extraordinary series of books follows Captain Jack Aubrey and his friend, Dr. Stephen Maturin around the world's oceans and continents throughout the grand sweep of the Napoleanic wars. Collectively, it may be the greatest "book" I've ever read. I envy those who have yet to read it.

Congratulations to all the winners. I'm sure you'll treasure this moment.

Previous winners
2001: Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, Simon Schama
2002: The Lord of the Rings (all 3 books), J.R.R. Tolkien
2003: The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis
2004: The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Edmund Morris
2005: The Iliad, Homer (translated by Robert Fagles)
2006: The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien

Stairway

For your amusement...(hat tip to Gee):

The Fate of the Pats

What do the following teams have in common:

• 1963 Giants
• 1981 Chargers
• 1984 Dolphins
• 1998 Vikings
• 2004 Colts 

Each of these teams had dominant, eye-popping, record-breaking offenses...and each of them lost in January.

In 1963, Y.A. Tittle tied the NFL record with 36 TD passes - a record that would stand until Dan Marino in 84.   (even Dan Fouts, with a longer season, couldn't break it). The team averaged 32 points a game.  But on a cold January day in Chicago, the Giants scored 10, and lost the NFL championship.

In 1981, Dan Fouts broke his own passing yards record with 4,802 yds, and threw 33 TDs (2nd highest all time). But in January, Air Coryell was grounded on a frigid day in Cincinnati.

Three years later, Dan Marino threw for over 5000 yards and 48 TDs, both records - but then had the misfortune of running into the '84 Niners, maybe the greatest team ever.

In 1998, the Minnesota Vikings scored a record 556 points, but lost to the Falcons in the NFC Championship.

And in 2004, Peyton Manning broke Marino's 20 year-old TD record - but the air attack was shut down by the Foxboro Frost and the Belichick D.

I mention all of this because there is a team up in New England that has already broken the Vikings points record, and is on the verge of breaking some of the aforementioned passing records. Will this team suffer the same fate as the others?

There are three differences between this team and the others that suggest they won't.

One, they have a pretty good defense. Two, they are coached by an all-time great at the top of his game. And three, that locker room is filled with people who've been to the Promised Land many times before.

And yet...I think they're going down in January.

As I mentioned previously, the Patriots' high-powered offense has really slowed down the last 5 games. And this isn't coincidental...it's directly tied to the weather. The 81 Chargers and the 04 Colts went to cold-weather places and scored a combined 10 points. What's particularly interesting about New England is that they are a cold-weather franchise. The four teams above all played in warm weather or domes.

This might be a rare case in the NFL where home-field advantage is a bad thing. I'd love the Patriots' chances playing in San Diego or Jacksonville, or under the RCA Dome. But if they have to play one of those teams in a cold and windy day in Foxboro, they will go down. The downfield passing attack will struggle, and the rest of the team just isn't good enough without it. So if you're a Patriots' fan, root for the Sun to shine on two days in January.

The Elbridge Legacy

The phrase “threat to our Democracy*” has gotten a heavy workout the past few years.

Liberals generally use it to describe things like The Patriot Act, the Bush Administration’s use of intelligence to argue for the Iraq War, and well, just about everything related to what they consider the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush.

Conservatives will trot it out to describe things like the Nanny State, judicial activism, and billionaire activists like George Soros spending their fortunes on elections.

But all of these things, whatever you may think of them, are the policies of elected officials, or at least the outcomes of policies of elected officials. If we as voters are unhappy, we get to vote for someone else who would conceivably change the policy.

But what if you can't vote for somebody else? What if the system has been rigged so that you are stuck with the incumbent you have? That is a genuine "threat to democracy". I'm referring to something called "gerrymandering".

(I've lost most of you by now anyway, haven't I? If you'd prefer something mindlessly fun over this galactically boring civics lesson, go here).


What is Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is defined by FairVote as "the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of congressional districts to influence the outcome of elections". For example, if a state legislature was Republican (like in Texas), they could rearrange some districts so that enough Republicans lived in each one, and the incumbent would be ensured reelection every two years. In New York (where I live), the Democrats can do the same.

It's named for Elbridge Gerry, a man who has much to be proud of. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He helped force the Bill of Rights onto the Constitition. He was James Madison's Vice President. But sadly, his legacy came as as governor of Massachussets, when he supported a redistricting bill that gave his party control over numerous Congressional seats. (A Federalist opponent remarked of one district, "It looks like a salamander". No, his friend replied, it's a gerrymander.)

In fact, I live in a gerrymandered district. For years, Rockland County was part of a suburban Congressional District, with bits of other counties tossed in, and was represented by Ben Gilman, a moderate Republican. But in 2003, the gerrymanders swooped in. They carved out two new, funky-looking districts that start in the North Bronx, snake up the eastern shore of the Hudson River, then jump the river to encompass a chunk of Rockland County. The two districts look like a couple of tadpoles having conjugal relations. I share a district with people in the North Bronx, but not with people in the next town.

Eliot Engel, my congressman, represents one of those districts. In the years before the gerrymandering, Engel won elections with nearly 90% of the vote. So they took Engel's overwhelmingly Democratic district, and changed it so that some slightly more Republican areas got encapsulated in it. EE won his last election with 76.4% of the vote. In 2004, he got 76.2%. I think Mr. Engel's seat is safe.

The Death of Moderates
Why does any of this matter? Well, there's the obvious - my vote has been rendered worthless.
But what is far worse is that we have created a U.S. House of Representatives that rewards extreme partisanship. With a 98% reelection rate, and the vast majority of the 435 reps in overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic districts - why would anyone need to compromise? Why would anyone reach across the aisle?

Worst of all, why would anyone hold moderate views? If you are a moderate - but represent an immoderate district - you will be targeted by the other side as vulnerable in the next election.
We should be furious about this. But we're not - and you know why? First, because both parties benefit, so they gleefully carry on with the support of their constituents. Second, the only people who really get hurt, whose views get ignored...are moderates. And moderates, well, we're just not the angry type.

So be ready...the partisanship you see now will not walk out the door with Dubya in January of 2008. It will stay under a Clinton and Giuliani Administration, and yes, it will even stay under an Obama or Thompson Administration, even though they seem like such nice guys.




* The US, incidentally, is not a democracy. In a pure democracy the people (demos in Greek) would rule (kratos). Meaning, we would directly vote on everything: appropriations bills, judicial appointments, whether or not to designate September National Bourbon Heritage Month. In a pure democracy, we'd be voting so often we wouldn't have time to work, play, eat, sleep, or write galactically boring blog posts on the evils of gerrymandering.

So instead, we have a republic (this one comes from Latin; res publica means public thing) . Under a republic, we vote for people to do those things for us. Sometimes they are great, sometimes they are awful, but usually they are average.

Character Tests, and Other Myths

I have every intention of writing about many non-sports topics - like the debate we should be having about civil liberties; the real threat to our democracy (hint: it's not the Patriot Act, and it rhymes with Merry Dander); and why celebrities who write children's books piss me off.

But listening to NFL commentary last night and this morning got my dander up about the ridiculous things that announcers say, so I'm writing about sports again. Here are some of my favorites from this NFL weekend.

Character Tests

Former players and coaches are big on certain games as character tests. For example, every Miami Dolphin game recently has been "a character test"; if they won, they pass the test, and if they lost, they failed it.

First, there is the obvious logical problem with this theory as expressed in the following syllogism:

• If Miami gets blown out at home by the 2-9 Jets, they have no character
• If Miami beats the Ravens in OT, they do have character
• If both things happen, um, er, they had no character in November but now they do?

Logical problems aside, my bigger problem with the idea of character is, how do we know why players play hard, and whether or not playing hard has any impact on the outcome of a particular game? Take Jason Taylor. Taylor's a great player, who made amazing plays yesterday in the Dolphins win, including a blocked field goal and a critical sack. Mike Ditka and Mike Golic said this morning that his performance demonstrated his character, and that Miami's win proved they haven't given up. Really?

Maybe Taylor, who has made no secret of his desire to hang with celebrities, had a different motivation. Maybe his agent told him if he's the face of the worst team in NFL history, he won't get invited to movie premieres anymore. Or maybe Taylor has a ton of character, played an amazing game, but it simply wouldn't matter if Stover hits the 44 yarder in OT.

Football games are primarily tests of athletic ability, and while character can be revealed on the field, it's not revealed in the outcome.

They Needed to Win a Close One

Through the first 10 games of the season, the Patriots had 9 blowouts (17 points or more). The only close game was a victory on the road against the defending NFL champs. In the 4 games since, they've had one blowout, 2 nail-biters against teams with losing records (Ravens and Eagles), and allowed the #26 ranked Jets defense to come into their house and shut down Tom Brady (140 yds, 0 TDs, 1 INT).

A clear-eyed person might say, wow, the Pats' dominance has disappeared with the warm weather. But, no, in a corollary to the character test theme, we are told that these close wins are good things, that they are somehow proving they can win games with a rushing attack, and they are proving they can win close games.

Please. Can you imagine Bill Belichick, who knows a thing or two about winning championships, saying to himself in mid-November, "Hmmm...I hope over the next few weeks we really struggle to beat some of the worst teams in the league . That'll prepare us for the playoffs!"

I don't think so. I can, however, imagine him saying to himself, "Hmmm...if we don't play better than we did against the Jets and Ravens, we're going to have trouble with the Colts and Packers."

Defense Wins Championships

If the Patriots do win, maybe it will put to rest the biggest myth of all: that defense wins championships. After all, if the Pats go 19-0, they will do it with a defense that is not the best D in the league, and is certainly not one for the ages. The Patriots dominance this year stems from its historic offense.

But we've been here before. The 99 Rams seemingly scored at will, and had a D that was just good enough to hang on. The '84 Niners, one of the greatest teams of all time, had a 10th rank D, but a #1 O as it went 18-1. The 1978 Cowboys won the Super Bowl despite an 18th ranked defense...maybe their #2 offense played a role?

Shall I go on? The 94 Niners had a #1 offense and a #8 defense. The 98 Broncos had a #2 offense and a #11 defense. The 87 Redskins had a #18 D, but rode their #4 O to another Joe Gibbs title.

The truth, as obvious as it may sound, is that offense and defense wins championships. Nearly every champion is good on both sides of the bowl, but some rely on their defense (Ravens in 00; Giants in 90), and some rely more on their offense (see the list above).

But one thing you can be sure of: you will never hear an announcer say, even if the Patriots beat the Cowboys 56-49 in Super Bowl XLII, that Offense Wins Championships. More likely he'll say they survived "a character test".

The Mitchell Report (A Fan's View)

I read the Mitchell Report - all 409 pages of it - so you don't have to. And it is my considered opinion that jcakls;d fjla;ja;gkj;.sa s - sorry, dozed off at the keyboard for a moment.

No, I didn't actually read the Mitchell Report, because I'm a fan, and fans, by and large, don't care very much about steroids. (Plus, it's really long.)

Let me warn you that, as is often the case, I'm going to overstate my opinion a bit. In other words, I don't fully believe what I'm saying, but because there is so much preaching and sermonizing in the media, I need to push a little harder on my side of the see-saw.

Here are the two main reasons we don't care:

• We may love sports. But at the end of the day, it's just entertainment for us. Watching a game is entertaining. Reading about sports can be entertaining. And yes, sometimes, watching these guys completely screw up their personal lives can be entertaining. But unlike sports journalists, we have families, jobs (most of the time), other hobbies, important sitcoms to keep up with, dopey blogs to write...and we don't feel like spending our precious entertainment time hearing or reading about steroids.

• It's rather obvious that many of the people on this planet who professionally ride a bike, swim, run, ski, hit quarterbacks, skate with a stick in their hand, and just about anything else that yields large rewards in cash, prestige, or women, will stick a needle in their arse if they think it will help. But for some reason, the sports press drones on about steroids in baseball, and cares not at all about steroids in other sports.

Which is why I've decided Bud Selig was smart to do this. Brilliant, actually. Get as much info out there as possible in one fell swoop. Let the guys on ESPN bloviate about it for a few weeks or so. Do it deep in the wilderness of the off-season, when the World Series is a distant memory, Opening Day is next year, and we're distracted by holidays. And maybe, just maybe the media would lay off a bit.

For the most part, it's worked out beautifully for Bud. There is not a single young star on the list. No David Wright, no Prince Fielder, no Chase Utley. No John Beckett or Johann Santana or Ryan Howard. No MLB video games will appear under Christmas trees this year with the face of a Mitchell Report name on the cover. It's a bunch of has-beens, never-weres, already-knews, and big-whoops. Of the 66 players selected for the 2007 All Star game, the only two in Mitchell's report are Bonds and Brian Roberts, a good but not great player who made the team primarily as the token Oriole. Clemens is the only Hall of Famer, but that's about as shocking as hearing there is gambling at Rick's.

The only downside for Bud is that this thing was timed to come out during the NFL stretch-run, when sports fans in 20 cities would be focused on figuring out whether their team will make the playoffs. But except for the Patriots' undefeated run and each league's 6-seed, there is very little drama remaining in football's regular season.

So, can we move on now?

(Oh, and the part about that guy sticking the needle in Clemens' butt is on page 166...)

Update: According to Jayson Stark at espn.com, who is one of the best baseball writers going, the case against Roberts was ludicrously thin

p.s. apologies to Dave Barry for the asleep at the keyboard joke...

Broken Windows, Roe, & Economic Fatherhood

I'm a bit of an idea slut. When I hear an interesting, logical, persuasive argument that takes an unusual look at something, I often sign on. Then I begin sharing this idea with others, usually giving credit to the real source of the idea.

This works out fine, except when one compelling idea contradicts another. Then I'm at a bit of a loss. Take, for example, the various explanations for the dropping crime rate in New York City.

From 1987 to 1994, NYC had over 2000 murders every year, with a high of 2,605 in 1990. In 1995 it began dropping. In '98, it dipped below 1000 for the first time in 41 years, and has stayed there ever since. In 2007, it's on a pace to dip under 500. (The population has remained somewhat static throughout this entire period, from 17m to 19m).  This is a stunning, dramatic drop.

Broken Windows
There were many theories explaining this huge drop. The end of the crack epidemic. Tougher jail sentences. More police on the street. Better policing techniques.

Then, in 2000, Malcolm Gladwell published a book called The Tipping Point. There are many fascinating case studies in this book, and in one he credits the drop in crime to new police techniques installed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton, techniques built on the Broken Windows theory.

This theory was developed by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in an article called "Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbour Safety". Here are the authors:

"Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in run-down ones. Window breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing (it has always been fun)."

In other words, if you allow bad behavior to happen, it encourages more bad behavior. And theoretically, if a police force cracks down on small crimes, it will create an environment that reduces large crimes. The NYPD began cracking down on fare-jumpers and squegee men, and the overall crime rate began to plummet. What a fascinating idea. I'm sold!

The Roe Effect
There was one problem with this theory...except for a few hard cases like DC and Detroit, violent crime was dropping everywhere, not just New York.

So along comes Steven Levitt, an economist from the University of Chicago, with his book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. Levitt uses the tools of economics to answer some interesting, non-economics questions, like: Are guns more dangerous than swimming pools? Why do drug dealers live with their Moms?

And...how did the legalization of abortion help reduce the rate of violent crime? The essay in the book is based on a scholarly paper Levitt co-wrote in 2001 with John Donahue from Yale Law School, entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime".

From the abstract of that paper:

"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."

Levitt's controversial thesis, which he supports with massive demographic evidence, is that unwanted children are more likely to commit a violent crime later in life. Since these unwanted children weren't born, they didn't grow up to become criminals.

It's a dangerous idea, but it's difficult to read Levitt's argument and the evidence he marshals and not find the data persuasive. And, idea slut that I am, I was persuaded.

Economic Fatherhood
But not everyone was sold. Levitt, naturally, was attacked by the Left and the Right for proposing such a controversial theory. Many of the criticisms challenged Levitt's statistics about crime and abortions, and Levitt even made some minor changes to his original research. But I found one counter-argument particularly intriguing.

The conservative economist John Mueller wrote a negative review of Freakonomics based on the idea of economic fatherhood (meaning: being financially responsible for a child). He argues that Roe v. Wade didn't lead to a drop in crime in the 90's...it led to an increase of crime in the 70's and 80's: Here is Mueller:

     "As far back as data exist, rates of economic fatherhood and homicide have been strongly,                    inversely "cointegrated"—a stringent statistical test characterizing inherently related events, like        the number of cars entering and leaving the Lincoln Tunnel. Legalizing abortion didn't lower              homicide rates 15-20 years later by eliminating infants who might, if they survived, have become        murderers: it raised the homicide rate almost at once by turning their fathers back into men                without dependent children—a small but steady share of whom do murder."

Well, shoot, that's kind of compelling, too, ain't it?

Intellectually Promiscuous
So where does that leave me? First of all, I should say that part of the reason I'm swayed is that I don't let my personal opinions affect my ability to judge the merits of an argument. Abortion is an issue that people hold such strong views that, naturally, they read the latter two arguments through the prism of those views. I am able to judge the merits of those arguments without prejudice.

On the other hand, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why crime dropped so radically in the 90's.

So, I'm working on my own idea, the Baywatch Theory, that demonstrates a precise inverse correlation between the drop in crime from 1991 to 2001 with the popularity of the most watched television show of all time.

Coincidence? I don't think so...

Eli vs. Phil

[Warning: Unless you are interested in football statistics, you might want to skip this one...]

One's opinion of just about anything – a restaurant, a vacation, a book – is largely shaped by expectations. This is especially true of athletes. We create expectations for them, based on their salary, their potential and other factors, and then measure them by those expectations. Further, since we root for teams in a way that we don’t root for restaurants or books, we care far more about whether they succeed, which further impacts our expectations.

Take Eli Manning. It is possible that no athlete in recent memory has been burdened with greater expectations. The combination of being a quarterback, a #1 pick, a Manning, a New Yorker, and a guy who forced his own trade before throwing an NFL pass have all combined to put a particularly high-powered microscope on him.

And to judge by sports radio in New York, Giants fans do not like what they see. We are in the middle of his 3rd full NFL season and much of Giants nation has already declared him as a man incapable of ever winning a championship.

What is most curious about this is that Giants fans absolutely revere Phil Simms. So it got me to wondering…just how does Eli stack up against Phil, and other Giants QBs through the years. Let's take a look, shall we?

TD PassesEli threw 24 TD passes in 2005 and 2006, and is on pace for 21 in 2007. Simms career high was 22. In fact, when Eli threw 24 in his first full season as a Pro, it was the first time in 40 years a Giants QB had thrown that many TDs. Eli has now done it both of his full professional seasons.

InterceptionsEli threw 18 INTs in 06, one more than 05. He has 17 so far in 07. In Simms’ last few seasons, he kept the picks down; but from 1979-1987, nearly a decade, he averaged 19 interceptions per 16 games. In 1986, the season that vaulted Simms to the Giants’ pantheon, he threw 22 picks (against 21 TDs).

Accuracy
Is Eli inaccurate? His completion percentage this year is 58.3% through 13 games. It has improved every year he’s been in the NFL. Phil didn’t get his completion percentage this high until 1990, his 11th season as a pro! (That is my first non-ironic use of an exclamation point in any blog posting, so pay heed)

Scoring
The most important thing a QB does is lead an offense, and the most important thing an offense does is score points. How well has Eli’s offense done that in his short career? Better than any Giant offense since Nixon was in office.

The Giants scored 422 points in 2005. That is more than any Giants team coached by Bill Parcells, or since. More than the Super Bowl teams. More than the 94 team, which was Phil's best season statistically. And likely more than any of the putrid teams of the 70's.

In 2006 the total dropped to 355. But 355 still ranks as the 5th best season in the last 23 years (and likely, the past 40). In 1990, the Giants' second Super Bowl year, and Simms' best season until he got injured, the Giants scored 335 points.

This year…well, the Giants’ offense stinks this year, right? Well, not exactly. Through 13 games, the Giants have scored 290 points, and are on a pace to score 356 points, on par with last year.

Defense
Eli does share one thing in common with his older brother: for at least part of his career, his defense sucked. While Eli and Co. were putting up 355 points in 2006, his defensive teammates were giving up 362 points. The Giants have only given up more than 362 points once since 1983. This year, the defense has tightened significantly, and the Giants are 9-4.

Winning
In 2005, Eli took his team to the playoffs. In 2006, Eli took his team to the playoffs. In 2007, Eli will take his team to the playoffs. Questions?

Yes, you can argue the Giants backed in to the playoffs in 06 with an 8-8 record. But remember, that season Big Blue played the 3rd hardest schedule in the NFL; lost their left tackle (2nd most important position on the team) and most dependable wide receiver to injuries, had a terrible defense, and according to the same fans who fulminate about Eli, were poorly-coached.

In 05 Eli was terrible in the first round playoff loss. But in 06, he improved markedly, leading a tremendous touchdown drive in the 4th quarter to tie it. Will he take another step this year, with a first round win against Tampa or Seattle?

Heart
Do Giants fans remember that game-tying playoff drive last year? 2nd & 30, down 7 points, in the 4th quarter, in a playoff game, at Philadelphia of all places – and Eli completed consecutive passes of 18, 14 and 11 yards to Plaxico Burress, the last one in the end zone. How can you watch that and not think this kid has what it takes?

That was not his first, or last, 4th quarter comeback. His first win, against the Cowboys, in 04. The Cowboys again in 05 (blown by the D). The Broncos in 05. The Bears in 07.



Obviously, these statistics doesn’t tell the full story. Indeed, I'm overstating the case a bit because I think Eli takes too far too much heat. But it does tell part of the story. And it's nearly indisputable that Eli is a much better quarterback through the early part of his career than Phil was, even if he doesn't yell on the sidelines quite as much.

On January 25, 1987, Phillip Martin Simms walked out onto the Rose Bowl field in Pasadena, California, and had one of the great games in the history of the NFL. There were two kinds of Giants fans that day – those who had given up on the 1981 first round draft choice, as he struggled through a very shaky career start, and a faithful few that saw a spark, and kept the faith.

Will Elisha Nelson Manning have a day like that? Which kind of Giants fan will you be on that day?

Note: Apples to apples

Many people, when confronted with these arguments, start talking about how the NFL has changed to more of a passing game, so comparing passing statistics across eras doesn't work. This is true if you go back to the 70's. But Bill Walsh and Don Coryell started changing things in the early 80's, and it shows in the statistics.
In the 70's, the 10 season passing leaders averaged 3,434 yards per season (including pro-rating for 14 year seasons). Only Dan Fouts in 79 passed 4000 yards. In the 80's, the average jumped to 4,587 in the non-strike years, which is actually higher than the average so far in the 2000s (4492). So yes, you can compare Eli to Phil and call it apples to apples.

If Rock and Roll Is a Religion...

...Elvis is Jesus.

This can't be an original thought - surely someone as shallow and bored as I am has come up with this before - but Elvis Presley is the Jesus of Rock and Roll.

Jazz and the Blues are the Old Testamant - there's a dark, foreboding quality to them. The major themes are suffering and punishment. There's a surprising amount of sex, but little joy. An oppressed people is yearning to be free. And they reach a deeply devoted but relatively small audience.

Robert Johnson at the Crossroads is Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Muddy Waters and Miles Davis are Abraham and Solomon. Chuck Berry is Moses.

Then along comes Elvis. Elvis takes the contours of jazz and blues, builds on them, but changes them. Freshens them up with a message of love, puts more of a happy face on them. And reaches a MUCH larger audience.

At the expense of pushing this metaphor too far (too late, huh?), Alan Freed is John the Baptist. John, Paul, George and Ringo are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Bob Dylan is Saint Paul, and his Road to Damascus moment was the Newport Jazz Festival . The Mississippi Delta is the Holy Land. There are martyrs. Hell, there's even a Reformation.

I have to say, though, that if American Idol is Vatican II, I may convert.

Alright, I've milked this about as much as I can. Can anyone else help stretch this metaphor a bit?


P.S. Not quite the same take, but interesting imagery here...Also, Jesus-Elvis comparisons here

Day of Infamy

On September 11 last year, there was some debate about how long we should continue to commemorate the attacks in 2001. As a history buff, I knew that 9/11 would eventually fade in memory, as all historic dates do.

April 19 is sort-of recalled only in Boston, where the Boston Marathon is run on the nearest Monday. September 17th was the bloodiest day in American history, but few Americans know what happened that day, or why it was so important. And July 4th - well, most Americans may have some idea about what happened, but few commemorate the day by reading, or even thinking about, the Declaration of Independence.

I bring all this up, of course, because today is December 7th, Terrell Owens' birthday. Oh, and it's also the 66th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. We tend to remember that date mainly because it features in one of the most famous sentences ever uttered by an American President*. So, take a moment out of your day and listen to that speech:




* My wife suggests that most Americans, if asked to name the most famous sentence uttered by an American President, would go with this one

The Hyper-Crits (NY Sports Fan edition)

I’m suspicious of any idea that starts with the assumption that “things are different today”. While external factors change rapidly, human nature remains largely unchanged. Its why great literature written 400 years ago - or even 2700 years ago - can still speak to us today. Amidst the unfamiliar trappings of its time, we recognize timeless human qualities.

Still - I can't quite shake the feeling that our society is much more critical, much more demanding of instant total success, than has been common in much of human history. Take, for example, Yankee fans and Alex Rodriguez.

In 4 seasons with the New York Yankees, A-Rod has won 2 MVPs, and averaged .289/35 HRs/115 RBIs in the non-MVP seasons. He's never had any legal trouble; has never been implicated in a steroids controversy; is a better fielder and baserunner than any other slugger of his magnitude; is polite and articulate; and by all accounts, continues to work harder at his game than most lesser players. Oh, one more thing - he just might be the greatest player in the history of the game.

So Yankee fans love him, right? Well, not exactly. They booed nearly every at-bat of his 2006 campaign, and NY sports radio in 2007 was an endless coffe-klatsch of love-em-or-hate-em A-Rod talk.

Now, I'm not saying A-Rod doesn't have his bad qualities. He's unctous. He feels compelled to remind people of his statistical achievements. And while I don't begrudge anyone seeking a pay raise, he has a tin ear, P.R.-wise, when it comes to salary negotiations.

But that's why Yankee haters (like me) should dislike him. Yankee fans themselves should not. They should embrace and defend him.

And don't tell me it's because the Yankees haven't won a title in the ARod years. The most beloved Yankee in my lifetime is Don Mattingly - who pulled off the rare feat of spending 14 years as a Yankee without even playing in a World Series. Don Mattingly could set aside every October to paint his garage, take the kids to school, learn Portuguese, shoot deer - because he would not be playing baseball. I've never met a Yankee fan who held that against him.

Other victims of the "Win Now or Be Damned" school of thought are:

• Giants coach Tom Coughlin is on the verge of clinching his 3rd consecutive playoff appearance, a feat that has only been accomplished one other time (1984-86) in the Super Bowl era. Naturally, Giants fans want Coughlin out of town as fast as possible.
  
• Giants fans also want Eli Manning, who has thrown more TD passes and yards in those 3 seasons than any QB in Giants history, sent to the woodshed as well. You would think that these fans would either cut Coughlin some slack for winning with such a bad QB, or cut Manning some slack for winning with such a bad Head Coach - but no, that's not the case.

All of this negativity has caused me to become more of a glass-half-full sports fan - at least for the teams I support. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go write a letter to MSG demanding that Isiah Thomas be fired immediately.

Update (12/7): I take it back. Turns out A-Rod's an evil landlord...

The Dubious Value of Experience

In the upcoming Presidential election we are going to hear a lot about the value of experience, particularly on the Democratic side, where the three leading contenders between them have averaged less than one term in the Senate, and little else.

The upside from this is you get some terrific zingers. My favorite two, so far, are Hillary's shot at Obama that ‘‘Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’’

And Obama's retort that "My understanding is she wasn't treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. I don't know exactly what experience she's claiming."

Mudslinging may be bad for the Republic and all that, but it can be fun!

But does anybody stop and wonder: does experience really matter? Surveys of historians routinely place three Presidents - Lincoln, Washington, and FDR - as the three greatest Presidents in U.S. history. How much experience did these guys have?

• Lincoln, the consistent champ, has a resume that is similar to Obama's, only not as impressive. Like Obama, Abe spent a fair amount of time in the Illinois State Legislature, while pursuing a law career. But Obama has a much more impressive education and spent 3 whole years in the Senate. Poor Abe's national electoral experience consisted entirely of one 2-year term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was not reelected.

• Washington had a successful military career, of course. But the very fact that he was in the field during the Revolutionary War meant that he played little role in the most significant political event of his (or any?) time, the Declaration of Independence. He was President of the Constititional Convention, but "took no active part in its debates nor in the subsequent ratification debates".

• FDR had more experience than most, but not as much as you'd think. He was a State Senator, Under-Secretary of the Navy, and VP candidate as a young man - but like Hillary and Dubya, he got these jobs more because of his last name than any personal accomplishments. He then withdrew from politics for most of the 20's while recovering from polio. In 1928 he ran for governor of NY, and 4 years later he was President.

Who had more experience than all these guys combined? How about James Buchanan? Buchanan served 5 terms in the House, and was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He then served as Minister to Russia. He returned to the States and was elected 3 times to the Senate, where he was Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He was nominated (but declined) to serve on the Supreme Court. Instead, he became Polk's Secretary of State. Finally, he was the Minister to the Court of St. James (Ambassador to Britain). That, my friends, is a resume!

Naturally, he was a complete failure as a President, and consistently ranks as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history.

So, vote for who you want. But be suspicious of the value of experience.

Update (12/7/07): A NY Times/CBS News poll shows that primary voters slightly favor the "Right Experience" over "Fresh Ideas" (48% to 39%). But drill down a bit, and you find that Republican voters massively favor experience (61% - 27%) over ideas, whereas Democrats actually favor "fresh ideas" (45% to 42%). It's my opinion, which I'll explore in a future post, that these aren't actual opinions - they are opinions that have been formed to meet existing conditions.

Imus Returns

It's not easy to defend the I-Man's "nappy-headed ho" comment, so I won't. But I will defend him against charges of being a shock jock. If you believe Don Imus is a shock jock, you haven't been listening the last few years.

Where else on radio can you hear:

• Long, insightful interviews with noted historians like Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss
• Pundits from the Left (Frank Rich, Paul Begala) and the Right (Laura Ingraham, Mary Matalin) in interviews that are far more dignified than the shoutfests on cable TV
• A show that reveres serious books. Oprah may have picked The Road for her book club this year, but Imus was raving about Cormac 15 years ago, after All the Pretty Horses came out
• Finally - and this is so rare in media today - a (nearly) actor-free zone. The only actor (besides assorted Sopranos) that has appeared on the show is Steve Martin - who may have first gained fame by putting a fake arrow in his head, but is also a playwright, a novelist, and a New Yorker contributor
• - is is a show that will spend 25 minutes talking to Goodwin about how Lincoln managed his cabinet - and never once mention Angelina Jolie's adoption practices. Tom Friedman can tout his new book on globalization - but Madonna doesn't get to tout her new children's book.

So, if you're an NPR listener who believes, having never listened to the show, that Imus is some sort of Redneck Stern - check out his show and decide for yourself...

Busy? Then Don't Go To This Site

The Straight Dope answers all of the important questions, like: Do birds pee? Why do people clink their glass when they toast? Is Popeye's nemesis Bluto or Brutus? What's in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction? Why do Corn Pops come in a silver bag? And what the hell is the Pompatus of Love?

British Bands; American Solos

I saw a commercial the other day for the Eagles' new album (sold exclusively at Walmart!), which called them "American's Greatest Rock Band". That's ridiculous, I thought, and started thinking of the greatest bands in my head (Beatles, Stones, U2). And I counted off a lot of UK bands in my head before I got to an American contender.

Then I started thinking of the great solo acts in history (Dylan, Elvis, Springsteen) - and they all have American passports. I struggled to think of a Brit* in their weight class. Hmm, time for some research...

Instead of a long debate about what constitutes "great", I went to a reasonable source: Rolling Stone magazine's "The Immortals: The Fifty Greatest Artists of All Time". This is by no means a perfect list (the Everly Brothers made it but REM didn't) but let's face it - RS has earned the right to be the arbiter of the 50 Greatest as well as anyone. So let's start there.

First some numbers:

• Of the 50 artists on the list, 37 are American; 10 are from the UK; 2 are Canadian; and one is Other.
• The Top 10 acts all conform to the British Band-American Solo pattern.
• As do 23 of the top 25.
• The first American band on the list is the Beach Boys, at #12.
• The first solo Brit on the list is John Lennon at 38, and frankly, that's cheating, since his band fame got him there. The first true solo Brit is David Bowie at 39, and the only others are Van Morrison at 42 and Elton John at 49.
• Thus, of the ten British artists on the list, 6 are bands and 1 is the guy from the Beatles.
• Of the 37 American artists, only 9, or about 25%, are bands with names that don't include their frontman (e.g. Sly and the Family Stone). And even of those 9, three of them feature brothers (Ramones, Beach Boys, Everly Brothers).

Some thoughts about artists who weren't on the list...

• Eric Clapton is a surprising omission. We tend to think of Clapton as a solo guy, but showing his Britishness, Clapton was a serial band-joiner (Yardbirds, Cream, Blind Faith, Derek & the Dominoes) before he finally decided, hey, I'm going Solo.
• Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers is an American band, but one that followed that Guy+Band nomenclature that is popular among Americans (Bruce + E Street; Smokey + Miracles) but rare among Brits (Elvis Costello being a rare exception - but hey, his whole name is American). I'm inclined to think of these artists as Solos.
• Other popular American bands not on the list also have brothers (think Alex Van Halen and Tom Fogerty). It's as if, even when Americans form bands, it's out of either fraternal pressure, or one guy (Smokey, Bruce, TP, Sly) takes control.
• Bon Jovi: band or solo? More importantly, who cares?

What does all this mean? Hell, I don't know. Maybe the Brits are more team players, band of brothers and all that, while Americans are individualists by nature.

I just find it interesting.

* Yes, I'm using the word Brit here loosely, including Ireland. As someone who marches in the St. Patrick's Day parade in NY every year I should be ashamed of myself - but I'm referring to the British Isles. Further, while I personally put Van Morrison at the top of any list, he was just never as huge as the biggies mentioned in the parenthesis.

Manning-Brady: Best "Who's Better?" Debate Ever

Wilt-Russell. Marino-Montana. ARod-Jeter.

Most of the "Who's Better?" barstool debates follow the same script. One player (Wilt, Marino, A-Rod) puts up monster stats and sets records, but generally comes up short in the post-season. The other (Russell, Montana, Jeter) puts up good stats, but wins far more championships. *

Team allegiances aside, the guy who thinks Bill Russell's 11 rings and 15 point scoring average trumps Wilt Chamberlain's one ring and 30 point scoring average, is likely a Montana-Jeter booster as well. And vice-versa. (For the record, I tend to support the stats guy. It's not Marino's fault he didn't get Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, and the Niner D as his teammates).

Until 2006, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning followed the script perfectly. Manning put up monster stats but did little in January. Brady won 3 Super Bowls with efficient but not eye-popping statistics.

Then Peyton became Brady. This isn't unusual - great players who don't win are often told they lack that special winning quality - but they often prove their critics wrong (see: Elway, John). It started on November 7, 2005 when the Colts, who had lost 7 straight to the Pats, went into Foxboro and whipped the Pats. They beat them in Foxboro again a year later; and again in January 07, this time in the AFC Championship game, and with one of the greatest comebacks ever. Peyton Manning and the Colts went on to win the Super Bowl, giving his barstool supporters a huge edge in the Manning-Brady debate.

But now something truly unusual is happening...Brady is becoming Peyton. Tom Brady, who never threw more than 28 TDs in a season and had only thrown for 4K yards once, is on a pace to break all of Manning's and Marino's single-season records. The barstool debaters are flummoxed.

This doesn't happen. Jeter doesn't suddenly hit 50 homers one year. Russell doesn't win an NBA scoring title. Montana doesn't throw 40 TD passes.

The only thing that can make this story better is if the Colts beat the Pats in January. Then the role-reversal will be complete. And the barstool boosters will have to reverse their roles, too.


* I've ignored individual sport rivalries like Ali-Frazier, Tiger-Phil, or Borg-McEnroe. In those sports, winning truly is the only thing that matters. As for Mantle-Mays, I think baseball fans were smarter in the 50's, and realized that Mantle won more titles than Mays because of Berra, Whitey et. al. rather than some magical winning superpower.

What is "Free Time"?

Over the last ten years or so, friends of mine would occasionally find an email from me in their Inbox, with an attachment. The attachment was a carefully researched short essay on some random topic – Eli Manning’s passing stats, why the British tend to produce great bands and Americans great solo performers, a comparison of John Adams’ and Thomas Jefferson’s place in history.

One day a friend of mine, a frequent recipient of the sports essays, called me up.

“You know those emails you send, with the essays attached?” he asked.

“Yes?” I said, expecting some kind words about them.

“Can you stop doing that?”

So I did. But I didn’t stop writing them. Eventually I figured I might as well start a blog. And here it is.

Is there any theme to this blog? The primary topics are fairly mainstream things – sports, music, politics, literature, history. But the thing that tends to get me started on a topic is when everybody is thinking one way, and ignoring all of the evidence that they could be wrong. I then get interested in the contrarian view.

My mission statement is to provoke a "Huh". Not the interrogatory "Huh?", which roughly translates to "What the hell are you talking about?"; but the exclamatory "Huh", which means (and think Dana Carvey as Johnny Carson here), "I did not know that."