Repoz lobs a softball reference. But I guess this article was really just tailor made for it.

An hilarious comment from Harold's blog:

I can totally relate Harold. I am a farmer and I can't believe how science has taken over the agriculture business. Like I had an old neighbor who was much like Dick Williams. He said, "If something is going wrong with your crops, then the situation will dictate what to do. Like, if rain is your problem, then sacrifice two goats or one pig. If pests are your problem, then yell at the moon for a forenight and bury three red stones in your field. Problem solved. But I shouldn't have to tell you beforehand, you should know this." Now days they have fancy inventions like irrigation, meteorology, crop rotations, and fertilizers. I am like, "Phooey and bunk!" I am just like you Harold, I don't need their new fangled theories and hocus-pocus in order to understand farming better. I mean a meteorologist has never farmed, what can he tell me or my old neighbor about farming? We reached the pinnacle of understanding with yelling at the moon! The point is that I have nothing left to learn just like you, Harold.

Easily the worst movie under the Expectation Model was "Matrix III". I had such high hopes and I walked out of the movie thinking "WTF?". Phantom Menace is also up there, although my expectations had been dampened by critics panning it. More recently, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" ranked very high on that list. I still don't get what everyone liked about that movie.

Star Trek Generations
Star Wars I

The 2006 World Series.

David Pinto tells a neat Harold/Stat story...

I like Harold Reynolds a lot. If I’m looking for an explanation of how to turn a double play or how to decide to go from first to third on a single, I’ll ask Harold. If I want to know about the usefulness of OPS, I’ll look elsewhere.

We were in a Baseball Tonight production meeting one day, and Harold wanted to talk about lead-off hitters on the show. He started listing the important qualities of these hitters. The first was speed. I groaned internally. He kept the list going, and all the while I’m thinking, “Say OBA!” He lists about five more things without mentioning getting on base. He looks like he’s searching for one more thing, so I pipe up with, “The abilility to get on base.” Harold echoes that, and goes on.

The list Harold gave were qualities that helped you get on base, or helped you score once you got on base, but he didn’t pull those together into a stat that explained most of it.

How could you expect anything from "Matrix III" after having seen "Matrix II?" For me its got to be Star Wars Episode I. Though Matrix II is a good pick, too. But none of those really fit, as sequels are always likely to be worse than the original. Perhaps "Howard the Duck"?

A slugger’s on base percentage will always be higher because he clogs the bases.

From the article:

**My Freaky Awakenings Transformation theory, which I have mentioned here before, is that during the filming of Awakenings, Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro had their personalities switched. So from that point on Robin Williams no longer wanted to be funny and wanted to play serious and quirky roles while DeNiro decided he desperately wanted to play in oddball comedies. The switch has worked about as well as the Fred Savage-Judge Reinhold switcheroo in Vice Versa.

So when did Posnanski start taking writing lessons from Bill Simmons? Or is this another (hopefully short-lived) body switch?

For me its got to be Star Wars Episode I

Agreed. I still haven't seen II or III because Phantom Menace was so bleh.

I can totally relate Harold. I am a farmer and I can't believe how science has taken over the agriculture business. Like I had an old neighbor who was much like Dick Williams. He said, "If something is going wrong with your crops, then the situation will dictate what to do. Like, if rain is your problem, then sacrifice two goats or one pig. If pests are your problem, then yell at the moon for a forenight and bury three red stones in your field. Problem solved. But I shouldn't have to tell you beforehand, you should know this." Now days they have fancy inventions like irrigation, meteorology, crop rotations, and fertilizers. I am like, "Phooey and bunk!" I am just like you Harold, I don't need their new fangled theories and hocus-pocus in order to understand farming better. I mean a meteorologist has never farmed, what can he tell me or my old neighbor about farming? We reached the pinnacle of understanding with yelling at the moon! The point is that I have nothing left to learn just like you, Harold.

Gold.

So when did Posnanski start taking writing lessons from Bill Simmons? Or is this another (hopefully short-lived) body switch?

That's a quote from an older blog entry, so the bodies have long since been switched.

is the comment quoted in 2 from Harvey's? :-)

Anyway, back to Poz, this is a pretty good recap of Harold's argument:

14. Someone once told me Ichiro should walk more. Why? The guy gets 200 hits a year. He scores over 100 runs. Why would pitchers want to walk him more? Then he would score even more runs and he would steal more bases. This might seem like a good thing from Ichiro’s perspective, which seemed to be the original point when someone once told me that Ichiro should walk more, but no, now I’m suddenly talking about the pitcher’s perspective — why should they walk him more? In other words: Why should he walk more when pitchers would rather not walk him and, um, sluggers who walk are not really, you know, well, OPS is not good when you have a slow runner clogging up the drain like dog hair when you wash him in the sink though Ichiro is a fast runner and could score more runs if he walked more which is a bad thing because Dave Kingman is or he would be, if he was on a good team with Adrian Gonzalez, a slugger who, and, um, Adam Dunn needs to be mentioned and statistics are not good except sometimes like when a guy gets 200 hits, but then, if he walked more, he would score more and pitchers don’t want that and … that’s why OPS is not a good statistic.

I'd much rather Robin Williams be a dramatic actor than fail at being funny.

I like Harold Reynolds a lot. If I’m looking for an explanation of how to turn a double play or how to decide to go from first to third on a single, I’ll ask Harold. If I want to know about the usefulness of OPS, I’ll look elsewhere.


Exactly. Reynolds isn't just arguing on the basis of an appeal to authority, he's actually appealing to the wrong authority as well. Many statheads, if choosing to use that fallacy, could throw the "I was hired by an MLB team to evaluate the usefulness of statistics and you're not" card right in Reynolds' face.

How could you expect anything from "Matrix III" after having seen "Matrix II?"

To be honest, I'm having a hard time separating the two in my mind.

I'd much rather Robin Williams be a dramatic actor than fail at being funny.

Agreed. Robin Williams is painfully unfunny, if I could stab a movie with a pen it would be Mrs. Doubtfire. Yet I really enjoy him in dramatic films ie. The World According to Garp, Good Will Hunting, and Awakenings.

Repoz lobs a softball reference. But I guess this article was really just tailor made for it.

I wouldn't call a non-LP b-side an easy reference...

if I could stab a movie with a pen it would be Mrs. Doubtfire

Am I the only one here who finds Mrs. Doubtfire kinda funny? I mean as a whole yea it sucks, but there are some parts I will legitimately laugh at to this day.

It was benign.

How could you expect anything from "Matrix III" after having seen "Matrix II?" For me its got to be Star Wars Episode I. Though Matrix II is a good pick, too. But none of those really fit, as sequels are always likely to be worse than the original. Perhaps "Howard the Duck"?

Meh, the second Matrix movie is still pretty good.

Mrs. Doubtfire deserves to exist just for the spoof in Arrested Development.

I also liked Hook, although I would imagine a 5 year old would have a different impression on it than someone on a date. Rufio is always good in my book.

How could you expect anything from "Matrix III" after having seen "Matrix II?"

This was going to be nearly my exact response. The only good thing about Matrix II was that it so thoroughly deflated my expectations for the final installment that I was actually able to enjoy (some of) it.

Agreed. I still haven't seen II or III because Phantom Menace was so bleh.

Keith, II was substantially better than I (though still not good). III was worth it -- on the whole it's in the ballpark with Jedi. (I know someone who thought it was better than New Hope, but that's crazy talk.)

Am I the only one here who finds Mrs. Doubtfire kinda funny?

It was benign.

But still cancerous, nonetheless.

III was worth it -- on the whole it's in the ballpark with Jedi.

No. Way. Episode III was crap.

I saw Episode I on opening night. I really wanted to love this movie. I was so, so angry when I left the theater.

Robin Williams is brilliant in Death to Smoochy.

Robin Williams is brilliant in Death to Smoochy.

Virtually everyone is brilliant in Death to Smoochy.

Matrix II is pretty good if you think of it as the inevitable down note between the awesome Matrix I and the (obviously going to be) awesome Matrix III. It introduces a lot of new characters, has a couple of really good scenes, and ends on a cliffhanger. I came into III expecting it to pick up on the loose threads and rock the house. That makes it a -4 movie for me.

Episode I was worse in retrospect than it was at the time. When I walked out of the theater, I figured I'd just caught it on a bad day and it would grow on me. But the slow pacing kills any reviewing value.

Eh ... there are almost no comedians who make good comic actors. I consider Williams a very good dramatic actor (and Garp is a seriously under-rated film). He's seriously and appropriately creepy in One Hour Photo. His best comic role was probably in the Birdcage ... where he's the straight man. (no pun intended :-)

This might well be the fault of comic directors -- one suspects they just give Williams free rein to be "funny."

It's interesting that Williams comic career almost exactly mirrors that of his idol Jonathan Winters. Winters and Williams were both absolutely hilarious at the start of their career -- and then they made the mistake of thinking that "wacky and unstructured" is inherently funny with dreadful results.

I can totally relate Harold. I am a farmer and I can't believe how science has taken over the agriculture business. Like I had an old neighbor who was much like Dick Williams. He said, "If something is going wrong with your crops, then the situation will dictate what to do. Like, if rain is your problem, then sacrifice two goats or one pig. If pests are your problem, then yell at the moon for a forenight and bury three red stones in your field. Problem solved. But I shouldn't have to tell you beforehand, you should know this." Now days they have fancy inventions like irrigation, meteorology, crop rotations, and fertilizers. I am like, "Phooey and bunk!" I am just like you Harold, I don't need their new fangled theories and hocus-pocus in order to understand farming better. I mean a meteorologist has never farmed, what can he tell me or my old neighbor about farming? We reached the pinnacle of understanding with yelling at the moon! The point is that I have nothing left to learn just like you, Harold.

The best part of this is the double irony that the "fancy inventions" are not modern farming, which--if the Green Revolution in India is any indication--has been less effective than yelling at the moon.

I'm not saying that's the case in baseball, but it's amusing.

“Insomnia” was a great movie.

It's interesting that Williams comic career almost exactly mirrors that of his idol Jonathan Winters. Winters and Williams were both absolutely hilarious at the start of their career -- and then they made the mistake of thinking that "wacky and unstructured" is inherently funny with dreadful results.

Excellent call. Both are at their best when working within a tightly scripted structure.

Oh ... and Harold. There is a "logic" buried in his statements. And it is a standard old school baseball logic.

1. Teams (mainly) walk or pitch around Dunn when it is to their advantage to do so rather than pitch to him.
2. Therefore when Dunn (and note my phrasing here) is walked, it is not (very) advantageous to his team.

This ties in with the Ichiro comment as well -- why would a pitcher walk Ichiro? (Actually, Ichiro was intentionally walked a lot early in his career.) It is the old notion that it's (mainly) up to the pitcher whether the batter walks or not. If you start with that premise then, by definition, a pitcher (at least a good one) would only walk a batter when it's to the pitcher's advantage. Therefore to "reward" high walk hitters via OBP is to over-value them.

There is of course some truth in there -- a walk to Dunn is not as damaging as a walk to Ichiro. But of course among the many things Reynolds overlooked, is the comparison of Dunn to the non-walking slugger. By Harold's own "logic," pitchers "chose" to pitch to, for example, Dawson and Joe Carter rather than pitch around them. Why? Because they knew those guys would swing at a pitcher's pitch. Sure, some times the pitcher made a mistake and/or Dawson/Carter put a hurting on one of those pitches off the plate. Still pitchers "chose" again and again not to walk Dawson and Carter despite their power and RBI while they do "choose" to walk Dunn. Surely even Reynolds would recognize that taking a walk is better than hitting the pitcher's pitch and making an out 80% of the time. But maybe not ... maybe he thinks Dunn would hit 60-70 HR a year if he didn't take so many walks.

Another other useful comparison is Henderson and Boggs vs. Ichiro and Gwynn. Now there's obviously nothing wrong with Ichiro's 377 or Gwynn's 388 OBPs but they pale in comparison to Henderson (401) and Boggs (415). Henderson is the ultimate example to show that pitchers don't control walks to a particularly great degree. No pitcher ever wanted to walk Henderson (OK, he had 61 IBB in his career). Or on a more human scale, no pitcher ever wanted to walk Brett Butler or Luis Castillo or, my old favorite, Al Leiter.

You can swing at pitches off the plate and make the pitcher's job easier ... or you can lay off those pitches and draw a fair number of walks. Obviously that form of plate discipline is a talent but, as an overall strategy, there is no reason any batter should "choose" the first option.

Excellent call. Both are at their best when working within a tightly scripted structure.

I don't think I agree with that actually. As comedians, they were great in their youth in unstructured settings because ... well, because their brains were able to think up really funny stuff in that context ... stuff that probably wouldn't have come to them in a structured setting. It's just that later, for whatever reason, their brains stopped coming up with funny stuff and, as comedians, they were reduced to random crap thrown against a wall.

If you ever want to torture yourself, watch the Robin Williams episode of Inside the Actors Studio. Between Williams doing 1000 hilarious characters and Lipton's non-stop fellating (if memory serves, at one point he actually counts the number of different characters Williams has used so far) ... it's not even so bad it's funny ... but it is the almost perfect parody of both Williams and Lipton.

EDIT: oh, the broader point was that I find it intriguing that two great young improvisational stand-up comedians tanked in the same way. I'm trying to think of others who'd qualify as great young improvisational stand-up comedians ... Lenny Bruce maybe and seems his late-career wasn't all that funny either, but his was a very different schtick than Williams and Winters. Guys like Carlin or Billy Connolly I think were more in the "scripted to appear improvisational" mode but they never lost it to the degree that Williams and Winters did.

This ties in with the Ichiro comment as well -- why would a pitcher walk Ichiro? (Actually, Ichiro was intentionally walked a lot early in his career.)

He still is - he's second in the AL in intentional walks this season. As to why Ichiro would get intentionally walked, it's pretty simple - any time a single can beat you and there's a base open, it's probably wise to walk him. I still have no idea what the South Korean manager was thinking pitching to Ichiro in the tenth inning of the final of the WBC, with two runners in scoring position and first base open...

I don't think I agree with that actually. As comedians, they were great in their youth in unstructured settings because ... well, because their brains were able to think up really funny stuff in that context ... stuff that probably wouldn't have come to them in a structured setting. It's just that later, for whatever reason, their brains stopped coming up with funny stuff and, as comedians, they were reduced to random crap thrown against a wall.

True enough. But once they'd passed that early peak, each still was able to be funny playing a more-or-less-standard character, where the humor was to be found in their struggle to remain composed when all hell was breaking loose around them. Think Williams in The Birdcage. But that was all they were able to be funny in; I agree that they were still allowed to perform the old stream-of-consciousness schtick despite the fact that it was groaningly bad.

If you ever want to torture yourself, watch the Robin Williams episode of Inside the Actors Studio. Between Williams doing 1000 hilarious characters and Lipton's non-stop fellating (if memory serves, at one point he actually counts the number of different characters Williams has used so far) ... it's not even so bad it's funny ... but it is the almost perfect parody of both Williams and Lipton.

That sounds hideous.

I'm reminded of a similar Williams riff on an old Dick Cavett Show, with Cavett doing the fellatio. As bad as TV gets.

Between Williams doing 1000 hilarious characters

400 of which are a "homeboy" and another 300 "flamers".

Whassup wit dat?

hi, there...

He still is - he's second in the AL in intentional walks this season. As to why Ichiro would get intentionally walked, it's pretty simple - any time a single can beat you and there's a base open, it's probably wise to walk him.

Also Seattle suxx?

A lovely encapsulation of Robin Williams, from "The Onion."

Guys like Carlin or Billy Connolly I think were more in the "scripted to appear improvisational" mode but they never lost it to the degree that Williams and Winters did.

I never thought of Carlin as trying to appear improvisational. Leaving aside the obviously scripted skit stuff, like the hippy-dippy weatherman, all of his bits were carefully scripted, many involving well thought out word play and observational humor. I think one of the reasons he lasted so long was that worked very hard at coming up with good and new material.

As to Williams and Winters -- it is not so much that they lost it, as we got tired of it. The first few times, it is new and shocking and hilarious. After a while, you hear the same funny voice for the 20th time, and the edge is off.

I never thought of Carlin as trying to appear improvisational. Leaving aside the obviously scripted skit stuff, like the hippy-dippy weatherman, all of his bits were carefully scripted, many involving well thought out word play and observational humor. I think one of the reasons he lasted so long was that worked very hard at coming up with good and new material.

Yes. And one of his greatest skills was to deliver such impeccably carefully-crafted and precisely-written material in a persona that appeared to be loose and loopy.

As to Williams and Winters -- it is not so much that they lost it, as we got tired of it. The first few times, it is new and shocking and hilarious. After a while, you hear the same funny voice for the 20th time, and the edge is off.

Indeed. Demonstrating, I guess, the inherent challenge in remaining fresh and funny with an act that's based on outrageousness. The really long-career comedians tend to be the straightforward stand-there-and-tell-jokes guys. There's a reason that, say, Bob Hope had a lot more staying power than Red Skelton.

Bob Hope had a lot more staying power than Red Skelton

To be fair, Red Skelton was always much more a traditional clown type, than a stand-up comic. That involves a lot more physical humor, and that usually leads to a shorter career.

But he was a great, great clown.

Goodnight, and God Bless.

I am always amazed by the sheer # of threads that turn into discussions of movies that even those posting about them don't always think are that good--is there some kind of dog whistle, signalling, eg "hey! guys! let's discuss average mainstreamish sci flicks of the 90s again!" that I miss?

and yet Pavement have become a punchline--damn, it's been weeks since a good Pavement discussion broke out--hey, anybody have an opinion on Ibold's work on the latest Sonic Youth?

[Edited for Pavement!]

Matrix II was OK, until I saw III, which I expected to actually explain II. It so utterly failed at that, it made II retroactively awful.

SW I isn't bad for a kids movie. SW II has those tortured teeny bopper scenes, but I think they are *supposed* to make you uncomfortable. I liked III.

If you weren't between the ages of 6 and 20 when you first saw "IV" (A new hope) then it's actually quite mediocre (special effects of the times wizardy aside)

Staying power? Red Skelton had something like a 35-year career as a popular star. He's a terrible example of a performer done in by the fickleness of show biz.

Staying power? Red Skelton had something like a 35-year career as a popular star. He's a terrible example of a performer done in by the fickleness of show biz.

Well, I don't know, I guess I didn't perceive him as staying on the A-list for most of that time. Maybe he's a bad example, but my point is, I think, still valid: a comedy act built on frenzied antics is harder to sustain in the long term than one built on straightforward joke delivery.

As to Williams and Winters -- it is not so much that they lost it, as we got tired of it. The first few times, it is new and shocking and hilarious. After a while, you hear the same funny voice for the 20th time, and the edge is off.

I don't quite buy that either. All comedians have to deal with the basic issue of coming up with fresh material. But, in terms of style, Williams didn't do anything that Winters hadn't done 10 years earlier, he wasn't particularly outrageous in context (Winters, Pryor, Dick Gregory had all been more outrageous in various ways) yet he was funny. I don't think we grow tired of it per se, I think that stand-up improv is even harder than regular stand-up and it's very much an all-or-nothing style (Adam Dunn without the walks!). On the other hand, improv group comedy might be easier.

Dick Gregory's another guy who completely lost it but he had a standard style.

But once they'd passed that early peak, each still was able to be funny playing a more-or-less-standard character, where the humor was to be found in their struggle to remain composed when all hell was breaking loose around them. Think Williams in The Birdcage.

Ahh, well if we're talking acting, then I do agree -- though I can't remember Winters from anything except the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.

"The Onion."

Wow, it namedrops Byron Allen. There are no words for that person.

I can't remember Winters from anything except the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.

He was also in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. In both movies he was delightfully funny, performing scripted comic acting in an ensemble, certainly not being allowed any free-form craziness.

Williams' Golf routine late in his career is still comedic gold. Definitely showed how he had matured. There is no way he does that routine in SF cocaine days.

Yikes. The Ritz Brothers weren't even funny in 1936. I shudder to think of how phenomenally unfunny Harry Ritz's zany antics were in 1976.

He was also in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

Steve, every comedian, every actor and every other living, breathing American was in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

And was the Russians are coming that highly scripted? Reiner, Arkin and Winters all came from improv backgrounds. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a lot of those scenes, maybe especially Winters' scenes (though I haven't seen that movie in ages), were improvised ... and I can imagine a number ended up on the cutting room floor.

Winters is the "paranoid right-winger" character, right?

Steve, every comedian, every actor and every other living, breathing American was in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Winters is the "paranoid right-winger" character, right?

No, that's Paul Ford. Winters is the junior cop, the assistant to Brian Keith.

I suppose there might have been some improvisational stuff going on in that movie, but it was hardly just Jonathan-Winters-with-a-mike-on-a-stage stuff. Norman Jewison was the director/producer, and as with Mad, Mad World, the budget was very large. One doubts the studio was being too keen on just letting them roll a whole bunch of film and see what happens.

I think Williams' best comedic role in a movie is playing the Genie in Aladdin. That character is still hilarious, much funnier than his character in The Birdcage.

Winters is the junior cop, the assistant to Brian Keith.

Winters' character is the guy who keeps saying, "We've just got to get organized!"

Henderson is the ultimate example to show that pitchers don't control walks to a particularly great degree.

Pitchers *do* control the timing of walks, more than you think. Example: in high-leverage situations, BB rate goes up, ISO goes down, almost across the board (it is a *very* rare hitter who loses walks in high-leverage situations).

-- MWE

I know Milton Berle got in a little trouble for screwing around to make his own part bigger. Every time a group runs on screen, he's first, but every time a group runs off screen, he's last. This means that he gets the screen to himself every time. He was a genius, I tells ya.

Yeah, I have the extra-features edition of the DVD that has Berle in his interview giving away that secret. I don't recall him getting into any trouble for that, though. I could be mistaken.

Kat and Leopold is the worst film ever made. Ever. I expected nothing and afterward felt that something vital, something essential and irretrievable had been stolen from me.

I know Milton Berle got in a little trouble for screwing around to make his own part bigger.

I always heard his part was already exceedingly big...

Pitchers *do* control the timing of walks, more than you think. Example: in high-leverage situations, BB rate goes up, ISO goes down, almost across the board (it is a *very* rare hitter who loses walks in high-leverage situations).

Well, yeah. I didn't mean to suggest there aren't situations where pitchers pitch around a guy -- of course there are. I meant more the idea that a pitcher can just "throw strikes." The old "why would a pitcher walk Ichiro?" While clearly a pitcher is more likely to walk a high ISO hitter than Ichiro, the main reason a low-walk hitter is a low-walk hitter is because he's swinging at stuff outside the zone.

As to why Ichiro would get intentionally walked, it's pretty simple - any time a single can beat you and there's a base open, it's probably wise to walk him.

Actually not as much as you might think. If an important run is on third and there's a base open, it might be wise to walk him. But for his career, with a man on 2nd only, Ichiro has 114 singles and only 50 times has he plated the runner -- yet he has 66 IBB in that situation. (Or 131 hits with 69 RBI which is more relevant but I am always astounded at how weak Ichiro's singles are.) He is definitely the guy to call when you need an RBI groundout with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs. :-)

(Granted, I have no idea what the league average is for driving in a runner from 2nd with a single but I gotta think it's well above 50/114).

improv group comedy might be easier

Who's Line Is It Anyway?

I have no idea what the league average is for driving in a runner from 2nd with a single

Ask and ye shall receive...I have nothing better to do while sitting in the Atlanta airport waiting for my 11 AM flight.

In 2008, there were 2324 situations in which there was a runner on second and a single was hit. The runner was driven in by the single 1267 times - 54.5%. At that rate, Ichiro's singles should have scored the runner 62 times in his 114 opportunities.

-- MWE

Not really even directly on the thread jack topic, but...

Saw Russell Peters live last night. The rest of the card was mixed--John Pinette was very good, Ben Bailey was better than expected, and everyone else was a little too cliche.

Peters is interesting because he's basically the hardest working cultural comic (as in jokes about culture). He probably the world's best paid unlicensed anthropologist/linguist. He has insanely mixed audiences. And I don't think I'd ever seen so many mixed ?M/WF couples in one place at one time.

Final question: Why are so many comedians lamely homophobic? I don't mean clever stereotypical humor...I just mean shouting, "That's so gay" for no particular reason...

Saw Russell Peters live last night.

I'm not sure if it's available on iTunes or the CBC website, but I figured that I'd mention that Russell Peters has been doing a radio comedy called Monsoon House, which is one of the funniest things I've listened to, and I say that despite not finding Russell Peters to be particularly funny in his standup.

Ask and ye shall receive...I have nothing better to do while sitting in the Atlanta airport waiting for my 11 AM flight.

In 2008, there were 2324 situations in which there was a runner on second and a single was hit. The runner was driven in by the single 1267 times - 54.5%. At that rate, Ichiro's singles should have scored the runner 62 times in his 114 opportunities.

-- MWE

gotta love this site. So Ichiro is 12 short there, but he still advanced the runners (assuming they weren't out at the plate) which is still a worse result than walking him (of course he still makes outs 63% or so of the time. )

(I feel sorry for you being in Atlanta airport....place doesn't even sell Mountain Dew)

I'm not sure if it's available on iTunes or the CBC website, but I figured that I'd mention that Russell Peters has been doing a radio comedy called Monsoon House, which is one of the funniest things I've listened to, and I say that despite not finding Russell Peters to be particularly funny in his standup.

Wow, I'd love to find that.

It's straight audio right?

don't be so homophobic. What is wrong with gay audio?

What is wrong with gay audio?

Show tunes. All the time.

Land of the Lost was funny despite what most of the critics have said about it. I think it was funnier than The Hangover, which to me revealed all of its funny parts in the trailer and was just a grown up version of Dude, Where's My Car?

I know Milton Berle got in a little trouble for screwing around to make his own part bigger.
I always heard his part was already exceedingly big...

At the Friars Club's memorial tribute, Freddie Roman solemnly informed the audience, "On May 1st and May 2nd, his penis will be buried."