The Twelve Random Thoughts of Christmas
Posted: December 22nd, 2007 | Filed under: Baseball | 33 Comments »
I just don’t think we get nearly enough hackneyed Christmas-scented writing this time of years. Maybe you would like an amusing modern version of The Night Before Christmas? How about a little essay called “What different athletes should get for Christmas this year?†Ho ho ho. It’s the most wonderful time of the year.
For now, I’ll just give you 12 random thoughts, one for each Christmas day:
RT 1: A Will Clark Story
This comes from former Major League pitcher Dan Smith — a nice guy. He says that Will Clark has total recall. I don’t think I had ever heard this before, but there’s probably a lot about Will Clark I don’t know. For instance — and I’m sure I just forgot this — the Royals actually drafted Clark in 1982 out of high school. They drafted him in the fourth round too, so they obviously expected to sign him. Wow, think how much better the Royals could have been with Will Clark.
Anyway, when Dan was in college, he got a call from Will Clark, asking him to sign with a certain agent. Dan was pretty well blown away by the call.
“If I ever get to the big leagues, I hope you’ll take it easy on me,†Dan said.
“I take it easy on no one,†Clark said.
OK, typical stuff. Six or seven years later, Clark signed with Texas. Smith introduced himself, but never said anything about the call and neither did Clark. They did not say anything else to each other. Then, one day at spring training, Clark lashed a line drive right back at Smith. The ball broke Smith’s arm.
Next day, Smith had a cast on. Clark came up to him.
He said: “Remember what I told you on the phone that day? I take it easy on no one.â€
RT 2: A Bill Belichick Story
I told the best Bill Belichick story I’ve ever heard in my column today. That was originally going to be a blog post, but it was determined that it held newspaper appeal. I must admit to not really knowing what should go on the blog, what should go in the newspaper and what should be saved for books. I guess that’s obvious.
RT 3: Steroids and Buck
It’s funny, there have been several million words written in the past couple of weeks about steroids in baseball (and also HGH which is very different — but let’s use “steroids†here to describe the entire set of drugs). People are so hot-headed about the topic, you can’t really talk to anybody. More and more, though, I think back to what Buck O’Neil used to say. He would shock people all the time. They expected him to be outraged about steroids and cheating, and he really was not. He used to say, “The only reason we didn’t use steroids in my time is that we didn’t have them.†He said baseball players — premier athletes in general — look for that edge. It just in the nature of competitive athletes.
Then he said something else: He wondered why people didn’t talk more about the health risks. If steroids really are dangerous enough to be illegal without prescriptions — more dangerous than, say, cigarettes or alcohol or other over the counter legal drugs — then he wished people would talk about THAT rather than talking about how many more home runs you could hit using steroids. He despised the phrase “performance enhancing drugs.†He would have preferred something like “life-threatening drugs.â€
Of course, it seems that the long-term health risks for steroids, HGH and other PED’s are not especially clear cut — people argue about the dangers all the time. So maybe that’s why I cannot remember the last steroids story I read that actually detailed the health risks. In any case, with all the hysteria surrounding steroids and baseball now, I really wish some more people could just express some of the common sense that Buck always expressed. Let’s try to remember what this is all about anyway.
Then again, it’s been more than a year since he’s been gone, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thought that over that year — how many times I’ve missed Buck’s common sense.
Oh yeah, here’s one more link to the book.
RT 4: Steroids and Pitchers
Saturday, for the fifth time this week, I heard from a baseball insider who told me that there is absolutely no question in his mind that pitchers definitely abused steroids much, much more than hitters throughout the 1990s. I’m beginning to suspect more and more that this is true.
I have this theory — and it’s only a theory, something I’ve been thinking lately — that people cannot work up the same sort of outrage for pitchers who use steroids because it’s much harder to imagine that picture. With hitters, it’s so easy to picture a big-headed slugger swinging a bat like it’s a twig and launching moonshots. That’s something to get angry about. These guys are cheating history! They are trying to supplant Ruth and Mays and Aaron and Mantle with illegal drugs! The shame!
But pitchers using steroids so they can come back from injuries more quickly, so they can throw that third day in a row, so they can add 1 mph to their fastball — I think it’s just tougher to work up the same sort of unhealthy rage about that. I mean, Andy Pettitte using HGH so he can pitch better in his 30s and maybe keep his fastball in the 90 mph range probably won’t get us too worked up.
Plus, when you think about pitchers using steroids, it can take away from the pure anger we have toward the HITTERS using steroids. It clouds the picture.
I asked Bill James if he sees any way to statistically isolate the effect steroids had on the game in the 1990s. I realize that it’s guess-work, but I wish we could make an educated guess and say offensive numbers were inflated by, oh, 8% or 17% or 42% or whatever. He said no, probably not.
Trouble is, I think we might find that steroids and other PEDs had a significantly smaller effect on the game than most of the crusaders would like to believe. It’s like Martin Scorcese says in Quiz Show when talking about the rigged game shows. “Why fix them? Think about it will ya? You could do exactly the same thing by making the questions easier.â€
In the 1990s, ballparks got smaller, bats got harder, players started working out intensely (even without steroids), the leagues expanded, the strike zone shrunk, general managers became more determined to find power hitters and were willing, perhaps, to give up other qualities such as defense and batting average. It is very clear that game changed in important ways that had nothing to do with steroids … though that’s not what anyone seems ready to hear now.
And that, in the end, might be why people, generally, are less put out by pitchers using steroids (or, for that matter, linebackers using steroids). It doesn’t fit neatly into the picture in our minds.
RT 5: Skyline Chili
Some people don’t get the Skyline Chili infatuation. I understand that. I was one of those people. The first time I ever tried a Skyline three-way — that would be spaghetti-chili-cheese — I was relatively unimpressed. Thought it was good enough, you know, for something different, but I I couldn’t see much value beyond that. I probably had the same reaction the first time I saw a baseball game.
The second time I had Skyline Chili — there was one right across the street from where I lived in Blue Ash — I thought it was a little better than that. The 45,394th time I had Skyline Chili — when I walked in and everyone knew me by name and they would not even ask me for my order and they would give me the York Peppermint Patties for free (by the way, I never liked York Peppermint Patties. Never. And then I had one after a Skyline dinner — suddenly it tasted like I imagine the chocolate river tastes in Willy Wonka).
I don’t know what they put in Skyline — there’s the rub. Nobody knows. It’s a secret. Some think the special ingredient is chocolate, some think it’s cinnamon, some think it’s all spice — I’m pretty sure is pure cocaine. I have for 11 years now been in my kitchen, mixing ingredients, testing products, it’s like the Manhattan Project at my house. All in an effort to find the secret Skyline recipe. I have failed at every turn. I continue to try. A blizzard has hit Kansas City … and I’m ready to go out into it right now to get a couple of ingredients to give it another try.
I don’t expect many of you to understand this. But there are probably at least a couple of Skyline addicts in the readership here who know what I’m talking about.
RT 6: It’s a Wonderful Life
I remember being a kid and reading that Dale Murphy’s favorite movie was “It’s a Wonderful Life.†I have to admit that up to that point — I was probably 13 or 14 then, I guess — I had never heard of it. I’m not exactly sure how I was able to avoid it all those years; maybe it was on opposite The Wizard of Oz, and we ALWAYS watched The Wizard of Oz. In any case, shortly after that I saw the movie — and from the very first, my favorite character was Mr. Potter.
I can’t explain it really. But someday, I’d like to write a Christmas story from the perspective of Mr. Potter. Anyone buying that?
RT 7: The Barry Bonds Inspiration?
Bugs Bunny in Baseball Bugs: “The Gashouse Gorillas are a bunch of dirty players. I could lick ‘dem with one hand tied behind my back. All by myself. I’d get up there and WHAM a homer! WHAM anodda homer! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!â€
RT 8: The Can’t Miss Snowball Trick
With KC been hit with a blizzard, here is a little lesson that every father should teach his child. There is a single snowball fight trick that never fails*. Here’s what you do: You make two snowballs. You throw the first one high in the air. The person who you are throwing the snowball at will, involuntarily, follow that snowball. They can’t help it. Like moth to fire. Elvis to jelly doughnuts. LaRussa to pitching change. They will follow that first snowball and give you one free and clear shot. You only get one shot at this. Don’t miss.
*This will fail if the other person’s father taught him/her the trick earlier. Also, be careful not to watch the first snowball yourself. I’ve seen the CMST backfire on people before.
RT 9: Sweet Lou
The Pozcars do not count write-in votes. However, it’s worth noting a few that have been sent in so far. One sent in by a half dozen of so is Lou Whitaker.
I’m thinking it’s possible that the single most egregious voting inconsistency in recent memory is the induction of Ryne Sandberg to the Hall of Fame while Lou Whitaker was barely even considered (the guy got 15 stinking votes his one season). Any longtime reader here knows that I’m somewhat obsessed by the Bruce Sutter-Dan Quisenberry injustice — I believe they were of equal quality, Quiz may have even been a touch better, and yet Quiz was abruptly dismissed while Sutter was voted in. That bothers me immensely, but I can at least understand the thinking. Sutter had quite a few more saves. It’s a stupid way to judge their quality (Quiz had a better ERA in a higher scoring lead and … well, let’s not start this again). But I can at least understand it.
There are no such obvious stats to separate Whitaker from Sandberg. Their careers are of almost identical length (Whitaker had fewer than 200 more at-bats) and here’s how it looks.
Average: Sandberg by 9 points (.285-.276).
On-Base percentage: Whitaker by 19 points (.363-.344)
Slugging percentage: Sandberg by 26 points (.352-.326)
Homers: Sandberg by 38 (288-242)
Doubles: Whitaker by 17 (420-403)
Stolen bases: Sandberg by 201 (344-143)
Walks: Whitaker by 436 (1197-761)
Runs: Whitaker by 64 (1386-1318)
RBIs: Whitaker by 23 (1084-1061)
OPS+: Whitaker by 2 points (116-114)
Neutralized stat-line
Sandberg: .286/.346/.454
Whitaker: .282/.369/.434
There are other factors, of course. Sandberg won nine gold gloves to Whitaker’s 3 — it seems likely that Sandberg was the better fielder. Sandberg played in twice as man All-Star games. Sandberg won an MVP. Sandberg was the darling of WGN when that really meant something. And Sandberg had four MVP type seasons — 30-plus Win Shares — while Whitaker did not have any. But that does not take away from the fact that Whitaker has more career Win Shares than Sandberg (351-345).
The point here is not to suggest that Whitaker is better than Sandberg or that the voters got it wrong. It may be, after careful study and observation, that Sandberg DOES belong in the Hall of Fame and Whitaker DOES NOT — it may be that the Hall of Fame line is drawn precisely in that tiny space that separates the two men. My point is, it was never even a consideration. Sandberg got in pretty easily. Whitaker was not even given a second glance.
RT 10: If not.
So I got an email the other day who said that I was “one of the goofiest, if not the goofiest, writers in America.†I appreciate the sentiment though to be honest, the word he used was somewhat more pungent than “goofiest.†Anyway, it gets to a question that has been bugging me forever … How would you define “if not?â€
See, in my view, the sentence above can be translated to mean that I am one of the goofiest writers in America and I also may be THE goofiest writer in America. I translate “if not†to be inclusive of both propositions.
However, there are people who read it exactly the opposite way. They believe “if not†excludes the second choice. So reading it that way, the sentence would actually be saying that I am one of the goofiest writers in America but I’m definitely NOT the goofiest writer in America.
I’ve emailed my concerns about “if not†to various writer friends, and they have given me conflicting points of view. So I remain confused. If not baffled.
If that guy who wrote me that email saw THIS post, he probably would not have qualified his statement in the first place.
RT 11: Tina Fey — not a chocolate person
I love Tina Fey. How can you not? But I’m flipping channels, and there she is judging some sort of Iron Chef deal, and she says, “I’m not a chocolate person.â€
You know what? I just cannot trust anyone who is not a chocolate person.
RT 12: A Final Brazilian Name Game
Santa Claus — Santildo
Jack Frost — Json
Rudolph (the Red-Nosed) Reindeer — Rudao
Father Time — Fathildo
Frosty (the) Snowman — Snowmisco
Mister Grinch — Mistson
Cindy Lou Who — Whiano
Merry Christmas to all. And to all a good night.
Loading ...
Whenever I use the phrase, “if not” means you may be the goofiest (well, you know what I mean. I’m not your e-mailer). In my usage you could reorder that sentence to say “If you are not the goofiest sportswriter in America, you are definitely one of the goofiest,” and the meaning would stay the same.
I’ve always identified with Potter. You write the screenplay, I’ll buy the dvd.
The only more person more misunderstand than Potter is Ike Turner. I’m writing on the “Ike Turner Story: B**ch Set Me Up” (working title) even as we speak.
The “if not” conundrum truly is baffling. Depending on the context, I think I read it either way. I would guess the grammatically correct usage is the way you think of it, but it is definitely used both ways.
Maybe I have not eaten it enough, Joe, but I like the traditional Gold Star Chili better.
You can talk about Skyline. Someone can talk about the Montgomery Inn. Both are cool. But when I am in Cincinnati, I enjoy Graeter’s Ice Cream as much has anything. Thick and creamy. No air. Incredible.
We need to get “Snowmisco” out to everyone in this fine land, if not the world!
I was working the phones at a comedy theatre in Chicago one time, and the phone rings. Now this theatre had a lot of famous people/alumni call in now and again. I still wasn’t prepared for this.
Voice: “Hi, Tina Fey for Joe Producer.”
Me: “Uh…(silence)”
Voice: (Small laugh)
Me: (Silence)
Me: “Uh…Please hold.”
Chocolate Schmocolate.
Oh, and I know you’re not taking write-in votes for the Pozcars, but Doug Mientkiewicz totally deserves one. How much grief did he get for not turning over that 2004 World Series Ball? Lots. Not once was that ball chewed upon by his dog.
Doug Mientkiewicz for Honorary Pozcar!
With the new release of the Blade Runner DVD, I was hoping a random thought would be on Deckard and if he’s a human or a replicant.
I personally have only ever used “if not” in the same way that you do. Actually, I’ve never heard it used the other way in my entire life. The other way just makes no grammatical sense. How can a sentence mean exactly the same thing when you leave the rest of the sentence the same but replace “if” with “but”?
I’ve got a bit of a theory. I’m Canadian, and I’ve only ever heard “if not” used the way that Joe uses it. Maybe the second (improper) usage is the American colloquial usage? Just a thought.
Ok, your ‘if not’ query is what is called an “if then conditional statement,” the grammar part, not the actual question, that’s just what we call a question (or query if you like sounding superior, it can go either way). Another way to rewrite the “if not,” to fully explicate it that is, would be to say; “if you are not the goofiest sportswriter in America, then you are surely one of the goofiest.” Also you cant argue with me because I used a semicolon.
Joe– I’ve always used and understood “if not” to be inclusive, just as you use it and understand it to be.
Then again, I grew up just a few miles away in Euclid, so maybe we’re a product of our environment.
Rather than pick one single usage of “if not”, I prefer to see both uses as valid. Let the context be your guide. On a related note, I also have no problem with either pronunciation of Caribbean.
While I recognize that I’m wildly out of step with most men, I gotta say this…Tina Fey? I don’t see it. And it wasn’t the no-chocolate thing that killed it for me. It was the fact that the very first time I saw her she was wearing black Converse canvas high-tops. Not my style. At all.
We could play the “Why Ryno, Not Lou?” game with a few people. Might be a nice series of articles for you, Joe. Here’s one – “Why Kirby Puckett, not Cesar Cedeno?” (You know, other than the whole “Cesar Murdered a Woman in a Dominican Hotel Room And Got Away With It” thing.) Discuss.
“If not” basically means “at least.” “If” means that there is an unresolved question and you’re presenting both sides. If what you want to say is “one of the goofiest, not the goofiest, writer in America”… then you just say that.
If Tina Fey liked chilled monkey brains, I’d like chilled monkey brains. Whatever it takes.
(Snowman’s embarrassingly politically incorrect statement of the day)
Tina Fey: Proving daily that, contrary to the beliefs of th average studio exec, women who are not in their 20’s, not blonde, not filled with silicone, and not pretending to be an airhead can still be hot.
See the state you and I grew up in is divided into two parts, roughly at I-80. There is Ohio, that would be everything north of I-80 and Ahia, everything else south of I-80. Developing a taste for Skyline Chili is proof positive that you’ve crossed over to the Ahia side of the line. And how anybody with a name like Posnanski could possibly omit pierogis off his list of great foods – specifically Mrs. Paul’s pierogis or the Pierogi Palace in Parma – escapes me. Joe are you sure you weren’t adopted?
As to “at least” it falls into the same catagory as “I could care less”. The parsed meaning of the term is lost to its idiomatic meaning. Everybody knows what it means it just doesn’t mean what it says.
And Tina Fey? I guess if you want to actually talk to a woman sees not bad. For all other uses for women, give my Jessica Simpson every time.
you’re spot on about skyline chili. not sure what it is…even that hot sauce they give you seems specially engineered for the four-way. the weird thing about skyline is that i’ll crave it like crazy if i don’t have it, but as soon as i’m done with my plate, i can’t have it again for another week or so. well, at least a few days. weird stuff. but good stuff.
I had to show the Skyline bit to my wife, who is a fanatic about it also. We go back to Louisville once a year and she looks forward to getting some Skyline as much as seeing our family and friends. And that cheesy bread ain’t bad either.
And my Brazilian soccer name is “Rauro.” Cool. I think I want to be called that now. “Honey, Ricky can’t hear you. You’ll need to ask Rauro.”
To me, I read it as you are a really goofy writer. If you’re not the goofiest, you are close, but in my opinion, you are! So the “not’ includes both propositions.
BUT, speaking in a strictly logical sense, I believe you can turn the sentence around to say:
If not the goofiest writer in America, then Joe is one of the goofiest.
Now how does it read? Not only modifies the first half. So it should only modify the second half in the original.
What probably happened, and keeps happening throughout linguistic history, is that people misunderstood, starting using it a different way, and it has now entered the lexicon as acceptable usage. Much the same way words change meaning, change spelling, and pronunciations. So it has now come to mean something a little different from the orignal.
maiuchuckk, you’ve blown my mind. Are you suggesting that everything south of I-80 (roughly 98% of Ohio) is not “Ohio”? I’m trying to come up with some sort of parallel metaphor to expose this lunacy, but I can’t bring myself to post any of them. They’re too ridiculous.
I will say that anyone who grew up on my street is from the true America and everyone else is just posing.
I’m born and raised in the south, but have become a devotee of Skyline Chili after many trips to see the Reds play in Cincy. Good news, Kroger’s carries Skyline Chili in a can on the chili aisle. It’s not the same as getting it in the restaurant…but it’s pretty close. And as perfect as a 3 way is, I prefer adding sharp cheddar instead of the usual mild cheddar.
*salivating*
Um, about the Will Clark story: I’m not sure that Dan smith’s test for “total recall” is 100% rigorous. Just because Will Clark remembered what he said on a phone call a few years earlier doesn’t mean that he has total recall. After all, Dan remembered it too! Does that mean that Dan has total recall also? I’m sure Dan thinks it’s remarkable because he felt like he was some nobody getting a call from a big superstar, but just because a guy’s a great baseball player doesn’t mean that he doesn’t pay attention to the names of the guys he lobbies for his agent. Presumably the agent felt like Dan was a great ballplayer–there’s no way he would have asked one of his biggest clients to make a call for him otherwise. And like any normal human being, Will Clark paid attention to the guy’s career, and remembered him when he (Will) came to Texas.
John, clearly you need to look at the population distribution in Ohio. The population of Ohio, estimated by the US Census Bureau as of 2006, is 11,478,000. A quick review of the various counties North of I-80 shows that approximately 5.6 million people- about half – live in that area. More to the point, the culture of northern Ohio, for the most part, is similar to the US East Coast. Ethnic, more urban than rural with the majority of high-brow culture found there. And more important, more Reds fans than Indians fans. As you move South towards Appalachia the culture becomes more rural, less ethnic – fewer people who identify themselves as Italian, Polish etc. and more Appalachian.
Because of the gradation in culture certain foods are more common north of I-80 than south. For instance you’ll be hard pressed to find a quality rye bread in Marietta while there is an abundance of various ryes found on the east side of Cleveland. Similarly, if you want grits with your eggs you’ll hafta go to Gallapolis. Chili, it seems, takes on a whole new meaning in Hamilton county. In Cleveland they’d call that stuff, it they would consider it at all, pasta fagioli – pasta with beans – not chili.
The most obvious reason the writers didn’t vote for Lou Whitaker, I think, is that he didn’t talk to writers.
Bill James had a theory about Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell, that Whitaker was viewed as this sort of lazy guy who never lived up to his potential, while Trammell was a gritty gutty overachiever. The difference, he concluded, mostly came down to race. Anyway, that’s how I remember it from about 10 years ago. (I do not have total recall.)
Joe nailed it with the Ryno-Sweet Lou comparison. Whitaker was dismissed so quickly, it was baffeling. The best American League 2nd baseman in the 80s and early 90s barely gets a sniff from HOF voters? Weak. I hope he gets in eventually with the Veterans commitee. Of course, I still don’t understand why Trammell is not in yet.
Book recommendation: “Tree of Smoke” by Denis Johnson. (and “Jesus’ Son” by the same author, for that matter). Reading it now and felt inspired to share news of a good book with the Poz readers.
Tina Fey… Yes!
Joe, have you ever spoken with Belichick? His press conferences are pitifully boring but there are moments where a writer asks a very specific football question and he goes off on eloquent (at least in football-speak) tangents on generally mundane topics like blocking a punt and the two-gap technique. He also has “treated” the writers to film sessions before with all of the greats he coached for and against.
It would seem that the only time he would be bearable as a writer is when someone piques his interest, because he’s God-awful with injury reports and post-game comments.
One more thing. Obviously I’m biased towards the Patriots, but looking objectively, if they end up going 19-0 (in no way an easy assumption), they will have beaten four division leaders, the #1 seed in the NFC, the #2-3-4 seeds in the AFC and potentially the #6 seeds in each league as well (Cleveland, Washington), in the regular season alone – not to mention any combination of Indy, SD, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Green Bay, etc. in the playoffs. I’m jumping way ahead but that’s a pretty significant accomplishment if they make it that far.
Oh, and SpyGate was a bit overblown but Belichick is an arrogant jack*** for repeatedly breaking the rules and thinking he could get away with it.
The Sandberg-Whitaker debate is very similar to Kirby Puckett / Albert Belle. After all of the analysis is done, Puckett basically smiled a lot more than Belle, and he was friendly to the reporters. Jose Canseco stated in his book that Albert Belle emphatically did not use steroids. If that is true, then he put up ten years of dominant, drug-free stats while competing in the height of steroid-fueled numbers.
The Hall requires that a player be active for ten years, which Belle was. DiMaggio, Kiner, Puckett, Koufax, etc all had relatively short careers, and Belle losing the MVP in ‘95 was an injustice that was result of baseball writer bias. Belle was still an amazing hitter when he retired due to a bad hip. Puckett got sympathy and extra votes when the same thing happened to him.
I’m not saying that Belle belongs in the Hall, but he does compare favorably to Kirby Puckett and Jim Rice. Without the ridiculous grudges that the baseball writers hold against certain players, Puckett, Rice and Belle was all be considered borderline candidates. Having Puckett elected in his first year of eligiblity was a joke. He was elected since he was a “good guy” to the writers and reporters, but his life after baseball that it was an act and should have had not bearing on his performance on the diamond.
I think if you use your methodology from the Rice/Murphy/etc. blog a while back you’d see why Sandberg is in and Lou isn’t. You need to have a prime with truly elite seasons to be a HOF and not just build up stats. I thought that Lou should have gotten more support but its hard to say a player was a HOF without any truly elite seasons on your resume. Sandberg’s end to his career was poor and brought down his career rate stats quite a bit but since his prime was good enough and long enough he’s in.
And yes I’m a Cubs homer. And guys dig Tina Fey because she’s different. She actually gains from how jacked out the rest of hollywood actresses have become in appearance and everything else.
If not, use context
You are one of the ugliest, if not THE most ugly people in America.
If the jury likes you, you may be acquitted. If not, you’re going to jail
I’ve been reading this blog for a while now, and have thoroughly enjoyed it, but haven’t been moved to comment until I had a few thoughts on the random thoughts of this post:
- Aside from his game-planning and motivational techniques, I think one of Belichick’s greatest strengths is one of the things he gets the most criticism for – not playing the media’s game. Why should he give out any information he doesn’t want to divulge just to keep the writers happy? Also, in his news conferences, he displays a bone-dry sardonic wit, which I think just sails over the heads of those hoping for snappy quote.
– I think a point of grammar that is being missed in the “if not” discussion is that the “if not” modifies the definite article. “One of the goofiest” is indefinite, but “THE goofiest” is definite. There also seems to be an implied “just” in the first part. With this in mind, another way to re-write the sentence is “If you are not just one of the goofiest writers in America, you are THE goofiest.” Not that I agree with the sentiment, but that’s how I’ve always understood the construction.
- Skyline Chili is indeed a mysterious substance. I have friends here in Boston who are from Cincinnati, and every time the return from a visit home they bring a case back with them, which they are generous enough to share. Now, I’ve only had the canned version, so this may be different from what you get in the restaurant, but this is what I’ve found so strange about it: up until a certain point, it is the greatest thing ever. But once I’ve had too much, it’s just intolerable.
- Tina Fey is a smart guy’s “babe”. Stereotypically, brunettes are smarter than blondes, and women with glasses are smart, too. Put glasses on an already attractive and witty brunette, and it’s a “perfect storm”. Then again, I like to consider myself smarter than the average bear, and I think Tina Fey is the bee’s knees, so the above may be self-serving. Also, I don’t mind that she’s not that into chocolate, and the fact she sometimes wears black high-top Chucks is another point in her favor.
I’ve been impressed for a while by the intelligence of the comments here, and hope that I didn’t bring the level down too much.
Joe,
I think you and I lived in the same apartment complex in Blue Ash. To para-quote Homer Simpson, “Mmmmmm, Skyline.”
As for the Ryne/Lou debate I’ll take Bobby Grich over both of them. His ops+ was better than both and outside of his 30 game rookie year he never has an obp under .350.