Random Thoughts on the Twins' Season

My mind is racing a mile a minute thinking about the season that could have (should have been). The negative and positive, mostly the former, but in no particular order:

1. Thanks for saving the money by not signing Torii or Johan, Messrs. Pohlad. Sure would have sucked to have that extra attendance at premium ticket prices in the post-season, eh? Enjoy your new stadium we gave you, cheapskates.

2. Let's hope the young kids that comprise this team not only learn from the experience, but that it makes them hungry to finish the job next year.

3. Justin....hello? You there?

4. I highly recommend watching the final outs of an elimination game with the sound off. It somehow helped lessen my anger and just keep it at a mild depression.

5. Blackburn had Thome struck out his first time up, but the ump didn't give it to him. It wasn't even one of those close ones...the ump simply blew it. I wonder whether Thome would have seen the meat pitch he hit 450+ feet had that not happened. (Yeah, I'm reaching a little here. Don't get me wrong, the Twins do not deserve to do anything but play golf and watch baseball on TV this October. But I love to think of the what ifs, even if we had won, especially when it comes to officiating.)

6. Why on earth am I watching Twins Live after the game? A bunch of positive fluff on "this amazing run" in the words of Anthony "How is he in a major market?" LaPanta. Sorry, Anthony, the Twins blew it. It's not an amazing run when every time you get a 1/2 game lead, you stall (or give it right back). Let's hope they learn from it.

7. Even had the Twins won the division, it was far from "magical." 2006 was a magical season. 1987 was a magical post-season. This season was a couple teams hoping the other would lose, including tonight's game. The nice comebacks were far outweighed in this fan's memory by the blown games.

8. Stupid small ball. They are Pirhanas when it works, but let's be on it. At the end of the day (season), they are Punching Judies. Nothing against them personally...the team, Gardy and staff included, did what they could with the talent they have.

9. I've just turned the TV channel finally. Still on all the positive fluff crap and I couldn't take it anymore. "What a year Joe Mauer had," says LaPanta. Puhhllease. A good player had a good year; let's not over-do it. For the record, I am glad he hung on to the batting title. But in a way I'm glad Mourneau lost the RBI title...as long as the team lost the division anyway, that is.

10. Fret not...I'll still sleep like a baby tonight.

T-133 is OK by me

Now that the 2008 MGA Mid-Amateur is over and Adam Dooley has defended his title, I have put most of the negatives behind me (one quad, one triple, no birdies), and am quite pleased to think of the positives. So please, pardon my indulgence as I put my happy thoughts into cyberspace. To wit:

1. The final full-field results show that with a two-day score of 167, I finished +24, 11 strokes out of the cut line. Last year, with a score of 175 on much tougher layouts (Deacon's Lodge and The Classic at Madden's), I finished (if I recall correctly), 14 strokes from making the cut. So I improved on both fronts.

2. The final course stats revealed I did fairly well amongst 224 players who are better than me according to their handicap indexes. Day one stats at Edina CC showed me just over 3 strokes higher than average. I blame my triple-bogey seven on number two, one of only two "others" (scores higher than double bogey) posted on day one.

Day two stats show that my score of 81 at Braemar was about 1.7 strokes higher than average, and I blame my eight on the par four 13th (the only "other" posted on that hole day two).

3. From an original field of 240, trimmed to 236 by Monday, then down to 218 thanks to no-shows, then again to 184 after post-round-one withdrawals, my T-133rd placing actually sits quite well. I don't recall where I finished in the field last year, but I seem to recall it was around 150th.

4. Two rounds, no lost balls. In fact, that makes 3 1/2 rounds of no lost balls for me. Sure helps with the budget.

Ever since my final match in high school golf in 1983, a tournament of 10 teams or so at Hastings Country Club, in which I finished dead last at 100, the only player to not break 100, I've had a thing about just trying not to finish last.

While I fully plan on raising my personal bar next year, for now, 133rd out of 240, or 236, or 218, or 184, isn't that bad. Heck, that's better than I finished in law school, where I also set the personal goal of not finishing last. (Although I would have accepted last. You know the old joke about what you call a guy who finishes last at Med School...)

Next year's State Mid Am is at the Minnesota Valley CC in Bloomington, MN, another course at which I have yet to play, and another site yet to be determined. Here's hoping for a top-130 finish and less than 10 strokes from making the cut (but I'll still put in for a vacation day for day three, just in case...).

86'ed in Edina Means No Golf Wednesday

Day one at the Minnesota State Mid Amateur golf tournament is over, and Adam Dooley leads with a freakish 67. Half the field played at the Edina Country Club, which played significantly more difficult as expected, especially with today's 20+ MPH winds.

Dooley shot his 67 at Edina CC. Good heavens. I shot 86 there. With a little course knowledge and a few better breaks, I could have possibly trimmed it to an 80. But that's pushing it.

Weather permitting, I'm hopeful round two at Braemar will be better tomorrow. Oh, and remember how I was ranked #225 (tied) going into it? I'm sitting at T-175th place after day one. So while I'll have to shoot the round of my life to make the cut for Wednesday's third round, I'm OK with where I'm at. It's a learning experience, and a lot of fun, too.

Some guys with lower handicaps than I didn't break 90 (see round 1 results here). Plus, for the second round in a row, I didn't lose a ball. That's always good. Except that my previous round was a 74, on a course with a 74.2 rating and 133 slope. That made for a stroke differential of -.2, my best ever for a round of 18. The slope differential for my round today will be about 9.4, thanks to a triple bogey which will be recorded as a double for handicap purposes. I would argue, however, that the Edina CC played much more difficult than its 73.3 rating and 140 slope with today's tournament set-up and weather conditions.

If you're not bored with all of this slope differential talk, read more at this site. In short, you'll see, in part, why a five handicapper does not usually shoot five over par.

I'll settle for five over each nine tomorrow, although I can probably do better, even if it's windy like today. Rain, however, is another story. Then again, if it rains and storms tomorrow, maybe I'll get to play Wednesday after all.

News Anchors Lazy

(Prologue: Looking back at my post from September 8, I realize I need to pay better attention to my typos. It is only a meaningless blog, but still, gee whiz...)

Typos on a blog are not a sign of low intelligence. Nor are incomplete sentences spoken by a news anchor. But the latter, the subject of this post, really, really bug me.

When I went to Brown College for Radio and Television Broadcasting, I actually learned quite a little. More importantly, I learned how to learn for the profession.

Some things I learned I abandoned, because I learned how to learn what things I learned I could abandon. (I think that makes sense.) So even though I learned to say, "Twenty-seven minutes after seven o'clock" at Brown, I later learned to say, "Seven-twenty-seven." Important, sophisticated stuff like that.

One thing I learned, however, I never abandoned, yet apparently more and more news anchors have. That is, lead a story with a complete sentence.

Tonight, Mike "Pretty Boy" Pomeranz on KARE-11 led a story with, "A bicyclist dead tonight in Minneapolis." I don't know if that was the exact story; I do think it was about a bicyclist, or a pedestrian, or a human, who maybe died. The point is, it was not a complete sentence.

Why anchors think they need to do this, I do not know. I also don't know if the person who wrote it for the teleprompter wrote it that way, or if the anchor took some liberties.

I suppose the reasoning is similar to why newspaper headlines are not in complete sentences. But that really doesn't make complete sense. The newspaper headline for the same story would likely read, "Minneapolis Bicyclist Killed." That way, bigger letters can be used without filling up so much column space. Plus, just the key words are needed to interest you into reading further. But the only way the anchor economized was by removing the word "is." And if I'm not interested in that story, I can't just move on to the next one; I have to wait until he's done with that one. So he may as well speak in complete sentences from start to finish.

Maybe it's just laziness, much in the same way we always have to abbreviate things, like saying "thx" in an e-mail reply, or one I've done many times, documenting the history of an issue by typing, "Jun 30." (No, that was not a typo, I was making a point of how silly it is to abbreviate such a short month like, oh, never mind...)

Paul Magers was the consummate professional in my book. He even pronounced short-lived the right way! (With the long "I" sound, like "eye"...most people say it the other way.) I think when an anchor begins a story with an incomplete sentence, it is their way of trying to sound more authoritatively "newsy," and thus more professional. To me, it makes them sound no more professional than shuffling papers at their desk going into a commercial break.

I'm Number 225!

Next Monday I will be playing in my second ever Minnesota State Mid-Amateur golf tournament. Amateur means non-pro of course. "Mid" means "30 or older" somehow. Perhaps because it's for people nearing mid-life. Personally, I think it should be at least 35, probably 40, before you start giving age advantages in state tournaments. The Senior tournaments don't start until age 55. No, that's not a typo. The professionals get to play Senior events at age 50, thanks to Arnie, but not the Amateurs, unless they qualify to play in the Open tournaments.

There will be a full field at the Edina Country Club and Braemar (Public) Golf Course, 240 in all. I rank tied for 225th with two others, based on current handicap index. (Don't ask how long it took me to figure that out.) I'm a 5.3; you have to be 6.4 or better to play. My goals last year were to 1) Not embarrass myself, and 2) Not finish last. Sort of a Glen Mason style of play (playing not to lose).

Except for one memorably bad shot, I accomplished #1. I also accomplished goal #2, except that when the newspaper published the results, they cut it off at my score, making it appear that I finished last. That embarrassed me, so I guess in a way I didn't accomplish my goals.

I tee off Monday at noon on hole #10 at Edina CC. It's a long par 5 with out of bounds all along the left side (a street, even). I'm a right-hander who has been fighting a pull-hook all year. Good luck with that one. I'm tempted to use four-iron and play for a working man's par. I don't need to pull-hook three shots out of bounds and take a 12 on the first hole.

That would be embarrassing; and last place would be in reach.

This Time, I Mean It!

At the risk of sounding like a sore loser after the Vikings' underwhelming performance against Green Bay tonight, I must say that this season I may stick to my guns and find more important things to do than watch the Vikings (yardwork before the snow, sledding with the kids, grinding my knuckles on a cheese grater...stuff like that).

My reasoning used to be that the enjoyment of the wins were not worth the time wasted on the losses. Tonight, however, I realized it's a couple more things:

1) The game is just not entertaining enough. I don't know why, but I'm finding football more and more boring. Maybe at 42 I'm just growing out of it.

2) I get particularly upset at officiating in sports these days. There is no reason the officials shouldn't be doing a better job in all pro sports. To wit, on a third down play in the fourth quarter, an obvious defensive pass interference was missed. Instead of a first down and the Vikings continuing to drive to perhaps take the lead, they had to punt, and the Packers scored soon thereafter.

Hey, the better team won, and I recognize when my team is aided by questionable officiating, too. But my blood boils when I see poor officiating, especially when things happen right in fron of their eyes.

In my Sports Law course at William Mitchell College of Law, taught by none other than Clark Griffith (son of Calvin Griffith), much was talked about regarding the "value of the game," but unfortunately, most of it focussed aroung the players and league rules. Very little was discussed around officiating (although I would not be surprised to see the course syllabus revised recently thankd to Tim Donaghy). Again, the better team won tonight, but when one poor call or non-call (and there was a similar one earlier in the game) haa so much potential effect, to me, much of the value of the game is lost.

I used to try to treat bad calls like bad hops and bad bounces, which can also be frustrating, but are easier to cope with. But I couldn't get past the fact that a well-paid human being, who is supposed to be an expert, the best in the biz, can often be so inept as to affect the outcome of a game.

Wow, I'm really ramnling and running off course here. So I'll wrap it up. I once again hereby vow to watch far less pro football this season, and this time I mean it. The reason lies somewhere in the above.