The Perfect Game

"There's nothing wrong with a one-hitter, there, Barbie. In fact, it's miraculous. And I won't have you of all people cheapen what should be an endless pursuit of perfection just because you want the world to laugh with you tonight."
-- Dr. Cox, Season 1 Episode 12 of Scrubs "My Blind Date"

Baseball is my favorite sport. I've been told lately that I toss around the word "Favorite" a lot, but baseball really truly is my favorite. Has been since I was but a tot. For some reason it's always spoken to me on a deeper level than any other sports.

There are a lot of reasons... I'm hopelessly sentimental, and I have dozens of warm memories from my childhood that revolve around baseball. I love arguing, and there's no better sport to debate (Barry Larkin vs. Greg Maddux for 1995 MVP... GO!). I love history, and what sport has a richer, more colorful history than baseball?

Those are all big reasons for me... but maybe the biggest correlates to this gut feeling that baseball just makes sense on a cosmic level. I've stated, probably entirely unoriginally, that I believe baseball is a beautiful allegory for life in microcosm. I was discussing this recently with the Decidedly-UnBeefy Muchacha (I'm working on a cooler nickname for her), and she suggested that I get it down on pixel here in the blog. So here it is...

Baseball as Life.

Despite the claims to the contrary, life IS fair.
Everyone says that life's not fair, but I totally disagree. Life often sucks. Life is rarely balanced. When you look at life's individual moments, many of them are unfair. However, when you look at life as a whole... the WHOLE fucking thing, it all pans out exactly the way it should. I'm not saying that it's always good, because, let's be honest here... people often equate "fair" and "good for them", and that's just wrong, but it's exactly how things SHOULD be. Same with baseball. It's not a sprint, but a marathon. You NEVER see a team win the World Series without earning it. I'll use this year as an example... The Kansas City Royals and The Florida Marlins both started the season super hot. We're now about 60 games into the season and they are both currently in 4th place in their respective divisions... There are no pretenders in baseball... Sure you'll occasionally get a really weak division where a bad team makes the playoffs, but you don't see them winning.
The overall point is that Life is long like a 162 game baseball season. There are peaks and valleys, streaks and slumps... but in the end you always end up right where you should.

Everybody gets the same chance.
I said it. I know that on the surface this seems patently false. People are born in slums or mansions. People have phyisical advantages. People have genetic advantages. That's all true, and that's not at all what I'm talking about. On a spiritual level we're all given the same chance to be a good person. To make smart choices. To be upstanding. That's a pretty twee things to say... I know. I acknowledge that everyone has different obstacles in their way. I would contend, though, that everyone HAS obstacles. In baseball, these same issues arrise. Each team has the same number of innings. The same number of outs. Each batter has the same number of strikes and balls. And as with life, there are obstacles. A home team bats second. Certain ball parks are better suited to different styles of play. Some players are naturally better than others. The more important factor, though, is that every game is played by the same defined standards. It doesn't end in a tie (except for one dumb All Star game). I know if I'm going to the ball park, I'm gonna see 9 Innings. Every time.

Everyone has a style.
Earl Weaver, famous baseball manager, is associated with the game style philosophy of "Pitching, Defense, and the Three Run Homer". On the other hand Whitey Herzog won a World Series without a real power hitter (sorry Keith Hernandez fans) playing nothing but small ball. The point is, there are more ways to win than there are stars in the sky. Just like life. Some people toil and chip away and work every day of their life. Hitting singles and doubles and taking their walks and stolen bases. This works for them...they end up with a lot of successes based on small movements. Other people build up for the big score (the home run). They put all of their eggs in one basket and sometimes it works out, and when it does it's HUGE. Sometimes it doesn't, and they have nothing to fall back on.

The quote I listed at the top of this entry is from one of the best episodes of the first season of Scrubs... Dr. Cox has 27 patients on his watch, and he's trying to get through the whole night without one of them dying (likening it to a perfect game in baseball). He makes it to the very end of the shift... five minutes to go, and one does. Elliott, trying to help, wants him to just wait 5 minutes before calling the death, and he shoots her down using the beautiful words above.

For me, it more than anything, perfectly sums up why I love baseball, and why baseball and life are one and the same.

You always, in life as well as baseball, aim for the absolute top. Batting .400... Pitching a perfect game...Whatever personal achievement that equates in your life. And rarely will you achieve those goals. Only one guy in the last 70 years has hit .400. Only 17 perfect games have been thrown in Major League history. If you measure success in such black and white terms... "I'm only a success if I can purchase my own jet." You're going to be pretty miserable. However, if you can look at the little successes.... Turning a beautiful double play or lining a double into the gap. Throwing a one hitter.... Those are small things that contain trememdous beauty. If you can savor the minor successes, you're going to be happy. Life will be fair and balanced. Maybe not always good, but fair.

A "63" is Good... Right?

Hey Folks-

I've been rolling a metaphor around in my head for a couple of weeks. Today, I will try to break it down for my you... my readers.

First a little background. My buddy Dave and I have been known to go to Don Pablo's and talk about all kinds of things, but inevitably the subject would come around to the perplexing world of women. Sometimes it'd be relaying the story of a bad date. Sometimes it would be about something generally frustrating we've experienced in our quest for love (awww). Often the subject of women births a new metaphor. One day dating is like doing laundry is some obscure way. One day it's like grocery shopping. Usually these metaphors are solid but flawed. There's a huge exception or a loophole or it just eventually falls apart entirely. It's mostly off the cuff and just entertaining to ourselves.

Then, about a month ago, something magical happened. I won't take credit for it, because Dave is the lone author of this particular metaphor, but it's so perfect. So... specific that I honestly feel that if he wrote it out in book form, and expanded on it... he'd be rich like those "He's Just Not That Into You" bitches. The following is my interpretation of Dave's Metaphor. He's more than welcome to adjust it if he likes.

Basketball or Golf

In the world of dating, men and women are always playing one of two sports. Basketball or Golf. And of course, even if they'll play both, there's one they naturally gravitate toward. A Golfer may occasionally play a game of pick-up with their friends and a Basketball player might head to the local links to play a mellow 18, but at the end of the day they'll gravitate toward their natural sport.

Let's talk, for a minute, about the differences...

Golfers are generally low maintenance, but even more specifically, they don't want a lot of attention. Essentially... the lower the score the better you do. The fewers shots the better. Female golfers don't want flowers or calls 5 times a day.

Basketball players are the opposite. The more points you put up, the more likely you are to win against other basketball players. The point of the game is to score points. Flowers, candy, texting, 5 dates a week. These are all things that basketball players want. It's more aggressive.

So the trick is really to make sure that you are playing the same sport they are.

If you're a basketball player, by nature, you're going to be tossing up 3-point love letters and laying down the text message press, and the flower free throws. Every play is designed to put up more points. That's great if you're playing with a fellow basketball player, but what if the girl you're after is playing golf?

Wouldn't she prefer you to measure your putt twice and putt just once? It's all about getting the maximum result out of the fewest amount of strokes.

Same goes the other way... What if you're a golfer by nature, and your lining up that chip shot and she slam dunks on your face?

The Dominique Wilkins Correlary

Within this metaphor there are side bars. For example... The people who get laid every weekend are almost always basketball players. They aren't looking for a relationship, so they play the game differently. They play like Dominique Wilkins, "The Human Highlight Reel". 'Nique was one of the greatest pure scorers in NBA history. He probably had the tools to be a great player overall, but his focus was putting the ball in the hoop. He wasn't a great teammate. He didn't play much defense (all parts of successful, long-term basketball success). He wasn't really ever a threat to be on a contending team.

That same sort of mindset can be applied in the world of Men and Women. There are the people who go to the bar on a Friday night and say... I'm going to put up as many points as possible. I may win and I may not, but I'm leaving having played full court, up and down basketball from whistle to whistle. I don't even care if my team loses in the end, as long as I get my triple double, I'm good. These people will get laid more than the average person. They'll make the Top Plays on Sportscenter more than average person, but at the end of the season, they're sitting at home watching the Finals on TV and someone else is playing for the ring. (Ohhhh...The RING! That's good.)

80 Ain't Bad

A question I had the first time I heard Dave's metaphor is: "Is there a score that is good enough on both axises that you'll be successful most of the time no matter which sport you're playing?"

I think there is. My argument is that unless you're playing at the highest levels, and let's be honest and say that if you're even concerned about this shit at all, you're probably not playing at the highest levels, there's a certain score that probably is good enough on either sport that you can kinda hedge.

I say that score is 80.

As a golfer, unless you're on the PGA tour, if you're averaging 80 for 18 holes you're considered to be a pretty good golfer. You may not win every time you and your buddies play, but you're gonna always be in the hunt.

As a basketball team, unless you're in the NBA, if you're averaging 80 points a game, you're a damned good team. In fact, in College Basketball last year, if you averages 80 a game, you'd be 19th in the country in scoring. You'd lead the Big East or the Big 10. You'd be in the mix for sure.
Basically, this is the goal...for me. It probably should be important to know if the person I'm playing with/against is playing the same sport as I am, but I don't think I'm there yet. My goal is to mix in enough layups with chip shots and free throws and drives (flowers, aloofness, cutesy e-mails, ambivalence) that I can put up an 80. If I put up an 80, it's my theory that I'll win most of the time whether I'm playing Golf or Basketball. Sometimes, sure... I'll look like a total idiot when I'm lining up my putt near half-court, but there will be just as many times when I guess correctly and that's all I care about.

I'm not a starter anyway.

Oh...and by the way... I hate golf. I don't get it. Both in life and in this metaphor.

Lease Options

Hey Folks-

Friday Flicks is tough to get in on time when I'm in a show. I'll have to write a few and have them in the hopper, I guess.

Anyway, I went last week to see the movie "Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway". Basically, they filmed a few performances from the final week of the run of Rent and edited them into one show video. A very well made one. I was moved watching this film as much as I'd ever been watching the actual show. It occured to me that as powerful and well crafted as this particular film was, is exactly how lacking in power and craftsmanship the 2005 movie version is/was.

"Why is this?" I thought to myself. "Why does the same exact material feel so real and honest in one case and so fake and contrived in another?"

I have a couple of theories that maybe are applicable elsewhere, but definitely are focused on this particular case.

Theory 1) Age.
I honestly believe that the biggest mistake they made in making the 2005 film was bringing back the original 1996 Broadway cast for the majority of the roles. I think, largely, that the play is about living the life of the young. There's a sharp contrast made between the adults and the heroes, and I think that's undermined when Maureen is 35 instead of 25. At 25, her attitude of rebellion is pretty inspiring in places, and sort of endearing. At 35 you kinda want her to get over herself. Not that Idina Menzel isn't great, but the ages are important.

The character of Roger, to me, is the best example of this. Roger is infected with AIDS, and his whole "thing" is that he's trying desperately to make his mark on the world before he dies. I think that whole scenario wields more power if he's tragically young. Not that AIDS is ever NOT tragic. That said, my point is undercut by the fact that Will Chase, who plays Roger in the good movie version is actually a month older than Adam Pascal...

Actually wait... I have a better way of explaining it. It's neat to bring these people back, but for me, bringing these same people back, who at the time were all fresh faces and have all moved on to other things... they've been spoiled. On some level the play is about people struggling in their youth, so having these unknowns really adds a level of freshness that was lost when they brought back the original, now successful, now recognizable people. The greatest thing about Rent when it came out was that these people were so real. They were largely unaffected theater outsiders. I liked that.

Theory 2) Style.
Here's the thing... I don't think movie musicals work well. They used to. West Side Story is one of the top 20 movies of all time, in my opinion. The problem now, is that movies in general now strive toward more realism in general, unless they are SUPER stylized (Eternal Sunshine and Across the Universe are both examples.) In 2005, they could have done Rent in a super stylized way and they'd have been more successful. In fact, the play itself is very stylized, so why go from that to creating a "realistic movie with people randomly singing". It's like... Chicago was successful both commercially and artistically because that show is already so much about style and Rob Marshall held on to that. Instead you have Angel singing "Today 4 U" on a Subway train and Mark riding his bike and singing "Halloween" and I just can't deal. It's a contrivance. The "Filmed on Broadway" version was so good because they didn't have to change the stylistic concept. It works already.

Theory 3) Reality.
The movie musicals that best work today are the ones that are about show business or performing or music already. (Hairspray, Dreamgirls, Chicago). They have these built in excuses to sing or dance or whatever. It aides the audiences along with their willing suspension of disbelief. The most common criticism of movie musicals from those not used to that genre is "Nobody just starts singing. How do they all know when to join in?" and shit like that. Movies have the implied responsibilty to be more realistic, and it just isn't. On stage, there's a much greater willingness on the part of the audience to suspend their disbelief. The line between actors and characters is a little murkier. The person in the balcony may not have any clue that Roger is 38. It's pretty easy to tell in HD on the big screen. Angel and Collins singing "I'll Cover You a nebulous "nowhere" place in the show doesn't set off alarms. Angel and Collins doing the same thing on a REAL subway train does set off alarms. When you can see the lights and the scaffolding, you accept that you're not in a REAL place.

There are more theories, certainly, but I guess the main point overall is this...

Rent was a show created to be dirty and unhomogenized and real....or...as real as a musical can be. By glossing it up and taking away it's organic, chaotic quality, it loses it's power. It's anarchic bent that makes it safe for Collins to rewire an ATM machine or for them to break into apartment buildings.

If you've never seen Rent before, do anything you can to see the new "Filmed on Broadway" version. You won't regret it. Then see the other and see if you agree.

My Favorite Theory. (A reprise)

Here's another one from the vault.

Original Subject: The Theory of Artistic Masturbation
Original Posting Date: 8/30/2005
Original Posting Site: Xanga

The Theory of Artistic Masturbation.

I know...I know...it sounds so scandalous, but really it isn't. I had a professor in college who told me that all literature was based on a combination of 3 things: Sex, Death, and Food. The more I thought about it, the more I realized he was right. Look back at all of the great works of literature in the history of the world, and you'll realize it's true...Hamlet? All three. The Odyssey? All three. The Bible? All Three...(I can defend if necessary.)

My theory has little to do with any of those things on a literal level, but I do believe that giving my theory a sex-related title makes people more likely to read about it.

So...here it is:


All art falls along a spectrum. Now, please remember that this is not a value judgement. All art has value and merit in it's own way. It just falls along a line. On one end of the spectrum there is art that I like to refer to as "Masturbatory Art" and on the other end there is art I call "Hooker Art".

The premise for this concept is that all art is categorized based on the relative affect it has on it's audience and on the artist. It's really that simple.

If a piece of art is more fulfilling to the audience than it is for the artist, that art leans toward the "Hooker Art" side of the spectrum. If a piece of art is more fulfilling for the artist than it is for the audience, that art is closer to the "Masturbatory Art" side.

What is masturbation? It's an act of self satisfaction. That's it. Some would call it a sin, some would call it a necessary part of life, and for the most part, everyone is right. It's a little bit sinful, and it's a little bit necessary, and the same goes for "masturbatory art". Whether I like it, or you like it, it's necessary in it's way. The tried and true example I've always used for this side of the spectrum is performance art.

For those who don't know, performance art is a genre of art where, more often than not, the artist is the medium for the piece. For example, I once saw a performance art "installation" that featured the artist taking his clothes off, and then writing racial slurs all over himself with a thick black sharpie marker. Oh...did I mention that the stage was dark, so you really couldn't see what he was doing or what he was writing?

Well...yeah...

See...this is what I'd call artistic masturbation. The artist trying to make himself feel better about the world, and trying to convince himself that he was deep and meaningful, and the audience being a true outsider to both the reasoning and the process. This was for him and him alone, and it really didn't matter if there even was an audience, because it's not for them anyway. It was a solitary act of...artistic catharsis, and it really isn't for me to interpret anyway.

Perhaps my favorite example of Masturbatory Art occured while I was visiting an artist friend of mine in Chicago. His name is Paul. He and I were walking toward his dorm in downtown Chicago, and we passed by this homeless person who was panhandling for money. I reached into my pocket for some change, because this was truly the homeless-est homeless person I had ever seen. Paul stopped me and said: "Don't give her any money."

This kind of threw me a little for 2 reasons..first, Paul had always been very generous with the homeless in the past, and second, I was pretty sure that the homeless person was a guy, and not a "Her" as he referenced.

I asked Paul about this, and this is what he told me: "You shouldn't give her any money, because she isn't homeless. That's a graduate student in performance art at SAIC (School at the Art Institute of Chicago), and she's doing her thesis."

Clearly this sounds crazy, but this girl got up at 6:30 every morning, put on the nastiest clothes she could find, covered herself in garbage and dirt and feces, and applied a fake beard, and commenced to pretend to be homeless for 8 hours a day. THIS WAS HER THESIS!!! For a while after this experience, I joked around about it, and I got a little indignant about it too, like "you can go to school for this? You can get a masters degree in this?" The anger has left me now, and has been replaced with appreciation, because I now have the greatest example of artistic masturbation EVER. The audience for her piece didn't even realize there was a piece. They just thought she was homeless. There wasn't any statement the audience was getting...they just got a whiff of stink. So...who benefitted from the art? Clearly, it wasn't the audience. I'm a firmly believe an audience can only appreciate art when they know there is art to be appreciated.

Now..."Hooker Art". What is the meaning of "Hooker Art"? Well, basically I had to come up with a term that would convey the polar opposite artistic value to Mastubatory art. A hooker is a person whose job, in it's entirety, is to please others, without any regard to themselves being fulfilled. I also like the second layer of meaning here, where money becomes the motivator for the artist, as opposed to the joy of making art.

In my theory, "Hooker Art" is art where the artist derives little fulfillment from the creation of that art. It's typically impersonal. Typically homogenized.

Some examples? Wedding photography, sitcoms, school portraits, pop music. "Hooker Art" is art that is ready for mass human consumption. Again, this isn't a value judgement of the artist. There are some amazing photographers who make a great living taking wedding photos, and even some of those wedding photos can be very beautiful. There is some really fun, catchy pop music. However, few wedding photographers would claim to be artistically fulfilled by it. Ask Jason Alexander (George Costanza in Seinfeld), why he did Seinfeld, and he'll say..."Well, I wasn't making any money starring on Broadway." Sitcoms are probably the most universal example of this form of art. There's nothing too deep or challenging, but the audience LOVES it, and the paycheck can't be beat. You'll see sitcom stars in other things, just absolutely killing themselves with effort, and perhaps they may get more spiritually, but nothing compares with that sitcom paycheck. Are we getting the idea?

Art for the artist = artistic masturbation

Art for the audience = artistic prostitution

Somewhere in the middle lies the ideal ground (in my opinion), where the artist and the audience both are satisfied equally. You'll often find things like "Shawshank Redemption" and The Rolling Stones and "Harry Potter" in this area. ****SEE NOTE **** The artist hasn't compromised their art, but the audience devours it anyway. I haven't found a good, universally acceptible term for the middle. As any theory, it's a theory in progress.

Ironically, since no one ever seems to read these things I write, I suppose this very essay would fall into the masturbatory category.


**** In the 3 years since I wrote this, I have since changed my mind about Harry Potter. I still like it. I'm still entertained. It's also created for the masses, and I do think Rowling compromised more than she'll admit. ****