Pitchforked! (Vol. 1): 3.7/10

Pitchfork is a website which primarily focuses on reviewing indie music. Generally speaking, I like the site a lot and admit that its writers are far better at writing than I ever will be. In fact, the site's reviewers introduced me to some of my favorite acts – including MGMT and Springsteen. Occasionally, though, their writing seems as though it's trying a little too hard to prove something. "Pitchforked" highlights these moments.

The practice of taking questionable writing and making fun of it was made popular by the blog Fire Joe Morgan. FJM is defunct, but the tradition continues on at Kissing Suzy Kolber (I also love KSK's usage of all-CAPS to make a joke funnier). I don't think I'm ripping them off; rather, I'm just expanding their idea from sports to music. Still, I'd feel sleazy if I didn't credit them with the idea.

One final note: Pitchfork is known to retroactively edit posts without warning its readers. This means that some of the quotes I feature here may no longer be part of what's posted as the "official" review. Believe me - I didn't make these quotes up.

From the review of Talib Kweli's Gutter Rainbows:

"The beats on Gutter Rainbows are tight-enough neo-soul by committee-- 13 producers handle 14 tracks -- and most of it sounds like faintly modernized versions of Rawkus-circa-2002 boom-bap, with the occasional outlier in the form of a post-"Hello Brooklyn" old-school banger (Khrysis' "I'm on One") or atmospheric synthesizer dirge (Blaq Toven's "How You Love Me")."

Wait for it….wait for it…

"But isolating the beats from the rapper seems futile."

Bam! I feel like the ENTIRE previous sentence was all about isolating these beats. You just compared them to something called Rawkus-circa-2002 boom-bap (not to be confused with Rawkus-circa-2003 boom-bap, which was entirely different).

From the review of Destroyer's Kaput:

"Every era has a sound."

For example, the Victorian Era is known for a hilarious amount of fart sounds due to the 19^th century invention of the whoopee cushion.

"But Bejar's essential complexity ultimately feels human. It seems absurd to look for genuine wisdom in music in 2011, when we're constantly gorging ourselves on the all-you-can-eat buffet of post-modern web culture."

I like how you started a sentence with 'but' – classic hipster proseslinging. But I don't know about "constantly gorging myself on the all-you-can-eat-buffet of post-modern web culture". Are you calling me fat? I tried to eat the internet ONE TIME. Gimme a break!

From the review of The 1900's Return of the Century:

"If the sentiments are tough, the music itself is tender, borrowing from Belle & Sebastian and Brill Building pop to create a sound that is both pastoral and urbane, straightforward yet sophisticated."

Pastoral, but urbane. Straightforward, but sophisticated. Esoteric, yet accessible. Light, but great-tasting. Mud-wrestly, yet classy.

From the review of The Jayhawks' Hollywood Town Hall/ Tomorrow the Green Grass:

"What the Jayhawks never drifted toward was success-- at least not the kind that they and their fans felt the music warranted. Even so, a full 25 years after forming, the Jayhawks don't come across as also-rans, which is itself a minor miracle."

Other minor miracles include: convincing people that Animal Collective is a good band; making Park Slope the new Williamsburg; Zooey Deschanel.

"Those tightly intertwined vocals are reset in a dusty, electrified setting, marking perhaps the Jayhawks' greatest innovation."

Sadly, the Jayhawks would lose to Creighton in the second round of March Irony.

"The five bonus tracks neither distract from nor add to the original, but they do reveal the tracklist as a model of economic editing and sequencing."

Neither distract nor add! Hipsters are not constrained by our math operators. Addition and subtraction are played out. Actually, Pitchfork would never say something is "played out" since the term itself is dated. They would say something like "…the once formidable duo Addition & Subtraction – an early-decade dancehall staple which rose to towering heights on the strength of its bubblegum synthesizers and devil-may-care baselines – ultimately descended into self-parody in mid-2005."

Damn that's actually pretty good. Maybe Pitchfork is hiring?

No, Really, I Swear!

I couldn't really come up with one coherent column idea this week, so here's a bunch of thoughts I had while waiting for the best Sunday of the year:

One night in late August, my high school friends and I were hanging out with a few beers and talking about the upcoming NFL season. I should clarify that by "high school friends", I mean people that I was friends with growing up – I don't want to imply that I enjoy casual drinking with seventeen year olds. Anyway, one of my friends asked each of us to share our Super Bowl prediction.

I picked the Jets to play the Packers. I don't have this in writing, so I guess it doesn't count.

Two picks I DID get into writing? I said the Patriots would miss the playoffs and that the Redskins would make them. Again, I suck at picking NFL games and the fact that my Jets-Packers pick is still alive is basically a fluke. But like…I'm just sayin'.

I never expected to write a weekly football column for Fundamentally Soundd, but they're way too much fun to write. I don't even know what I'm going to writing about once the Super Bowl is done. Nobody writes a weekly basketball column, and I don't really like baseball or college basketball enough to write about them. Daggers all around.

I'll take the Jets by seven and Packers by 21.

__________________________________

Championship Sunday is my favorite day of the season. The matchups and storylines are great every year, and each year almost always gives us at least one classic game. Last year's Minnesota-New Orleans game was fantastic, as were both '08 games (ARZ-PHI and PIT-BAL), '07 NFC (NYG-GB) and '06 AFC (NE-IND). Championship Sunday feels a lot like the few minutes riiiight after school got out on Friday before a three day weekend. In those few minutes, you knew you had the maximum amount of freedom with three full days separating you from class again. Similarly, today we get to indulge in two potentially awesome football games with the knowledge that we still get the Super Bowl to look forward to. There's literally nothing to do but sit back, watch Pokemon cartoons and ask mom to make a snack.

__________________________________________

I've said this before, but the NFL Network is awesome. Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin are great, Marshall Faulk and Steve Mariucci are pretty good, and Rich Eisen is the best studio host on television. I'd even take Eisen over TNT's Ernie Johnson, which is saying a lot. Anyway, Irvin told a great story this morning before bringing up an excellent point.

Essentially, he said that when he first came into the league he was interviewed by the man who at the time held all the Cowboys receiving records, Drew Pearson. The young Irvin felt overwhelmed by the man's stats and thought he'd never catch him (he did). He did, however, set a realistic goal of topping Pearson's Super Bowl ring total. After telling this story this morning, Irvin pointed out that in Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers will never break Brett Favre's records for passing yards or touchdowns. But since Favre only won one ring, Rodgers could actually eclipse Favre in Packers history by bringing home the Lombardi trophy and eventually retiring as a Packer.

Speaking of Favre, I remained a fan of watching him play football until he retired. Hate to pull a John Madden here, but big games undoubtedly felt bigger with Favre in them. Two of the best five football games of my college career (MIN-NO and GB-NYG) featured Favre. I know it's become chic to hate on the guy, but I never really jumped on that bandwagon for the same reason I don't hate Tim Tebow. You can't hate someone just because the media fawns over them, even if it is excessive.

Even though I never hated Favre, I don't have it in me to really defend him either. As much as I liked watching him play, he was obnoxious – but never criminal - in the way he treated women during his time with the Jets and Vikings. Plus, every post-game interview this season he kept praising himself for his toughness and how brilliant his career was. It would be a nice story if, like Emmitt Smith did with Dallas, Favre signed a meaningless contract to retire as a Packer. I don't think it's going to happen though. From what I can tell based on his arrogance during those post-game interviews and press conferences, Favre doesn't think of himself as "Brett Favre, Green Bay Packer." He thinks of himself as "Brett Favre, Inc."

______________________________________

Finally , on-campus recruiting (OCR) is going on right now and all my friends who are juniors are freaking out. OCR is a big deal at Wharton because it's when all the big investment banks and consultancies come to campus to look for interns. Strong performance during an internship with a premier company after your junior year usually results in a full-time job offer for you, which takes all the stress out of senior year.

My friend Steve told me that he wished that NFL teams came to campus during OCR and that we could apply to have coaching internships with them. We wouldn't be doing grunt work like splicing film or getting Gatorade for people. Instead, the internship would be ten weeks of learning how to break down film and come up with a game plan. Maybe we could even learn how to tank for a better draft pick or engage in a bitter power struggle with management.

The classic Whartonite status obsession would obviously carry over to NFL OCR. Undergraduates studying finance are the only people in the world who think $15,000 for ten weeks' work is disappointing if it comes from one of the "less prestigious" banks. To be fair, I'd look down on anyone who only got an offer from the Panthers. That's so weak. At that point I'd probably just go to grad school.

My first choice would be the Cowboys. Since they hired Rob Ryan (Rex's brother) as the defensive coordinator, I figure that would be the ideal place to learn a lot about scheming while working for my favorite team. My nightmare scenario would be if I only got offers from Philadelphia and Washington.

People going into financial services often think about exit opportunities. Most investment banking analyst classes last two years, and many analysts move on to private equity or a hedge fund once the two years are finished. Consulting has a similar structure. NFL opportunities would be all about the coaching tree. You would THINK that you'd want to work for Bill Belichick, but his coaching tree's track record is pretty bad. If I was going to pick based solely on exit opportunities – defined here as which coaching tree you would want to be a part of – I'd pick Sean Payton and hope some of the Parcells magic is transferred to me.

Cute Kittens

Google's Blogger service provides surprisingly powerful analytic tools to see how much traffic your blog gets. To be clear, I write this thing as a hobby and don't particularly care about my page views – I never make it my Facebook status or promote it in any way. I tweet links to all my columns, but this is the equivalent of when I would pretend I was Michael Jordan as a little kid. "Simmons and Whitlock tweet column links too! I'M JUST LIKE THEM!!!!".

I dove into Fundamentally Soundd's traffic stats last week and found something that was absolutely hilarious. Most of the time, I give my columns snarky titles (like last week's "GalleryFurniture.com Seattle Home Game Bowl"). One week, I titled my column "America's Game of the Week". That week's column is the most viewed Fundamentally Soundd article by a factor of ten. Why? Because when you Google "America's Game of the Week", my article is the number four result! Even though I still don't care about traffic and will continue not promoting the site, I couldn't resist giving this column a truly horrific title in the hope that I'll see a hilarious spike in traffic.

To be fair, I already knew of the practice of giving things misleading names in order to get more traffic. In 9^th grade, my friend used to post videos on YouTube with very raunchy titles that would end up just being something like 45 seconds of footage of him playing video games. They all had over 5,000 views because people are gross. "Cute Kittens" is the first and last time I will do something like this.

_____________________________________________

Last week, I wrote a lot about how people attribute things in sports to luck far too frequently. My position is the exact opposite of what my friend Angelo believes, and I asked him if he would be interested in writing a retort to my rant. Here's what he came up with (it's very good):

The idea that the best team always prevails in sporting events is Fundamentally Flawedd. Empirically, the notion that there is no luck involved in sporting contests is simply not true. Football Outsiders (a website known for its application and creation of unique football statistics) have proven that recovering fumbles is luck. Forcing fumbles is a skill, but recovering them is luck. When the ball hits the ground, each team has a 50/50 shot at recovering it. In the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl, there were 3 fumbles…all recovered by the Giants. The probability of such good fortune for the Giants is a mere .125. When something that both heavily impacts the game (turnovers in football are game-changers) and is statistically proven to be random chance favors one team to a relatively high degree of unlikelihood, how can it be said that there was no luck involved?

Another instance of luck in sports is one-run baseball games. Despite pundits creating storylines about teams being "clutch" and "finding a way to win," Bill James and other baseball analysts have pretty much done away with the notion. The only conclusive thing that can be said about one-run games (and to a lesser extent two-run games) is that there is a huge amount of luck involved in the outcomes. If winning one-run games was a skill, we would expect the teams with better overall records to generally have more success in one-run games. But no such correlation exists. For instance, just last year the 89-win Red Sox (.458) and 85-win Blue Jays (.461) had worse Winning Percentages in 1-run games than the 67-win Kansas City Royals (.473).

Let's look at the 1960 World Series between the Yankees and Pirates. The Yankees won games by scores of 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0. The Pirates won games by scores of 6-4, 3-2, 5-2, and 10-9. The conventional argument is that the Pirates were more clutch and that the Yankees couldn't handle close games. Besides being facially untrue (the 1960 Yankees featured many future all of famers and players with multiple championship rings such as Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra), Bill James and others have shown that there is an element of luck at play in all 4 of the Pirates victories.

Even if one chooses to ignore Bill James and blindly cling to the falsehood that winning one-run games is a skill, let's take a closer look at Game 7 of that World Series. The Yankees lead 7-4 with Pittsburgh batting in the bottom of the eighth. The leadoff batter singled. The next better, Bill Virdon, hit a routine double play ball to shortstop Tony Kubek. As Kubek was about to field the ball, it struck a pebble and smashed into Kubek's throat. Kubek was badly injured, had to leave the game, and Virdon was credited with a single. Instead of two outs and no one on, there were two men on and no outs. A single, sacrifice bunt, fly-ball out, an infield single, and a 3 run home run followed, and the Pirates had a 9-7 lead. While someone can argue that the Yankees should have done a better job at mitigating damages, and that the Pirates deserve credit for taking full advantage of the situation, the simple fact remains that neither team would have been in that situation had it not been for pure, dumb luck. No rational person could argue that "If Tony Kubek were a better shortstop he would have known the exact location of a specific pebble in the infield and would have accounted for that when attempting to field the ball." Nor can one argue that Bill Virdon displayed superior skill to hit the ball with just the right direction and velocity so as to strike the pebble and injure Kubek. Both arguments are absurd.

I could go on and discuss the half-court heave in basketball, the field goal blown astray by a sudden, unexpected gust of wind, or many other things, but I've already exceeded my word limit. Game 7 of the 1960 World Series is the perfect embodiment of the metaphorical "way the ball bounces." As much as we'd like to rationalize sports and believe in the feel-good notion that on every given day the better team won, this is simply not true…and it is because of this that we love sports so much. On any given day the best team in the world can lose to the worst, no matter how statistically unlikely it may be. Let's just not confuse this notion with the idea that they were necessarily the better team on that day.

I thought Angelo made a lot of great points. I'm a big fan of Football Outsiders and I have a ton of respect for the research they do. I think my main point is that we too frequently say that an upset occurred because of luck instead of attributing it to the solid execution of a good game plan.

________________________________________

Adam and I are betting one beer per football game this week. I fully expect to owe him four beers by Sunday night. Home teams in bold, wish me luck:

Pittsburgh (-3) over Baltimore

I was going to pick Baltimore until I read the Football Outsiders preview of the game. It turns out that the Steelers are easily the second best team in the league, and that by some metrics they are actually more consistent than the Patriots.

For most of the decade, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were so much better than everyone that every conversation about the best QB started and ended with them. Last year, people added Drew Brees to the conversation. I think that our brains are wired to keeping these debates as small as possible (Bird/Magic, Ali/Frazier, Kobe/LeBron, etc.) just to keep the arguments neat and compartmentalized. The problem is that the level of quarterbacking in the NFL has become so good that what used to be a tidy two person debate is now far messier.

This year, we all agree that Brady was by far the best quarterback. But I think that Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers have elevated their respective games to the level of Manning and Brees. Manning and Brees are far better historically, obviously, but the 2010 versions of these four are basically indistinguishable. I once wrote that the glut of awesome QBs is similar to the point guard boom in the NBA. The conversation used to just be Chris Paul vs. Derron Williams but had to be expanded because Rondo, Rose and others are so good that the differences between any of them are negligible.

I think a fun debate would be the following: If you had one game to win, would you pick Manning or Roethlisberger to be your quarterback? What if it was a playoff game? Remember, during his 2006 title run, Manning threw three touchdowns and seven interceptions over four games en route to a Super Bowl win. That pretty much cancels out Roethlisberger's awful play during the Steelers' 2005 championship run.

Green Bay over Atlanta (-2.5)

The Falcons remind me of the 2001 Chicago Bears – won a lot of close games, finished 13-3 with a bye, and got destroyed at home by a much better Eagles team.

New England (-8.5) over New York

The problem for New York is that the Patriots have 52 good football players whereas the Jets have 51 good football players and Mark Sanchez.

Chicago (-10) over Seattle

My coach of the year pick would be Bill Belichick, followed closely by Raheem Morris and Todd Haley. Spags is close, but Haley's team had more success.

I dislike Pete Carroll's antics more than anything else in the NFL. All that ridiculous fist-pumping and whatnot even though he beat the Saints 2^nd string secondary and 12h string running back in an undeserved home game. I remain a huge fan of the city of Seattle due to Microsoft, Frasier and Shawn Kemp.

Last Week: 1-3
Playoff Record: 1-3
Regular Season Record: 113-143

Galleryfurniture.com Seattle Home Game Bowl

Four small columns synthesized into one to make up for not writing anything last week:

_________________________________________

Finishing 113-143 against the spread and last in my picks league sucked. My friend Angelo, with whom I tied for the picks title last year, won the coveted Double Crown. Angelo again tied for the lead in our picks league AND crushed everyone in our fantasy football league. Congrats to him. Angelo and I have an ongoing debate about what I will begrudgingly call "sports game efficiency" (YOU KNOW LIKE THE EFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESIS!??!? LOOK HOW EDUCATED I AM!!!!!!!!)

Even though the EMH is stupid, I believe in sports game efficiency. The idea is that no team is lucky – the 2007 Giants, the 2002 Buckeyes and others won by outperforming their opponents and that no other outcome should be surprising after the "more talented" team has revealed its flaws. My belief is that real life is not like a Madden simulation in which the team with higher ratings should always win.

Let's take the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl as an example. Did the Giants get lucky? No. If Asante Samuel was a better corner, he would have caught the game-sealing interception. If Rodney Harrison was a better safety, he would have knocked the ball away from David Tyree. And for the record – Tyree's catch is so frequently mistaken for luck that it deserves its own defense.

The catch was not the result of a random sequence of numbers awarding him possession. A highly-trained athlete jumped, secured the football against a defender and maintained possession as he was thrown to the ground. The entire play was entirely in his control – which is pretty much the exact opposite of luck. Furthermore, the Giants were not the beneficiary of help from the referees since there was no holding on the play nor was Eli Manning held up long enough to warrant whistling the play dead. The play was all skill.

On the other hand, I might be doing what Nassim Taleb calls "affirming the consequent". Angelo's belief, which is more or less articulated in Taleb's book Fooled by Randomness, is that if you were to simulate Super Bowl 42 100,000 times the Patriots would win the vast majority of those games. Each of the 100,000 games would have a score, the median result would be a comfortable Patriots win, and the observed result in February 2008 was a lucky fluke which is several standard deviations away from this median result. It is a very convincing argument, and Taleb is a very smart guy (even though he's the most condescending writer of all time).

I disagree because I think the assumptions of the simulations, to continue the analogy, are wrong. The "model" would have the Patriots with an unstoppable offense, a playmaking defense and a coach who is never wrong. A more accurate model would have an offense which Steve Spagnuolo figured out and a coach who took too long to adapt. With this model, I believe the median result would more or less resemble Giants 17, Patriots 14. Admittedly, the assumptions of this truer model are only revealed after the fact. But that doesn't mean the Giants' win was luck – it just means we didn't have enough information before the game to know the Patriots were flawed. We should be able to recognize these flaws after the game and realize the game played out as it should have. Taleb's beliefs make sense in the context of financial markets and a lot of military history, but I do not believe they can be extrapolated to sports.

A few final points on luck. First, I agree that it is possible in certain instances to be lucky. The best example is a Chargers-Broncos game in which the Chargers would have certainly won if not for Ed Hochuli's error. Instances of human error in which the fundamental rules of the game are altered are the main cases where I would concede that the winning team got lucky. Second, injuries can be a source of luck depending on the circumstances. Kevin Garnett getting hurt in 2009 is not unlucky (he's still great, but now old and fragile), but Kendrick Perkins getting hurt in 2010 was unlucky (young, no major injury history).

As the great Rasheed Wallace once put it: "Ball don't lie."
________________________________________________

Complaining about ESPN is so played out that I can only do it ironically at this point. Plus, the easiest punching bag on the network is Around the Horn. Since I hate to be jumping on the hate-bandwagorn, I will say two nice things about the show before complaining:

1. I understand that the point of the show is to be provocative, which is the primary explanation for why people occasionally say outlandish things. They are under constant pressure to be original and entertaining, which is difficult.
   
2. I have nothing personally against anyone on the show, and I actually like Tim Cowlishaw and J.A. Adande.
   

My complaint is that two people on the show (I can't remember which two, I watched the episode five days ago) were vehemently defending Seattle's right to host a playoff game. It made me angry enough to turn off the TV since it is exactly the type of mind-blowing ignorance that led some people to think that C.C. Sabathia deserved a Cy Young more than Felix Hernandez.

I don't understand people who defend the sanctity of the division system. I think it's great for scheduling purposes, but that's about it. Four divisions (AFC East, AFC West, NFC East, NFC North) are awesome because any intra-division matchup is a great rivalry with tons of history. The other four divisions are more or less made up of teams who weren't cool enough to get bids to the good divisions.

From what I understand of the Champions League, the crappier country leagues send one team to the tournament and the more prestigious leagues send more. Automatic bids in that case makes sense – each country is at least partially represented and the end result is a richer tournament. Divisions aren't sovereign entities with unique histories and cultures. We would be better off if Tampa Bay or New York were allowed to take Seattle's place. Nine wins should be a pre-requisite for a division winner to make the playoffs, and division winners shouldn't be guaranteed a home game.

__________________________________________

My fantasy basketball team is second in overall points scored but fifth in the standings and under-.500. This isn't particularly uncommon. In our fantasy football league, the regular season points leader finished in ninth and missed the playoffs. I feel stupid saying this on the heels of my anti-luck rant, but how unlucky is that? Fantasy games fit my definition of luck since the scoring system is not reflective of actual football. For example, turnovers don't mean nearly as much in fantasy as they do in real football and key statistics like third-down conversions and time of possession don't even exist.

Anyway, I know that head-to-head matchups are fun and everything, but that necessarily means we don't crown the best fantasy football team champion. I think it should be based strictly on scoring. People who disagree with me are correct in saying that it makes the game less fun, but at least an overall points system is more accurate. Our current head-to-head system is essentially an extension of Seattle getting a home playoff game.

___________________________________________

Finally, my picks. Home teams in bold, wish me luck:

Saints (-10.5) over Seahawks

This is not just a pick for the Saints. It's a pick for The Enlightenment, or at least for indoor plumbing. I really hate the fact that the Seahawks are here.

Colts (-2.5) over Jets

I'll be rooting for the Jets, but I just feel like this Jets team can be beat through the air. It's not shameful to lose to Tom Brady, but it is shameful to lose to Tom Brady by 42 when you pride yourself on defense. It's also pretty weak to give up 38 points to Chicago when it's snowing (shouldn't cold, wintery weather be Jets conditions? I guess not.). I really believe the Colts will beat the Jets and Steelers and make the AFC Championship Game. I also finished 30 games under .500 in picks, so keep in mind that I suck.

Ravens (-3) over Chiefs

Haloti for days.

Eagles (-2.5) over Packers

Nobody's picking the Eagles – a team that eviscerated the entire Giants season in a span of 7.5 minutes and has had two weeks to study Green Bay. Andy Reid remains an underrated coach, at least from a Cowboys fan's perspective. I really like the Eagles' chances of winning the NFC since all of the Saints' running backs got hurt. Fingers crossed it doesn't happen.