Si.com has an old but interesting series - "Dream Teams". They pick a sport (Baseball, football, basketball, hockey, etc.) and pick the greatest at their positions. Si.com put a twist on it, though, asking for an all star team of today and one for the future (2012).
For me, my "dream teams" would be a team that I personally saw either on TV or live. I'm sure Babe Ruth was an all-time great, but the guy DIED 30 years before I was born!
Instead, I'll pick the "greatest" players in my lifetime for my "dream" team.
Let's start with Baseball. Now, with steroids being so prevalent, I'm eliminating those on the "juice", albeit with one exception (you'll see why). Here we go:
C - Gary Carter. In his prime, "The Kid" was the cleanup hitter for the 86 Mets AND was a gold glove caliber catcher. Also a natural leader.
1B - Don Mattingly. As a Mets fan this kills me. But in the 80s, there was no one better, offensively or defensively. And with Steroids as prevalent as they are, you could make an argument that no 1B since his time who put up similar numbers was NOT on the juice.
2B - Roberto Alomar. Should be a 1st ballot hall of famer. As an aside, he was the player I emulated as a kid.
SS - Alex Rodriguez. Could be the greatest when he's retired. As it is the numbers he put up in Seattle and Texas puts him in this spot.
3B - Mike Schmidt. 548 HRs in PHILLY! Enough said.
RF - Darryl Strawberry. Controversial, I know. But in a 10 year period from 1984-1994 (ironically, right before steroids hit it big) he was by far the most talented player in baseball. He certainly had his share of drug problems, but steroids were not one of them. Had he had his head on straight, he would have put numbers similar to....
CF - Ken Griffey Jr. Before his trade to Cincinnati, he WAS the man. As it is, I'll take his 10 year run in Cincy.
LF - Barry Bonds. Yes, he roided up, big time. However, he already HAD 3 MVPs and was regarded as the best player in baseball (if not second to Griff) when he was suspected to have started taking steroids in 1998.
DH - Derek Jeter. Playoffs, baby!
RHP - Pedro Martinez. His numbers during his Cy Young seasons were the equivalent of Sandy Koufax in that he was THAT much better than everyone else. That cinches it for me.
RHP - Dwight Gooden. See Darryl Strawberry. His first two years were Pedro-like. I saw him in person so I'm a bit biased. But ask yourself this question: in his prime who was better? (Same with Darryl). Side note - had he came up with the Braves of the 90s with their pitching regimen, he DEFINITELY would have had stats similar to Pedro. As it was, he probably was overused at 19.
LHP - Randy Johnson. To think that Montreal had both him and Pedro. Than again, to think Seattle had Randy, The Kid, AND Rodriguez!
LHP - Tom Glavine. I like the "soft" tossing lefty in between the power arms of the other 3. His 300 wins cinch this for me.
Setup - Billy Wagner. Most saves by a lefty. 103 mph. highest K/9 innings. Enough said.
CL - Mariano Rivera. See Derek Jeter.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Another opinion on Milt Romney
From the Washington Post - it seems like others are catching on to this possibility!
Michael Gerson: Mormons for president Romney should acknowledge religion's role in politics Thursday, August 02, 2007
The first Mormon to run for president was the first Mormon. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formally announced his candidacy on Jan. 19, 1844, urging his supporters to "tell the people we have had Whig and Democrat presidents long enough. We want a president of the United States." Mr. Smith's campaign lasted about five months before it -- and his life -- was ended by a violent mob in Carthage, Ill.
Mitt Romney's campaign has been better received. He possesses a winning public personality, enough personal wealth to ensure he will be around when the voting starts and durable strength in Iowa and New Hampshire that could slingshot him to the nomination. As the author of an impressive oxymoron -- Republican governor of Massachusetts -- Mr. Romney stakes a strong claim to electability. And even after some recent ideological reinvention on social issues, he has successfully courted conservative supporters. The only criticism I have heard of Mr. Romney after these meetings is that he may be "too perfect" because of his Osmond-like looks and wholesomeness -- which is another way of saying he might seem "too Mormon."
Without intending or desiring it, the Romney campaign has poked the sleeping bear of debate about the role of religion in American politics.
Liberals tend to argue that all theological beliefs, including Mormonism, are fundamentally private and dangerously coercive as the basis of public policy. Some religious conservatives are concerned that this particular theology is too eccentric to be welcomed at the White House.
Facing even deeper suspicions about his Catholicism while running for president in 1960, John Kennedy produced a politically masterful, historically influential response -- which should not be Mr. Romney's model. Kennedy said that a candidate's "views on religion are his own private affair," which should not be "imposed by him upon the nation." Kennedy did more than reassure Americans that his public decisions would not be dictated by the pope. He claimed that his public decisions would not be influenced by his religious convictions at all.
There is a long tradition of American leaders who believe that religion is so personal it shouldn't even affect their private life. But this rigid separation between religious conviction and public policy lies outside the main current of American history. Abraham Lincoln's theology was not his "own private affair." "Nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness," he asserted, "was sent into the world to be trodden on." Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that to find the source of our rights, "it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity, for they are God-given."
These were theological arguments, not merely rhetorical adornments. But they were also carefully limited.
American political leaders have generally not talked about how the individual soul is saved. In Christian theology, these choices are fundamentally private, and government attempts to influence them are both doomed and tyrannical. American leaders have also wisely avoided eschatology -- speculative theories about the end or culmination of history.
But religious convictions on the topic of anthropology -- the nature and value of men and women -- have profoundly and positively influenced American history. Many of the greatest advances toward the protection of minority rights, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement, came in part because people of faith pushed for them. And religious men and women made those efforts because they were convinced that all human beings -- not just all believers -- are created in God's image.
What does this mean for Mr. Romney? Many Christians have serious problems with Mormon theology on personal salvation and the nature of history -- disputes that go much deeper than those between, say, Baptists and Presbyterians. These disagreements are theologically important. But they are not politically important, because they are unrelated to governing.
Mr. Romney, however, should not make Kennedy's mistake and assert that all religious beliefs are unrelated to politics. What Mormonism shares with other religious traditions is a strong commitment to the value and dignity of human beings, including the unborn, the handicapped and the poor. This conviction is unavoidably political, because it leads people to act in the cause of justice; not to impose their religion, but to protect the weak.
Given this common ground, evangelicals and other religious conservatives should not disqualify Mr. Romney from the outset. There may be other reasons to oppose him for president, but his belief about the destiny of the soul is not one of them.
Michael Gerson: Mormons for president Romney should acknowledge religion's role in politics Thursday, August 02, 2007
The first Mormon to run for president was the first Mormon. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formally announced his candidacy on Jan. 19, 1844, urging his supporters to "tell the people we have had Whig and Democrat presidents long enough. We want a president of the United States." Mr. Smith's campaign lasted about five months before it -- and his life -- was ended by a violent mob in Carthage, Ill.
Mitt Romney's campaign has been better received. He possesses a winning public personality, enough personal wealth to ensure he will be around when the voting starts and durable strength in Iowa and New Hampshire that could slingshot him to the nomination. As the author of an impressive oxymoron -- Republican governor of Massachusetts -- Mr. Romney stakes a strong claim to electability. And even after some recent ideological reinvention on social issues, he has successfully courted conservative supporters. The only criticism I have heard of Mr. Romney after these meetings is that he may be "too perfect" because of his Osmond-like looks and wholesomeness -- which is another way of saying he might seem "too Mormon."
Without intending or desiring it, the Romney campaign has poked the sleeping bear of debate about the role of religion in American politics.
Liberals tend to argue that all theological beliefs, including Mormonism, are fundamentally private and dangerously coercive as the basis of public policy. Some religious conservatives are concerned that this particular theology is too eccentric to be welcomed at the White House.
Facing even deeper suspicions about his Catholicism while running for president in 1960, John Kennedy produced a politically masterful, historically influential response -- which should not be Mr. Romney's model. Kennedy said that a candidate's "views on religion are his own private affair," which should not be "imposed by him upon the nation." Kennedy did more than reassure Americans that his public decisions would not be dictated by the pope. He claimed that his public decisions would not be influenced by his religious convictions at all.
There is a long tradition of American leaders who believe that religion is so personal it shouldn't even affect their private life. But this rigid separation between religious conviction and public policy lies outside the main current of American history. Abraham Lincoln's theology was not his "own private affair." "Nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness," he asserted, "was sent into the world to be trodden on." Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that to find the source of our rights, "it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity, for they are God-given."
These were theological arguments, not merely rhetorical adornments. But they were also carefully limited.
American political leaders have generally not talked about how the individual soul is saved. In Christian theology, these choices are fundamentally private, and government attempts to influence them are both doomed and tyrannical. American leaders have also wisely avoided eschatology -- speculative theories about the end or culmination of history.
But religious convictions on the topic of anthropology -- the nature and value of men and women -- have profoundly and positively influenced American history. Many of the greatest advances toward the protection of minority rights, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement, came in part because people of faith pushed for them. And religious men and women made those efforts because they were convinced that all human beings -- not just all believers -- are created in God's image.
What does this mean for Mr. Romney? Many Christians have serious problems with Mormon theology on personal salvation and the nature of history -- disputes that go much deeper than those between, say, Baptists and Presbyterians. These disagreements are theologically important. But they are not politically important, because they are unrelated to governing.
Mr. Romney, however, should not make Kennedy's mistake and assert that all religious beliefs are unrelated to politics. What Mormonism shares with other religious traditions is a strong commitment to the value and dignity of human beings, including the unborn, the handicapped and the poor. This conviction is unavoidably political, because it leads people to act in the cause of justice; not to impose their religion, but to protect the weak.
Given this common ground, evangelicals and other religious conservatives should not disqualify Mr. Romney from the outset. There may be other reasons to oppose him for president, but his belief about the destiny of the soul is not one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)