Where you left your keys ...Rick's Cafe Americain

The Rams had fallen behind 23-12 late in the game with just enough time for the Rams to drive quickly for a score, stop Carolina, get the ball back and score again.  Showing questionable use of time management (not much sense of urgency, some questionable run calls that ate precious time, and eating 2 of 3 timeouts) the Rams scored a touchdown with 2:44 remaining and got the two-point conversion to climb within three points.  With only one timeout, the Rams all but had to go for the onsides kick, which they managed to recover with 2:38 remaining.  On first down, the Rams completed a twenty-yard pass (in bounds) to reach the Carolina 38 and let the clock run down to the 2 minute warning.  So far, so good.  Next play, the Rams complete a 13-yard pass (in bounds) and let the clock run down to 1:24 before snapping the next play.  It is arguably questionable to let that much time run off, but, then again, there are two competing clock management concerns in this situation.  On the one hand, the Rams want to make sure they don’t run out of time.  On the other hand, if the Rams score too quickly they give Carolina’s offense a chance to come back.  The goal, of course, should be to score a TD to take the lead with as little time remaining as possible, but, in attempting to do this, not jeopardize the field goal to tie the game.  Consequently, somewhat conservative play is warranted; i.e., no forced passes, throw out of bounds to avoid sacks if first option is not there, etc.  It was at this point that Mike Martz (who, ironically is often criticized for being too aggressive) lost his mind.

On the next play, the Rams completed a six-yard pass down to the 19.  Somewhat surprisingly, the Rams show no sense of urgency and they don’t snap the next play until only :42 remains.  However, there is still plenty of time to get a first down and then take some shots at the end zone, so the play calling is still viable, if a little questionable.  But on second down, the Rams ran Marshall Faulk for 4 yards and the first down and then Mike Martz decides to run the clock down to kick the field goal to send the game into overtime. This was an unbelievably stupid decision.  Martz took away a chance to win the game outright in order to avoid the more minimal risk that the Rams would lose their chance at a game tying field goal.  This is a mathematically insane decision and has no tactical purpose.

The odds of making the 32-yard field goal are probably 90-95% (Jeff Wilkins was 27/29 inside of 39 yards on the season).  The odds of winning in overtime are essentially 50/50, but if we give the Rams the benefit of the doubt (at home, have momentum, more high powered offense and perhaps the slightly better kicker) we could up those odds to 55-60% (but either way, whichever team wins the 50/50 coin toss would be favored, something Martz has no control over).  On the other hand, what are the odds of the Rams scoring a touchdown with a 2nd down from the 19 with 1:24 to work with and one time out (let alone from the 25 with first down and 2:00 minutes remaining)?  Or from the 15 yard line with :42 seconds remaining and first down (three shots into the end zone)?  In 2002, all teams converted for touchdowns inside the red zone 53% of the time.  I am guessing that the high-powered 2003 Rams offense had a higher percentage than that (though I could not find any 2003 stats online).  Of course, this percentage must be lowered to account for the fact that the Rams’ options would be somewhat limited because of time (though if they had managed for this from the 2-minute warning on this would have been much less of an issue) and because they would, of course, play more conservative than normal in terms of turnovers and sacks.  Conversely, however, the Rams were clicking on all cylinders and the Panthers defense had to be exhausted after having to defend two straight possessions, which would click the percentages back up.  And, I am not even taking into account, at least not mathematically, the possibility that showing no faith in your quarterback/offense to try and win the game might actually decrease the Rams chances in OT. But let’s be ultra conservative and say that the Rams had a 20% chance of scoring a touchdown (which would essentially end the game, but for the statistically insignificant chance that Carolina could drive the field and score with very little time left). 

So what are the risks?  A turnover would end the game.  A sack or a penalty would lower the field goal percentages (though Wilken’s percentage up to 50 yards is still 90%+, so they would have to lose a lot of yards for that to make that much of a difference) but there would still be opportunities to get more yards in the case of a penalty.  So what are the odds?  In 2002 all NFL teams committed turnovers in the red zone 6% of the time (with the highest team turning it over 15% of the time, the Rams turned it over 13% of the time in 2002 inside the red zone, but they were 7-9 in 2002, compared to 12-4 this year).  Of course, Martz should tell the quarterback to not take any chances with the passes and to throw the ball away if the first option is not there in order to lower the risk of a sack.  Additionally, the Rams would only be running a few plays, which further lowers the risk of a turnover.  But let’s be overly risk adverse and say that there is a 10% chance of a turnover or a negative play that significantly diminishes the chance of a field goal being made.

If we give the Rams a 95% of making the field goal and a 55% chance of winning an overtime game and 20% chance of winning before OT if they go for a touchdown, compared to a 10% chance of losing without getting a chance to kick, the Rams chances of winning the game are 52% if they follow Martz’s strategy and 57% if they attempt to score the touchdown.  That may not sound like much, but it is an undeniable difference and considering how many football games turn on a single play or call, any coach would kill for a 5% increase in their odds of winning (and you might want to ask the Vikings or Dolphins if they find the 6% difference in winning percentage that kept them out of the playoffs to be significant – or better yet, ask a bookie what a 5% margin means to them).  Further, if we change the percentages to something that is probably more accurate (95% chance of making the field goal, 52% chance of winning in OT, 30% of scoring the TD and 5% chance of a turnover or a devastating sack or penalty) the ratios change to 49% following Martz’s strategy and 62% trying for the touchdown and that is a huge difference – to put it differently, the Rams are more than 25% more likely to win by trying for the touchdown (for the mathematically challenged, that is the percentage differential between 49 and 62%).  Or, to put it more clearly, Martz is an IDIOT!

So, the Rams kick the field goal and, as the Tuesday Morning Quarterback would say, the football gods made their displeasure known as Carolina, naturally, won in OT. 

The OT was crazy, and quite entertaining, as both teams missed field goals and presented another, though more debatable, example of risk adverse coaching.  Carolina took the opening kickoff and promptly drove down to the Rams’ 21.  On first down, rather than trying to get more yards, the Panthers ran a QB sneak to center the field goal and lost one yard.  Carolina lined up for the field goal and kicked it through the uprights, but they let the play clock expire (which is itself inexcusable as they had THREE TIMEOUTS to use) and lost five yards.  Changing their minds, Carolina then tried two very conservative run plays, lost one more yard and then lined up for the 40+ yard field goal and missed it, barely.

This style of coaching is much more debatable.  Most NFL kickers are 90%+ inside of 40 yards and defenses have every incentive, once the offense is in field goal range, to gamble and try to force a turnover or a sack.  I don’t have any problem with playing for a field goal instead of going for a touchdown in such a situation, but I personally would not turn off the offense until I was at least inside the 15 and, if there was a large enough statistical sample, I bet I would be proven correct (especially in a situation where the game is tied such that a turnover does not mean an automatic loss).

But either way, Carolina’s tactics are much more defensible.  Martz, however, is simply an idiot and there is no excuse for his end of regulation decision.  While in football, like poker, one cannot always run the “percentage” play because if the other team expects it, the percentage play may not actually be the percentage play.  So sometimes you roll the dice, like on 4th and 1 down three with less than 2 minutes to go, instead of running up the middle as everyone expects, you play action pass, throw deep, hit the WR for the game winning TD and Holy Buckeye! continue on your season of destiny.  But there was no tactical misdirection in Martz’s decision, it was a question of pure mathematical likelihood and he failed miserably.  And, for the record, if the Rams had scored that touchdown, I would have won my bet on the game.  Thanks Mike. 

Demonlover stars Connie Nielson who, for all the sexual elements in the movie, is not presented in a very attractive (physically) light, certain not in comparison to her gorgeous and, ironically, more sexual character in Gladiator. She plays an aggressive, corporate climbing, utterly without morals, cold as ice mega-bitch.  So does Chloe Sevigny, Gina Gershon and, to a lesser degree (since she mostly just gets played), Dominique Redmond.  All these characters share another quality, in that they are one-dimensional.  They are utterly ruthless and willing to resort to murder, but the movie never provides us with much of any motivation for their actions.  Presumably the motivation is money and power, but I find it somewhat disturbing that Demonlover feels no need to give any motivation for their extreme, to say the least, conduct.

I found the corporate espionage angle, which revolves around two competing internet porn distributors stopping at nothing as they vie for the attention of a French company that has struck a sweet deal with a major Japanese pornographic anime company, to be completely over the top and unrealistic.  I am quite certain that there is plenty of industrial espionage going on in the world, but I don’t think that Demonlover’s portrayal of double and triple agents, moles, murderers and other espionage tactics worthy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War is at all believable, especially when all we are talking about are two companies vying for a porn distribution contract.  The lack of believability quickly turned that plot angle into a yawner.

There are other aspects to the story, such as sexual power plays, hook-ups and a very hardcore, ultra-secret bondage and torture website, but none of these elements brought much to the table.  If this had simply been a B-movie aiming to provide some intrigue and deviant titillation, it probably would have worked better.  But the makers of this movie aimed much higher than B-movie and hit much lower.

Demonlover stars Connie Nielson who, for all the sexual elements in the movie, is not presented in a very attractive (physically) light, certain not in comparison to her gorgeous and, ironically, more sexual character in Gladiator. She plays an aggressive, corporate climbing, utterly without morals, cold as ice mega-bitch.  So does Chloe Sevigny, Gina Gershon and, to a lesser degree (since she mostly just gets played), Dominique Redmond.  All these characters share another quality, in that they are one-dimensional.  They are utterly ruthless and willing to resort to murder, but the movie never provides us with much of any motivation for their actions.  Presumably the motivation is money and power, but I find it somewhat disturbing that Demonlover feels no need to give any motivation for their extreme, to say the least, conduct.

I found the corporate espionage angle, which revolves around two competing internet porn distributors stopping at nothing as they vie for the attention of a French company that has struck a sweet deal with a major Japanese pornographic anime company, to be completely over the top and unrealistic.  I am quite certain that there is plenty of industrial espionage going on in the world, but I don’t think that Demonlover’s portrayal of double and triple agents, moles, murderers and other espionage tactics worthy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War is at all believable, especially when all we are talking about are two companies vying for a porn distribution contract.  The lack of believability quickly turned that plot angle into a yawner.

There are other aspects to the story, such as sexual power plays, hook-ups and a very hardcore, ultra-secret bondage and torture website, but none of these elements brought much to the table.  If this had simply been a B-movie aiming to provide some intrigue and deviant titillation, it probably would have worked better.  But the makers of this movie aimed much higher than B-movie and hit much lower.

According to the Times, “another administration official cautioned that the proposal could be broad and open-ended, more in the nature of ‘a mission statement’ rather than a detailed road map and schedule.”

However, sources close to the President say there is credible evidence that Osama bin Laden may be or may recently have been hiding out in or near the Sea of Tranquility, and that recent images from the Spirit Rover suggest that Mars may be hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is expected to appear before the UN next week to demonstrate how images like the one below indicate that Mars is engaged in a systematic effort to “cleanse” WMD sites by moving them before the Rover has a chance to inspect them.

33% (17 votes) said that they would be more likely to vote for George W. Bush if there is another major terrorist attack on the U.S. before the 2004 elections.  This is only slightly less than the 37% (19 votes) who said they would be less likely.  12 people (including me) said it would not affect their likelihood of voting for Dubya, and 3 people said “other”, but didn’t e-mail me to explain.

When I posted the poll, I expected to find that those who (like me) already had strong feelings about Bush one way or the other would vote “neither” (like me).  I also assumed that Rick’s readership would tend to have strong feelings one way or the other.  However, over 75% of respondents said that a major terrorist attack would affect their voting decision in some way.

Now that I see the results, I have a new theory.  Those who support Bush (and visit this site) tend to do so with an almost fanatical zeal that tends to focus on Bush’s “leadership” and “clear vision”.  Those people are likely to react to the suggestion of a second attack by asserting that it only heightens the need for a strong leader like Bush, who isn’t afraid to do what is necessary to get the job done.  Conversely, those who oppose Bush (and visit this site) have a similar (but less fanatical) tendency to view everything he does in a negative light.  Thus, those people are likely to see a second attack as further evidence of the failure of Bush’s post-9/11 policies.

I’m also quite curious as to the breakdown of the 24% who said “neither”.  Are they mostly anti-Bush, pro-Bush, or neutral?  Is it “neither” because of already strong feelings (like me), or because the respondent(s) believe that a second attack would (should?) not be relevant to the decision of who should be the next president?

If you responded to the poll (or even if you didn’t), I’d love to hear your reactions to the results, and/or the reasons why you voted (or would have voted) as you did.  I’ll leave the poll up for a while so that people can view the results and/or vote.

AND DON’T FORGET TO CHECK OUT THE NEW POLL!!!!

I haven’t had a chance to reconnect with the blogosphere yet, so this may be a massive retread, but I wanted to comment briefly on Rumsfeld’s press conference yesterday.  He was asked a two-part question (all quotes are paraphrases, as I cannot find a transcript online at this time):  First, how would he respond to Howard Dean’s assertion that Americans are not safer since the capture of Saddam Hussein and second, why is the United States not devoting the same resources to the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Rumsfeld began by saying he would not answer the first question, because it was inappropriate for him to respond to everything every politician said, because then, the DoD would be come embroiled in politics.  He then tried to seem like he was answering the second question by purportedly “correcting” it by pointing out that the division that captured Saddam was also doing “lots of other things”.  When pressed to answer the question, he insulted the reporter and refused to answer the question because “I don’t think someone who asks a question like your first question gets a second shot.”

Christ what a prick.  I’m glad we’re bringing in the year with more bullshit evasion from the master of non-speak.  If we are safer, why not just say we are safer?  Not because answering the question would embroil the DoD in “politics”, whatever that means, but because the capture of Saddam Hussein did not make us safer.  Why, even when this administration does something praiseworthy and positive, must they continue their PR bait-and-switch game?  Is deception so ingrained in their approach to politics that they cannot stop lying even when it is unnecessary to do so?

But what really bothers me is the answer implicit in Rumsfeld’s non-answer to the second question.  He did not say “Of course we are devoting equal resources to the capture of Osama bin Laden.  In fact, we are devoting greater resources—it is our top priority,” which is what I hoped he would say.  He did not even say “I cannot discuss efforts to catch Osama bin Laden for reasons of national security, but be assured that it is our top priority.” Instead, he refused to answer the question.  Which I can only interpret as an implicit admission that finding bin Laden is not the administration’s top priority, and that they are not devoting the same resources to finding bin Laden as they did to finding Hussein.

Why not?

Pete Rose has now admitted that he bet on the Reds.  That’s good, I guess, because people will stop questioning the obvious.  On the other hand, he isn’t contrite at all. He has given his book a self-martyring title that is particularly execrable when compared to this book. He places limits on what he will admit to: he didn’t “place bets from the clubhouse” or “use his insider knowledge about injuries to place bets” The former is irrelevant, a sop to the pretense maintained by romantics that there is something sacred about the stadium.  The latter is just laughable; beyond the insult to our collective intelligence wrapped up in the claim, are we supposed to forgive him for being a bad gambler?

Pete Rose is, in short, a prick - even people who think he should be admitted to the Hall know this.  Even his most well-known-yet-not-infamous trait—hustle—is, aside from being overrated in its own right, more pathology than virtue with Rose.  Running out a walk isn’t “hustle”; it is a symptom of a desperate need to make sure people are always looking at him. 

His actions undermine the integrity of the games on which he bet.  The games, and the knowledge that people are trying to win, are what distinguishes competition from entertainment.  Fuck with that and there can be no absolution.

Keep him out.

My father’s cousin, a 99-year-old woman, has had a rent-controlled apartment in the East 30’s since roughly 1940.  My immediate family finally moved her out of her apartment - and into an assisted-living facility - a few years ago, but we held on to the apartment because we were paralyzed by the daunting task of cleaning 60 years of history out of her apartment.  This was especially challenging because she didn’t become a pack rat in her old age - she had always been a pack rat.  The apartment had everything from troves of ketchup packets to personal letters from Chaim Gross and John Dos Passos.  There were volumes of her well-intended doggerel and good-natured rejection letters of same from Ron Alexander.  Not surprisingly, among the many finds in her apartment were family history.  There were photographs (though fewer than I expected), my thank you notes (both bar mitzvah and graduation), letters from my dad in WWII (Pharmacist 1st Class aboard the USS Mattaponi) and his cousin Joe during Vietnam (I don’t think he ever shipped out of Fort Benning).  But the best find of the day was the menu from my parents’ wedding at Chateau D’Or on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn (which is now a bingo parlor).

I love this menu because it represents the 60’s that my parents appear to have experienced -which was really more like a Brooklyn-Jewish version of the idealized 50’s.  (I am comfortable with this as the truth.  I have no desire to see my mother as “free love” flower child.)

It also reflects the way I see my father before I knew him.  The man I knew was very set in his ways and so I thought there was a lot of friction in the relationship and I thought of him as anything but cool.  But I knew from old photos and letters - and my mother’s assurances - that my father was both a suave and stylish guy.  He was a clotheshorse and a world traveller and even though he married old he wasn’t lonely young.  So the Chateau D’Or seems like the kind of place that he would have a wedding.  Still, the inconsistent use of French is pretty funny.  Here is the bill of fare:

Smorgasbord Continentale
---
Pineapple Supreme
---
Coeurs de Celery
Olives Vertes et Noires
---
Old Fashioned Vegetable Soup
---
Roast Prime Ribs of Beef au Jus
Peas and Mushrooms with Almonds
Dutchess Potato
Derma Farci
---
Chocolate Mousse
Wedding Cake
Demi Tasse

I love the use of the term Pineapple Supreme - it was, I am told, a fruit salad served in a hollowed-out pineapple.  Celery sticks and olives certainly sounds better in French (though “couers de celery” is an abuse of language almost as bad as The Olive Garden’s “Chicken Con Broccoli").  But my favorite entry is “Derma Farci”. 

Derma Farci is kishke.  Kishke is essentially a sausage made from chicken fat and flour using cow intenstine for the natural casing.  It is the ultimate in Jewish cuisine, both horrifying and spectacular.  It is most certainly not French.  But derma farci is the combination of Bronx Jew and suave fellow that was my father.  And for that I was happy to see it on the menu.

I miss you, Dad.