Before I address the topic at hand, let me first say that I have the utmost respect for those who are able to regularly crank out content in blogs and vlogs. They have dedication to the process I clearly do not have. I do have an interesting life with many things going on, but I feel that if it were a higher priority for me, I could bang out one every week. But something always seems to come up (right now, it’s golf as the weather has finally turned in western NY) that allows me to de-prioritize blogging. I’ll keep trying to get out content when I can. I hope some of you will find my posts interesting.

One more thing before I get to the bottom line; I want to throw out one of my favorite trivia questions (I have told many of those who know me well). The question: name the only Black artist in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and the Country Music Hall of Fame. I’ll answer it in my next post (of course by them you could have looked it up if you didn’t know the answer). I think it might surprise you.

Now, on to today’s topic. Recently, there have been some advocating to exempt tips from taxation. It was somewhat of an issue during the 2024 Presidential campaign. Donald Trump raised the issue while he was campaigning in Nevada. It was actually a savvy move given that a very large number of workers in the state obtain a significant amount of their income from tips. Kamala Harris subsequentially also mentioned it, although not as enthusiastically as Trump. It was probably a factor in the state going Red in 2024. How much of a factor I cannot tell you. Trump also mentioned in in his recent address to Congress in March.

I must say that having considered it, I think that exempting tips from being taxed is a bad idea. Why do I say that? Well, there are 2 reasons.

Reason number 1 is fairness. Consider the following 3 employees:

• Person 1: Works in an auto factory and earns a $60,000 in a calendar year, all of which is taxed
• Person 2: Works as a realtor and earns $60,000 in a calendar year, all of which is taxed
• Person 3: Works as a server in a good restaurant and earns $60,000 in a calendar year, $10,000 of which is taxed (keep in mind many restaurant employees earn less that the minimum hourly wage as salary) and $50,000 is untaxed tips

In this scenario, I find the situation extremely unfair to persons 1 and 2, who are paying significantly more taxes than is person 3 even though person 3 has earned the same amount of money. Person 3 has access to the same roads, services, protection from enemies and criminals, etc. as do persons 1 and 2 but is contributing less money to gain what the government provides. I just can’t sign on to this.

The other issue regarding this is one that many people might not realize should their tips not be taxed. The one major benefit that would be greatly reduced to these workers would be Social Security. Keep in mind that the amount of Social Security that one earns is based on his/her taxable income. In the Scenario I described above, person 3 would have a much lower Social Security income than would persons 1 and 2. I suppose a system in which person 3 could pay SS tax (but not income tax) on tip income could be devised, but I haven’t heard it ever described this way. I don’t think most individuals for whom tips are a significant percentage of their income earn enough that they would be able to save large enough chunks of money for retirement to offset the meager amount of SS money received when they decide to retire. As I said, I’m not sure many of those who earn most of their money as tips realize what will await them when they want to stop working.

In conclusion, for the reasons I cites above, I not only think that exempting tips from taxation is unfair to all workers who aren’t in this situation, but I also believe that those in favor of the idea are unaware of the downside to a change like this.

I am pretty certain that most of us have issues with the tax laws. I personally don’t think that this proposed change has merit.

#Income taxes

#Workers who earn tips

#Social Security

#Retirement income

Is there a more toxic acronym than DEI? It seems that a huge number of people believe that they have been victimized by DEI in one way or another. I don’t buy it, but this is the perception. It was a major talking point for Trump and the Republicans in 2024, and it appears to have served him and them well. Of course, me being me, I’m going to provide a different perspective about DEI, or at least the idea that, all other things being relatively equal, diversity in work/government/life is not a bad or even an unequal thing.

What drove me to write about this topic is the recent controversy surrounding Jackie Robinson. Apparently, the Department of Defense removed a webpage entitled “Sports Heroes Who Served: Baseball Great Jackie Robinson Was WWII Soldier,” during a purge to remove DEI content. In other words, Jackie Robinson’s admittance to Major League Baseball was considered to be a result of DEI. There was a fair amount of blowback, and it (along with some other content commemorating African American WWII service) was restored.

To be honest, I hadn’t heard about it until I I heard Nick Wright, a sports talk show host (Fox, I believe) and podcaster, comment on it. After the content was restored, many people argued that calling Jacie Robinson a DEI hire was insulting, and Nick thinks (and I agree with him), that this is exactly the wrong response to the controversy. In his opinion, Jackie Robinson is the definition of DEI, and it is a reason to defend the practice rather than shy away from it. So ask yourself, was Jackie Robinson qualified to play in the big leagues? Obviously, yes; he’s in the Hall of Fame for his MLB performance. But was he the most qualified player in the history of Negro League baseball such that he should have been the first black player admitted to the Majors. According to most Negro League experts, not even close. No one would say that Jackie was a better Negro League performer than Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, or Satchel Paige at the minimum. When Jackie was chosen by Branch Rickey to join the Dodgers, it wasn’t clear that he was the best player in the Negro Leagues at that time. So I think the evidence is pretty clear that Jackie Robinson was a recipient of DEI. I guess the DoD agreed at first, since the anti-DEI argument is that the world should be a strict meritocracy (more on that later), and this clearly (to some) was not.

In fact, sports has many examples of DEI. Among them:

• Earl Lloyd, the first black player in the NBA
• Emmett Ashford, the first black umpire
• Frank Robinson, the first black manager
• Art Shell, the first black Head Coach in the NFL (I’m not counting Fritz Pollard, who coached in 1921 before the NFL was established)
• Paralympics
• Female officials in the NFL and the NBA
• WNBA
• The Rooney rule (that a minority candidate be interviewed for each head coach open position), even though in practice it hasn’t worked as intended

I won’t get into black QBs, which first appeared in the late 60s (Marlin Briscoe, who ultimately had to switch positions in order to remain in the league, and James Harris, in the AFL), but were rare until the 21st century. The point is, in none of the above cases was it clear that any of the above individuals were unquestionably the most qualified person to fill the position. And why should we even have the Paralympics and the WNBA? Shouldn’t they have to compete against unimpaired athletes and NBA players?

Want more examples of DEI. How about our most sacred document, the Constitution. Cases in point:

• 13th amendment – outlawing slavery
• 14th amendment – equal protection under the law
• 15th amendment – affirming the right of blacks to vote
• 19th amendment – affirming the right of women to vote

In all of these cases, the Constitution had to be amended to assure equal opportunity, not preference. This is again the definition of DEI.

Our Supreme Court is probably our most obvious example of DEI. Consider:

• Louis Brandeis (first Jewish Supreme Court justice, in case you didn’t know. And he was nominated by Woodrow Wilson, who was believed to be anti-semitic)
• Thurgood Marshall (nominated by a former segregationist, LBJ)
• Sandra Day O’Connor
• Clarence Thomas
• Sonia Sotomayor
• Ketanji Brown-Jackson

Again, while each of these individuals may have been reasonably well-qualified, many would argue that they weren’t necessarily the most qualified person to fill the vacant SC position at that time. I could go on and cite countless other examples of DEI that made our country a better place, but I think I’ve made the point.

The main argument from the anti-DEI crowd is that everything should be based on merit. But in fact, everyone knows that life in America is not a meritocracy. And how do you define it? I would bet that everyone who reads this post (and the author) has seen examples in the workplace in which promotions and lofty titles have been given not to people who were the most qualified but instead to a friend of the hiring manager (or a friend of the hiring manager’s boss) or to the person who kissed the most butt. One of my great friends worked in the front offices of 2 baseball teams for 10 years and was a highly paid consultant in baseball for 15 years after that. He developed advanced baseball metrics that rival those of Bill James. He trained a person who later became that youngest General Manager in the history of the sport. He was highly qualified to be a GM himself, but he never got an interview. Why, because he wasn’t a former player or coach and because he could be outspoken (that trait didn’t help my cause, either). If the world were a meritocracy, he would have become a GM at some point. Sadly, that’s not how it works or worked out for my friend. If he were hired today, it would very possibly be called a DEI hire.

To those who believe that the world was a meritocracy before DEI became a thing, please provide that proof (this is another of Nick Wright’s arguments). In the 1970s, 500 out of 500 Fortune 500 companies had a white male as its CEO. Even today, the vast majority of CEOs of large companies are white males. Until 2008, every President of the US was a white male, and every President has been a male. Until 2020, every Vice President was a white male. Not a single Hispanic, Jew, or Muslim has been chosen as a Presidential running mate, let alone nominated for President (by a major party). Do we see a pattern here? Are these facts true because those parts of life are a meritocracy?

In his podcast, Nick Wright’s point was that rather than back away when DEI is vilified, we should rather push back and make the anti-DEI crowd defend their position. And I agree with him totally, because when, you get down to it, the anti-DEI movement is being promoted largely by white people, mostly white males, who see the inclusion of people who look different and act differently than them as a threat to their dominance. In a perfect world, maybe we wouldn’t need to deal with any of this. But our country is very far from that. And while I agree that DEI should not be used to elevate people solely on the basis of race, sex, or sexual orientation, I, for one, don’t have a problem with giving some well-qualified individuals who are being otherwise excluded on the basis of race, sex, or sexual orientation opportunities in order to someday remove the institutional bias that still exists in today’s United States. There, I said it.

#Nick Wright

#DEI

#Jackie Robinson

#US Constitution

#US Supreme Court

#Fortune 500 Companies

Below is a compilation of some of my thoughts and opinions:

I believe in facts, science, honesty, and telling the truth.

I am not only college educated, but I have an advanced STEM degree. In 2025, many people would consider me an elite to be scorned if not despised. Well, I’m proud of my accomplishments both in school and in my career (biotech), but I’ve never shoved them down anyone’s throat or behaved like I’m better than anyone else. I wonder if these people realize that it’s because of elites that they have a home that doesn’t collapse, a vehicle that doesn’t explode, and doctors and medications that improve their health.

While I accept the Second Amendment, I see no reason why there can’t be limitations. If I can legally open carry a military assault weapon, what would in theory stop me from purchasing a grenade launcher, a machine gun, a tank, or if you really want to get extreme, a nuclear warhead? Where does it end?

I have the utmost respect and admiration for the police and the difficult and sometimes dangerous job they perform. But when I see them walking around with automatic weapons in hand, Kevlar suits, and aggressive looks on their faces, is it any wonder that the relationship between them and the citizenry is frayed?

I believe that every American (everyone period, for that matter) should have access to decent and affordable health care. Tens of millions do not. The US government (correctly, IMO) sees to it that veterans and seniors have this access. For most of the rest, your access to good health care is dependent upon the job you have or your ability to pay a substantial amount of money to obtain it. For all of those complaining about the price of eggs and gas, the best opportunity for lowering costs would be doing something about the price of healthcare, And a hospital’s number one priority should be helping sick people and not maximizing profits.

That being said, at some point, people need to be held accountable for how they take care of themselves. The obesity problem this country is facing is not a result of bad genetics. There has to be a way incentivize US citizens to make healthy choices and decisions.

I do not ascribe to the theory that most working class and poor people are lazy and are simply getting what they deserve. It’s not that easy to make your way to the top when you start at the bottom. People should not be judged solely on the size of their bank accounts or level of celebrity. And a significant portion of today’s wealthiest people are rich because they were born into it. Somehow, I don’t think Paris Hilton is uber-wealthy due to her intellectual acumen.

I am a strong believer in public education. It’s still our best option to put the most people in a position to succeed. There is no question that reforms must be made to improve it, but terminating the Department of Education and re-writing textbooks to exclude historical events that don’t fit the “white America is/was always right” narrative are not solutions.

While I expect a new administration to select Cabinet members that align with their political philosophy, I also expect these folks to have at least some credentials that would qualify them for the positions they are nominated to fill. In today’s Trumpworld, blind loyalty to the leader has become the new woke.

While it’s possible (or at least debatable) that making government smaller is a good thing, slashing government agencies simply for the sake of doing so with no idea or plan of what you’re going to do post-slash makes no sense to me. Not only will you eliminate services that people need and make them safe, you likely will put millions of hard-working individuals out of work and into a job market that cannot and will not accommodate them.

I am aware that this collection of statements makes me an outlier in 2025 America. And an outlier I will remain. I hope that in the meantime I can figure out some way to improve the world around me.

#STEM

#Second Amendment

#Healthcare

#Public education

#US Cabinet

Well, it’s only been 3 months since my last post. It’s been busy times, and there are other subjects I hope to tackle soon. I am hoping doing this relatively short post will get me motivated to write more often.

Maybe the best aspect of sports is that no matter what we think is going to happen, we don’t know until the game is played. And while I thought the Philadelphia Eagles were going to win Super Bowl LIX in a close game (My rationale, FWIW, was that the Eagles were better at every position except QB and coach. I thought that would be enough to carry them through), like every else, I was quite surprised at the result. I’ve heard everyone talking about the dominance of the Eagles defensive line, and they no doubt were excellent. But I believe this game was won before it ever started. Having thought about what happened on Sunday, I propose below what I think may have happened. I’m presenting it because I haven’t heard anyone else state the same explanation (although some that I didn’t read or hear may have).

From the Chiefs perspective, I believe they were viewing this game as a coronation. Unlike last year, when most believed that KC wasn’t going to get to the Super Bowl let alone win it, this year everyone was on board. I almost think that their attitude was that the win and the three-peat was inevitable. From the beginning, they didn’t appear to be locked in, and once they fell behind, doubt and eventually shock creeped in. After Mahomes’ pick 6, I think the team was in denial, as in “this can’t be happening; we’re the Chiefs, and we’re supposed to win this game.” At 17-0 Philly, the game was, for all intents and purposes, over. The Chiefs were unable to adjust, either strategically or emotionally.

In contrast, the Eagles, despite being only 1.5-point underdogs, heard everyone saying that the game was in the bag for the Chiefs. They had a chip on their collective shoulder, one which was likely stoked by head coach Nick Sirianni. The Eagles were not intimidated by KC; they nearly beat them in Super Bowl LVII and beat them in Kansas City in 2023. They came to New Orleans hungry, motivated, and prepared. And they played their butts off and dominated the Chiefs. A tremendous performance.

In coming to these conclusions, I recalled an article written by Bill James in the 1986 Baseball Abstract regarding the 1985 World Series between the Kansas City Royals and the St. Louis Cardinals. The Cardinals were a big favorite, and basically everyone assumed their victory was a foregone conclusion. And for 5 games an 8 innings, despite being outplayed, they were on the verge of winning it. But the Royals rallied in the bottom of the 9th inning of game 6 to win it 2-1. After the game, the Cardinals blamed the loss on the first base umpire, who missed a close call in that inning and called Jorge Orta safe at first on an infield ground ball. The Cardinals were clearly shaken by this defeat, thinking that they were destined to win. They took the field for game 7 in a fog, and the Royals, who never gave up even though everyone else had, destroyed the Cardinals. 11-0 to win the series. In my opinion, this outcome was very analogous to what happened in Super Bowl LIX.

Another aspect that fascinates me is how the sports media reacted to this game. During the season, as the Chiefs rattled off one close victory after another, the question was whether the 2024 Chiefs were one of the greatest teams of all time. In the aftermath of the Super Bowl, the take by the same media members was that it had been clear all season that the Chiefs succeeded despite their weaknesses on the O-line. It was almost as if the Chiefs had overachieved to get to the Super Bowl. Of course. the reality was that indeed the Chiefs weren’t great during the regular season, having won every close game. Yes, it’s true that they remained composed and had belief at the end of these games, but they also got some breaks (as in the game-winning FG against the Chargers which hit the upright and bounced through and the game against the Las Vegas in which Aidan O’Connell fumbled the snap with the Raiders in range to attempt a game-winning FG). The media will claim that the great teams are the ones that win the close games, but in reality, the truly great teams are the ones that have few close games and many convincing victories. This year’s Chiefs team was certainly very good but definitely not great. I do expect them to be good again next year, and it’s well within the realm of possibility that they make it back to the Super Bowl next year. And based on 2024 results, their schedule appears to be the easiest of any of the contenders (admittedly, that may not hold, but it’s true at this point nonetheless), and strength of schedule is something that is never mentioned by the so-called experts. In fact, one of the reasons they were able to get the #1 seed in the AFC in 2024 was due to the fact that their schedule was not particularly difficult. But that being said, this loss knocked some of the luster off of the perceived invincibility of the Chiefs. We’ll see if some of the other AFC teams (my Ravens, perhaps) can capitalize in 2025.

#Super Bowl

#Philadalphia Eagles

#Kansas City Chiefs

#Bill James

#The Bill James Baseball Abstract

So much for another quick turnaround. For some reason, I thought I had posted since October 10, but my aging brain is at it again. Actually, I had written a new post about 3 weeks ago but decided to forego it. I have been quite busy for the last month, and I will freely admit that I was very much following the just-completed election. If you read my last post, you know that my candidate lost, and while I don’t consider it be a landslide (a la 1964, 1972, or 1984), it was decisive. And if you pay any attention at all, you know that there have been hundreds of articles and podcasts discussing what went right for the winners and what went wrong for the losers. For example, one of my great friends, in his blog Disaffected Musings, linked to an article by Niall Ferguson in The Free Press which listed his winners and losers. My friend and I sparred over the conclusions a bit (I believe in a healthy way). I don’t want to rehash all that has been written, but I did decide to include my own take, which does follow some of what I wrote in my previous post, but I think the conclusions are some that I haven’t seen expressed (at least in the manner that I’m about to present them). So, here it goes. Hope you find it somewhat interesting whether you agree or not.

As the title of the entry implies, at this point, my most significant conclusion from the election just completed is that I don’t think we are a country right now. I don’t mean this literally; we live within a land mass that has borders, and there is still (at this moment) a federal government and military, but I don’t see anything that unites us, no one trying to unite us, and even if that person existed, I don’t think the majority of Americans would have any interest in doing anything for the good of the country as a whole.

As I stated in my previous post, in my opinion, the centerpiece of Donald Trump’s campaign was grievance and scapegoating. In his podcast The Chris Cuomo Project, Chris Cuomo, whose opinions I don’t always agree with, but whom I respect for his thoughtfulness and frankness, said something pretty similar. Trump’s pitch was that the country was failing, and it wasn’t his fault or yours. Immigrants, the Democrats, the Department of Justice, wokeness, election fraud, etc., were to blame. And it worked; enough people either believe this or bought into it, and he is now President-elect. Now certainly this wasn’t the whole story; inflation and immigration were issues that drove people to the Republicans, and no doubt Kamala Harris was ineffective in addressing these, but even these issues were presented in a way that stoked anger and fear. She did make a pitch for unity in the last 2 weeks of the campaign, but that was too late to change the outcome, especially after she had spent most of the last 2 months as the anti-Donald Trump candidate.

Where this leaves us, IMO, is at a place where a majority of Americans (a significant majority, I believe) say either, “I’ve got mine; screw you,” or “I don’t have mine, and it’s someone else’s fault.” Right now, the US is a land with a severe lack of personal and group responsibility and accountability and very little, if any, collective spirit or action. I get that distrust of government contributes to this, but we put we voted these folks into office, and incumbents are elected at a very high rate. Thus, are we not responsible for putting and keeping these people in power?

If you want a recent example of this attitude, let’s consider the COVID pandemic. Tens of millions of Americans refused to be vaccinated despite the fact that it’s safe and free of charge, and similar numbers of people refused to wear a mask. These actions caused the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by increasing the spread of the disease to not only themselves but anyone around them. What the heck, some seniors died, but they were old and lived their lives. And I’m still alive. While I suppose these individuals were within their rights, it’s an example of what I think is a pretty selfish attitude and a disregard for the lives of their fellow countrymen and women.

Public education is under attack today. Now I’m not here to tell you there aren’t issues with it, for sure there are. But people are at each other’s throats nowadays. Given the abuse they receive and the low pay, I am kind of amazed that anyone would choose to be a teacher. And while those on the Right claim teachers and Liberals are teaching “woke” behavior and trying to convert children to become another sex, they aren’t the ones banning books, threatening school board members with violence, trying to rewrite history, and insisting on having Bibles and the Ten Commandments in the classroom. It goes both ways.

Imagine, if you will, that in 2024 there were no interstate highways, and the government decided to construct them. It would never happen in today’s environment. There would be a huge outcry of NIMBY (that’s “not in my backyard” if you didn’t know), and the initiative would fall apart. It would be the same story if a state or the federal government tried to build a nuclear power plant (which I think should be seriously considered). Again, lawsuits would be flying from day 1.

Also consider that the space program never existed and there was an attempt to start it today. The collective will to do it would be non-existent. Too damn expensive, people would say, and why would we even want to go to a place that was uninhabitable anyway. There would be no discussion of any potential long-term gain from this endeavor, and we know now how much was gained from having a robust space program (think laptops and the internet for starters). I won’t even get into mitigation of and defense against global warming.

I didn’t enjoy writing this post. I want to be wrong. And maybe in the near future I will be proven wrong, and this country will come together and at least coexist peacefully. But given today’s hyper-partisanship and self-centeredness, I’m not optimistic about the re-emergence of the United States of America given the current state of affairs. The last time the country came together was in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, and I suspect that if we were seriously threatened today, people would stand there and point fingers at each other until it was too late.

I don’t profess to have the answer to the problem I just presented. One small thing I am trying to do is to acknowledge and be polite to others and engage positively when I get the opportunity. Maybe if we start there, we can eventually have constructive dialog and eventually action again.

#United States

#Disaffected Musings

#The Chris Cuomo Project

#The Free Press

#Civil discourse

How about this for a quick turnaround (although it actually took me a week to write the previous post). I’m surprised to have a post about the movies so quickly. But I went to the movies today (10/9). My wife showed me a preview of a movie that looked good. I went with her. My experience was better because of timing. We arrived at the theater just past 12:30 for a 12:20 show. By the time we sat down, we saw part of the last preview, a brief commercial, and the film began. So, unless you want to see multiple previews and ads, plan on arriving at the cinema after the listed start time.

Now about the movie. It was entitled White Bird (no, it had nothing to do with the song from the 1960s if you remember it. I do). The plot is as follows: the grandmother of a teenager who picks on vulnerable kids reveals her story about her childhood as a Jew in France during WWII. The story somewhat borrows from The Diary of Anne Frank in that a family, and in particular their partially crippled son, take her in and hide her when the Nazis take control of the town in 1942. It’s a story about compassion, bravery, and love, but it is also yet another reminder of the brutality of the Nazis to Jews and other marginalized people (the infirmed son is taken by the Nazis and eventually shot).

The movie was well done and well-acted (Helen Mirren played the grandmother). But the brutality wasn’t downplayed or sanewashed. And I had chills when I left the theater.

Now I’ve tried to avoid getting overtly political on this blog, but I’m going to spend some of that unused capital in this post. The reason I had chills is because we are potentially about to experience something like this in 2024 America. I see this going on in the Presidential campaign as we speak. There is one party spreading lies and fomenting hatred towards those “not like us,” with the us being white, American-born, Christian, MAGA Republicans (led by one Donald J. Trump). The language about immigrants is beyond disgusting (and yes, I agree that the border is a problem) and completely false. They are threatening violence and jail sentences for political opponents and members of the press who write negatively about them. This party has a sizeable number of anti-Semites (Jewish and Muslim). And their hostility towards the LBGTQ+ community is particularly repugnant. I don’t know if they tolerate African Americans (perhaps they like the ones that agree with them, like Holocaust denier and Republican candidate for Governor of North Carolina, Mark Robinson), but I suspect any acceptance will fade away after the election, especially if they win. It would be bad enough if this were a fringe party, but obviously, it’s far from it. And don’t kid yourself, this election is neck-and-neck, and there is evidence that a small Democratic lead is shrinking and maybe evaporating. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that Kamala Harris is a perfect candidate (she is not), but she is not advocating violence against opponents or mass deportations of marginalized people.

Harris has been referencing Trump rallies, saying (and I’m paraphrasing here) that they are filled with lies, personal grievances, and threats (true). She then says that what he isn’t talking about is what he would do for you. And from the perspective of solutions or policy proposals that might help people, I would agree with her. However, she doesn’t understand is that he is offering something to his minions. What he is offering them is a scapegoat. His pitch to the country is that any problems in America aren’t your fault (and certainly not his), but rather the fault of those who are different than us; anyone who isn’t a white, Christian, MAGA Republican. And though I happen to be white, their threats include me in 3 ways. For one thing, I’m an unapologetic Democrat who has signs on his lawn, so I could be in the crosshairs of some yahoo with an AR-15 who wants to make a statement. Also, half of my family (and my spouse’s) is Jewish, strike 2. And last but not least, I practice no religion (you could call me a critic of organized religion) and basically don’t believe that a supreme being is flying above me. I guess I’ll find out my fate in about a month. I’m not afraid of these bullies, but I do worry about my family sometimes. And to those apologists who say that it’s just rhetoric and Trump doesn’t mean everything he says, let us remember that there were many Germans, including some Jews, who said the same about Hitler. We all know how that turned out.

And having said all of the above, it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence after this election regardless of who wins. It’s so sad and depressing that this is what the United States has become. I hope that I’m wrong about some of this, but, unfortunately, I doubt that I am.

#White Bird

#Nazi Germany

#2024 Election

#Diary of Anne Frank

Okay, back to the mountain. This time, I’ll focus on basketball. Like baseball and football, these were not easy choices. I should give credit to Basketball Reference website, from which I obtained much of the information and all of the stats.

Candidates for the mountain: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Erving, LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: A dominant player from the moment he entered the NBA; he turned the expansion Bucks into a 50+ win team immediately, and they won a championship once Oscar Robertson showed up. He then was traded to L.A. It took a while, but once Magic (and eventually others) arrived, they became a super team, winning 5 championships. In both cases, Kareem was the lynchpin around which 2 great teams were built. Until late in his career, you could expect about 25 points, 14 rebounds, and 3 blocks (or better) just about every game. He also averaged almost 4 assists per game for his career, so he was good at finding open players when he didn’t have the shot. He was a 6-time MVP, and finally, he made the All-Defensive team 11 times. Yes, he was taller than almost everyone else, but he was slender for an NBA center. He was very quick and athletic for a man of his size, and his sky hook was indefensible. He proved that brute force was not required to be a great center.

Wilt Chamberlain: As great as he was, I don’t think Wilt has ever gotten his due. For much of his career, he had the misfortune of being in the same conference as the Boston Celtics. And while most of the credit for Boston’s success was given to Bill Russell (and he deserved a lot. see below), in all honesty, the Celtics roster was always significantly better than was Philadelphia’s during Wilt’s time there. He did finally manage to win a championship in 1967, a year in which he was both regular season and playoff MVP. When he was traded to the Lakers, the team was much better. He was knocked for winning only 1 championship there as well, but they were in the finals 4 out of his 5 years in L.A. He led the league in scoring his first 6 years in the league (7 overall), led the league in rebounding 11 times, and was All-League 12 times. He was also a good assist man in the second half of his career, even leading the league once. And on top of this, he averaged about 46 minutes/game (out of 48) for his career. That is amazing. And he never fouled out of a game! Maybe he wasn’t the happiest guy in the world when he played, but he was totally dominant.

Julius Erving: This may come as a surprise to some but hear me out. The choice here came down to Dr. J and Tim Duncan. Now, I’m not knocking Duncan in any way. He was a fantastic player and certainly an all-time great. But I went with Erving here. Why? Well, he was great in his own right. When the NBA selected an All-time team in 1980, Julius was one of the 10 players selected. In addition, as great as his NBA career was (an MVP and a championship with the Sixers), he was likely the greatest player in the history of the ABA (MVP 3 times), and make no mistake about it, the ABA was a good league in which many of its players besides DR. J. went on to have excellent NBA careers (think George Gervin, Dan Issel, Bobby Jones, Moses Malone, and Rick Barry among others). But in addition to all I have said already, without Erving, the ABA probably folds and there is no merger with the NBA. I’m not the only person who holds that view. Also, the NBA was having a down period in the mid to late 70s. Scoring was down, and hard fouls and “enforcers” were beginning to take over the game. Erving (and soon after, Bird and Magic) brought excitement and offense back into the league. You could argue that Julius was a major factor in keeping 2 leagues relevant until the reinforcements arrived. He and later Michael Jordan were the 2 most acrobatic players I have ever seen. That adds up to quite a resume.

LeBron James: Say what you will about him, he came straight from high school to the pro game and began taking over pretty much from the start. He has won 4 MVP awards, 4 NBA finals MVP awards, 4 NBA championships with 3 different teams, and has been an All Star 20 times. Not bad if you ask me. He was drafted by a Cleveland team that had finished 17-65. By year 2, they had a winning record, and by year 5 were in the NBA finals. Beyond LeBron and Zydrunas Ilgauskas, it was a roster of players that couldn’t start for most NBA teams. He then won 2 MVP awards for the Cavs, who won 60 games both years. From there he went to Miami, where he joined a stacked roster and won a championship there. Despite being a pariah in Cleveland while he played in Miami, he rejoined the Cavaliers in 2014, where he again took a team with an otherwise modest roster to 4 consecutive NBA finals. In 2016, he brought Cleveland its first (and only) championship since 1964, defeating the 73-9 Golden State Warriors. He then moved on to the Lakers, where he won another championship. After his rookie season, he has averaged at least 25 points/game every year since (20 straight). He also has career averages of 7.5 rebounds and assists/game. His playoff stats are even better. There is a case to be made that he is the greatest basketball player ever. He is most certainly considered a top 5 player by anyone who has a clue.

Magic Johnson: As I said earlier, Julius Erving began to bring the entertainment value in pro basketball when he came into the league. Magic Johnson, with help from Larry Bird, returned the league to the prominence it had enjoyed in the 1960s. He was the most unique point guard in NBA history, and arguably its best. He was 6’8″, not overly quick, and only an average outside shooter, but he was a great ball handler, an amazing passer, and deadly in the open court. He led the Lakers to 5 championships. Sure, he had help (Kareem, James Worthy, Norm Nixon, and others), but before he arrived, the Lakers were talented but never got too far in the playoffs. Magic made the team great with his skills and leadership. His career assists average was an otherworldly 11.2/game (led the NBA 4 times), and he also averaged over 7 boards/game. He won 3 MVP awards. He also, in my opinion, had one of the greatest games ever, and probably the best ever by a rookie. In game 6 of the 1980 NBA, the Lakers played Philadelphia leading 3 games to 2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was unable to play due to severe migraine headaches. Not only did the Lakers win the game and the championship, but Magic played 47 minutes, scored 42 points, had 15 rebounds and 7 assists and otherwise dominated the game. I watched it on TV and will never forget it.

Michael Jordan: Big surprise here. Simply put, Jordan was the most dominant non-center, if not the most dominant player ever. He could do everything Dr. J did offensively, and could do it as a small forward, shooting guard, or even point guard. Like others listed here, he took a less-than-great team and made them great, guiding the Bulls to six championships, winning 5 MVP awards, and was all-defensive team 9 times, winning defensive player of the year in 1987-88. But his greatness transcends the numbers, awards, and even championships. He, in my opinion (and that of others more knowledgeable than I), he is the father of the current NBA style of play. After Michael, teams tried to put on the court as many players as possible who could start with the ball 30 feet from the hoop and create their own offense. As much as I revere LeBron James, he doesn’t exist, at least as the type of player he is, without MJ. Jordan, along with the dominance of the 3-point shot, has basically eliminated the traditional center position from the current NBA. While I don’t necessarily like the current version of the NBA as much as I did the game pre-21st century, MJ is the main reason for how the game is played today. Also, the Bulls were lousy before Jordan arrived, won 3 NBA titles in a row a few years after Michael came on board, then he left to play baseball. And the Bulls didn’t win for 2 years. He came back, and they won 3 more championships in a row. Then he retired (at least for a while), and the team fell apart. They’ve never recovered. The GOAT, case closed.

Oscar Robertson: Very possibly the most underrated player in NBA history. He was drafted by the Cincinnati Royals, who had won 19 games the season before he arrived. He immediately made a terrible team competitive, and then when they drafted Jerry Lucas, they actually were good for a few years, winning 55 games in 1963-64. But with very little talent besides Oscar and Lucas, and with no true center, which was essential to success in the NBA of the 1960s, the Royals couldn’t challenge the Celtics, or the 76ers or the Knicks by the late 60s. The Big O did everything humanly possible to keep Cincinnati in games. He averaged over 30 points/game and 10 assists/game for the first 8 years, and 1961-62, averaged a triple double for the entire season! This is the point guard we’re talking about. In 4 other seasons, he came up just short of a triple double. And during his first 5 seasons as a Royal, this point guard averaged over 10 boards/game. As he was getting older, he was traded to the Milwaukee Bucks, where he teamed with Kareem (then still Lew Alcindor) to win 66 games and an NBA title. He didn’t score as much with Alcindor on the team, but he still scored almost 20/game and averaged over 8 assists/game. And other than those 2, the only other player on the team that ever played in an All-Star game was Bob Dandridge. So it wasn’t a star-studded roster. But they were an excellent team until Oscar retired, playing in another NBA Finals in 1973-74. He was an All-Star for 12 straight years and was MVP in 1963-64. Simply put, Robertson was an amazing player who could do everything. You could make a strong argument that Oscar was the greatest guard ever if MJ is considered to be a small forward. If he had played most of his career with a better team, he would have won enough championships to be in the conversation as the greatest player ever. I think he should be anyway.

Bill Russell: When the NBA released its All-Time team in 1980, Bill Russell was named as the league’s greatest player. I don’t know if I agree with that, but the folks who compiled the team saw many more games than I, and I certainly respect their opinion. He certainly was one of the greatest. I don’t think many would argue with the conclusion that Russell was the greatest defensive player ever and one of, if not the greatest rebounder ever. In fact, it was because of those 2 factors that the Celtics’ fast break was as great as it was. Oh, and by the way, the Celtics won their first championship in Russell’s rookie year, and then won 10 more before he retired. The year after he left, they missed the playoffs altogether. He won 5 MVP awards and was an All Star 12 times. He led the league in rebounding 5 times and even became a pretty good passer in the second half of his career, averaging about 5 assists/game. He wasn’t a great scorer, but I doubt that there ever was a better team player. All he did was win.

Others considered for the Mountain: Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant, Steph Curry, Tim Duncan, Elvin Hayes, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O’Neal, Jerry West. As I explained above, Tim Duncan just missed the final cut. All of these players were outstanding Hall of Famers whom others might have included in their Top 8. It’s always a very tough call, but these worthy players deserve a strong honorable mention.

#basketball

#NBA

#ABA

#basketball-reference.com

Finally back after another absence. There’s much going on these days which has taken up more of my time than I had hoped, but this is life. I’ve been retired for 3 years, and I am anything but bored. Anyway, I’m going to take a break from Mount Rushmore to take on something else.

Generally, I like movies. When my wife and I were first married, we went to the movies a lot, mostly because we didn’t have much money, and for the most part, more movies were good than not. Now my wife loves the movies, and a few years ago, I got her an unlimited pass for Regal theaters. Typically, she goes twice a week, sometimes more. She thinks that I don’t like movies because I don’t go with her very often. But the reason I only go sparingly is not because I don’t like movies. So what’s the deal?

The first reason I don’t go a lot is because in my opinion, the quality of mainstream movies has declined significantly. Today’s movies are largely focused on crime, mostly murder, drugs, and mass destruction. I find them quite repetitive. In addition, crime is often glorified, although more often than not, the “good guys” prevail in the end (even if they have to bend or break the law to do so). The genre just doesn’t do it for me anymore (if it ever did; it’s never been my favorite movie type). I particularly have come to dislike the glorification of the Mafia. Interestingly, it was not a movie, but the series “The Sopranos” that sealed the deal for me. Although I admit that the acting was very good in this series, it basically treated them as your average run of the mill family whose father leads a group of men that kill anyone that gets in their way. Honor was a major theme of the show (and much other Mafia entertainment). The Mafia is not honorable; it is composed of brutal thugs whose behavior is reprehensible. Have you ever seen a movie that treats drug cartels as honorable? Not so much. From now on, I won’t go to a movie that glorifies the Mafia or anyone else who commits mass crimes. When I read of a movie that I find somewhat interesting (recent ones included “Oppenheimer,” which was excellent, and “American Fiction,” which was hysterical and outstanding), I’m happy to go.

In addition to the overabundance of shoot ’em up movies, there are countless movies which are part of a continuing series. I don’t know, but how much original content can be included in “Mission Impossible #37” or “Taken 13?” And I’m not a big fan of Star Wars or James Bond. There appears to be a serious lack of original content in mainstream movies. Perhaps if I lived in a bigger city with more independent theaters, I would go to them. By the way, I like most documentaries, but my wife doesn’t care for them all that much.

But even worse than that, it’s the movie experience that keeps me away. Let me explain. If the start time for a movie is 2 PM, it’s unlikely that the movie would start before 2:30. During the intervening half hour, a seemingly never-ending series of ads and at least 5 previews are shown. It just drives me crazy. It’s gotten to the point where if I agree to go to the movies, I refuse to leave the house more than 10 minutes prior to the listed start time (I will leave even later if my wife agrees to it). And add to this the price of food and drink at the movies (a medium popcorn and soda are about $12, which puts them in sporting event/concert territory), and it has made the whole experience a lot less enjoyable for me.

Having said the above, I will still put up with the negatives to see a movie I think will be a good one. I suppose I could wait and stream it at home, but the truth is that I like movies much better on the big screen than on my TV screen. Also, when I’m home, I can be distracted by phone calls, pets, outside noise, etc. The experience at home just isn’t the same for me.

So I will continue to go to the movies occasionally (about once every month or 6 weeks to please the wife), trying to find interesting flicks without too much slaughter. And I’ll leave as late as possible and make the best of it.

#movies

#Regal Theaters

#The Sopranos

It’s taken some time for me to decide who to nominate for the mountain from football. This was incredibly tough. The default would be to load up with quarterbacks, but one has to remember that the game was not dominated by quarterbacks until at least the 1980s, when the rules started changing to benefit the passing game. There’s also offense and defense; running backs, receivers, tight ends and linemen on offense, and defensive line, linebackers, and defensive backs on defense. And to be sure, the game of the 50s. 60s, and 70s featured running the ball as much if not even more than passing it. So I will adhere to my rules and list the 8 nominees for the mountain, but I will also include a significant list of the “just missed.” And before I go on, I would like to acknowledge the importance of the ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and the Pro Football Hall of Fame Website. Much information was gathered form these sources.

Nominees for the mountain: Tom Brady, Jim Brown, Otto Graham, Joe Montana, Alan Page, Lawrence Taylor, Johnny Unitas, Gene Upshaw

Tom Brady: While I admit I don’t care for him as a person, and his pleading for a penalty flag (and too often getting one) every time he was hit doesn’t sit well with me, his record is untouchable, and his talent was immense. The Patriots were a great team with possibly the beat head coach ever, but without Brady, it doesn’t happen. He won almost 3/4 of his regular season starts and was an incredible 35-13 in the post-season, including 7 Super Bowl wins. The Patriots has a fairly balanced offense, so he didn’t throw for the most years that often, but he was usually near the top and had an above average completion percentage and yards per attempt (YPA) almost every year. And he won his division all but 2 years. That is amazing. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Jim Brown: This may be a bold statement, but I think that Jim Brown may have been the most dominant football player ever, and very possibly the greatest athlete to play the game (how many other football players were All-American in lacrosse in college?). How can I say this? Well, he obviously wasn’t a quarterback, but he played at a time (1957 – 1965) when most teams ran as much or more than they passed, and the ratio of running yards to passing yards was much higher than it is now. He played 9 years; he led the league in rushing 8 of those years (the year he didn’t he finished 4th). He rushed for 12,312 in those 9 seasons, which is amazing enough but even more amazing when you consider that 4 of those seasons were only 12 games, and the other 5 were 14 games rather than the 16 and 17 game seasons from 1978 onward. He averaged over 100 yards/game and 5.2 yards/carry. These numbers are better than those of anyone who played this many games, including Walter Payton and Barry Sanders, who were incredible players. He even caught 262 passes and averaged 9.5 yards/catch (excellent for a running back). Other than him, the Browns were a good but not a great team; their QB play was pretty average during this time period. But he did win a Championship in 1964 and played for it in 1965 (they tied for first in 1958 but lost the playoff game). Truly a man among boys.

Otto Graham: Speaking of Cleveland Browns … This selection may come as a surprise to some, but when the NFL named its 75th anniversary team (around 2000), Graham was of the 3 QBs on it. He was the Browns’ starting QB for 10 years; they won their conference title 10 times and the league title 7 times. Now I understand that 4 of those were in the All-America Football Conference, but the AAFC was probably equivalent to the AFL in the mid to late 60s, and he totally dominated it. He and the Browns were so good that in their first year in the NFL (1950), they had the league’s best record and won the league title. His passing yards don’t look like much compared to the modern era, but it was a very different game (fewer plays/game, more running plays, etc.). During his outstanding 10-year career, he led the league in passing yards 5 times, completion percentage 4 times, and YPA 5 times, including an unheard of YPA of >10 three times. In today’s NFL, a YPA of 8 would be considered excellent. In other words, he not only threw the ball accurately, but he did so throwing it down the field. His career YPA was 8.6, which is the highest in NFL history, greater than Brady, Manning, Montana, and Unitas. The Browns of 1946 – 1955 were a great team with a great coach (so great that team is named after him), but Graham was the straw that stirred the drink.

Joe Montana: Montana turned Bill Walsh’s offensive schemes into championships (4 of them, to be exact). What makes this even more impressive is that during the 1980s, the NFC was far superior to the AFC (other than the Raiders’ championships in 1980 and 1983 in which they were underdogs, the NFC ran the table). His best trait was his superior accuracy, as he led the league in completion percentage 7 times, including being the first passer to complete 70% of his passes in a full season. He was selected to 8 Pro Bowls and was first team All Pro 3 times. Even after moving to Kansas City in 1993, he led them to back-to-back playoff appearances and an AFC Championship game. He won over 70% of the regular season games he started and was 16 – 7 in the post-season. He and Bill Walsh were the architects of the passing game that is in use today, and he did it nearly flawlessly.

Alan Page: As I stated earlier, there have to be defensive players on this list, however, it is not easy identifying the greatest defensive players of all-time. Lots of defensive players made bunches of Pro Bowls and multiple All-Pro teams. So I admit that the selections are somewhat subjective, although I suspect that few would argue with the other player I chose (to be discussed in a bit). But Page was All-Pro 6 times, All-Conference 10 times, and was voted to 9 consecutive Pro Bowls. Sacks were not an official statistic for much of Page’s career, but according to Wikipedia (and the Vikings and Bears archives) he had 148 sacks, including 18 in 1976. I suspect these numbers are very close to reality. But having said all of this, what really puts him over the top is that he was the AP NFL MVP in 1971 (at the time the most respected selection). Not just the defensive player of the year, but the MVP of the entire league. Only one other defensive player has done this (again, stay tuned). I strongly considered Aaron Donald and Reggie White, but the MVP award makes him the best defensive line (and maybe best defensive) candidate for the mountain.

Lawrence Taylor: I know he’s had a rough go of it post-career, but he was an absolute beast who could dominate a football game unlike no other defender IMO. As I made pretty obvious from the Alan Page discussion, Taylor was the other defensive player to win league MVP (in 1986). He is in addition the only rookie to be named NFL Defensive player of the year. He was named first team All-Pro 8 times and second team twice. He forced an amazing 56 fumbles and had 132 sacks. In today’s NFL, arguably the most important positions on the defense are the edge rushers. Taylor basically invented the position with his fearsome pass rushing. But he also excelled against the run and more that held his own as a pass defender. The Giants were a bad team until they drafted Taylor. With him leading the way, they immediately became a playoff team and won the Super Bowl in 1986. I considered Ray Lewis as well, but as great as Ray was, he was not as dominant as LT.

Johnny Unitas: There were great QBs before Unitas, but I would argue that Johnny U was the first dominant one. For many years after, Unitas was the model that all QBs aspired to and tried their best to copy. Again, because he played from the late 50s to the early 70s, his numbers aren’t as gaudy as the QBs that have played since that 1990s, although they were significantly better than any of his contemporaries. But he won 3 Championships (one a Super Bowl) and won about 65% of his games. Unitas also won 3 AP MVP Awards and had a career YPA of 7.8, which is outstanding. He transformed the moribund Baltimore Colts franchise into winners and then back-to-back champions (1958 and 1959) and continued to be a force through at least 1967. He hurt his arm in 1968 and wasn’t the same after that, but he was still able enough to guide the Colts to a championship in 1970 despite pedestrian statistics. He called his own plays and always seemed to keep defenses guessing. You can argue that Johnny may not be the greatest of all-time, but if you don’t include him in the top 3 or 5 at worst, you don’t know football.

Gene Upshaw: I didn’t think I could list the greatest football players and not include an offensive lineman. Maybe you don’t agree with that, but there hasn’t been a great team that hasn’t had a very good if not excellent offensive line. The question then becomes which offensive lineman belongs here. This was an unbelievably hard choice, and maybe it’s surprising I didn’t choose a left tackle (like Jonathan Ogden or Anthony Munoz), but I settled on Gene Upshaw. He was first or second team All-Pro 11 times (first team 7 times). The Raiders were always an excellent running team even though they didn’t have a truly great running back (several good ones, but none lasted more than a few years). Upshaw, along with Art Shell and Jim Otto, were a great offensive line, with Upshaw being the best of the 3 (all Hall of Famers). Oh, and he also played 307 games in his amazing career. A tough call, but I’m good with it.

Players I hated to leave out of the Top 8: I mentioned several; Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Aaron Donald, Ray Lewis, Reggie White, Jonathan Ogden, Anthony Munoz, each of whom are quite worthy. Some people would rake me over the coals for leaving Peyton Manning out of the final cut, but despite great passing numbers, he didn’t have a great playoff record, and he was nothing more than a game manager when he won his second Super Bowl in 2015. The QBs I included here were in my opinion better than Manning, although he was great. The one player I agonized the most about was Jerry Rice. He was the greatest receiver ever, and he was #9 on the list. As hard as it was not to include him, I will stand by my selections. I also strongly considered Tony Gonzalaz, the greatest tight end in the history of the NFL. Again, it’s not a knock on him that he didn’t make it, but he came up a little short of the top 8.

#Mt. Rushmore

#NFL

#Pro Football Hall of Fame

#ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia

#Wikipedia

Candidates for the mountain (alphabetical order): Henry Aaron, Lefty Grove, Greg Maddux, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Honus Wagner

You may notice that this list is composed mostly of players that completed their careers 50+ years ago. This is due to the following: 1) Until the mid 1950s at least, baseball was the sport in the US. The vast majority of the best professional athletes played baseball in those days since it was the dominant American sport. So you have to give weight to that. Conversely, I will give added weight to football and basketball players who have played from the 1970s on, 2) I just can’t include players who have either admitted to or have been credibly accused of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). This takes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens out of the discussion. Greg Maddux, to my knowledge, has not been accused of using PEDs, 3) I haven’t followed baseball closely for at least 15 years, thus, if there are any recent players who should be considered, I suppose I don’t know enough about them. And I am limiting my selections to players who have either retired or are nearing the end of their careers (thus no Shohei Ohtani yet). I also want to give credit to the ESPN website, from which I got almost all of the stats. Now on to the selections:

Henry Aaron: As most of you know, he retired as the all-time home run leader (and still is considered to be by many since only Barry Bonds has hit more). But he also scored over 2000 runs, hit over 600 doubles, had a .305 lifetime batting average and a .375 on base percentage, and was a good outfielder. In addition, he never had a bad year until he was 40. He was also a credit to the game. Pretty deserving I would say.

Lefty Grove: Although I disagree with the premise that pitching more important than offense, I felt that there are pitchers that have had enough of an impact to be considered among the greatest players ever. And it is my opinion that Lefty Grove was probably the greatest pitcher ever. He won 300 games in the majors, including 7 straight seasons of 20 or more games. And he won 30 games once and 24 or more 5 other times. He led the AL in ERA 9 times, including at ages 38 and 39 pitching as a lefthander in Fenway Park. All this work was accomplished in hitters’ parks (Philadelphia and Boston). And he didn’t get to begin his major league career until he was 25 because he was the property of the Baltimore Orioles, one of the best minor league teams of all-time (minor league teams were independent at that stage), and a team that likely could have competed at the major league level. In the 5 years he pitched in Baltimore, he was 108-36. Had he gotten to the majors at age 22, he likely would have won over 350 games. Wow.

Greg Maddux: A modern-day pitcher, and an amazing one at that. His yearly win totals don’t look as impressive as some of the older pitchers, but this is because he pitched mostly in a 5-man rotation. And because he didn’t pitch 300 innings per year, he was an outstanding pitcher for almost 20 years. He won 20 games only twice, but he won 19 games 4 times (including 19-2 in 1995), 18 twice, and 15 or more an incredible 17 years straight. Again, he pitched in the 2 best hitters’ parks for most of his career (Chicago and Atlanta). With 355 wins, his place among the greatest ever is obvious.

Willie Mays: Arguably the most complete baseball player ever. He was terrific at everything. He hit for average and for power, stole bases, and was a great centerfielder with an excellent arm. Many people know that Willie hit 660 home runs, but most forget that he missed 1952 and 53 due to military service. If he had played during those years and hit 55 home runs, he would have been the first to break Babe Ruth’s record. Given that in 1951, his rookie year, he hit 20 home runs in 121 games, and in 1954 he hit 41 home runs, I think it is certainly not a stretch that he would have hit at least 55 taters in those 2 intervening years. Sadly, he won only 2 MVP awards; he probably should have won 5 or 6. ‘Nuff said.

Jackie Robinson: This one may be a bit of a surprise to some, but there is a reason his number is posted on every stadium wall and a stamp was made in his honor. He was a great player in general; someone who won Rookie of the Year and MVP and led his team to 6 World series and 1 World Championship. But, in my opinion, there is no athlete that had to perform under more difficult conditions and more pressure than did Jackie (carrying an entire race on his shoulders). Very, very few human beings could have put up with the abuse and racism that he did, and not only did he survive, but he thrived. Another thing many don’t realize is that as a second baseman, his defensive stats are among the best ever. He didn’t get to play in the majors until he was 28, and he still managed to hit .313 with an on-base percentage of .410. A great ballplayer and a remarkable human being.

Babe Ruth: Although many still regard Ruth as the greatest player ever, in some ways, I think he is actually underrated. Casual baseball fans think of Ruth as a big guy who did nothing but swing for the fences. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. For one thing, he originally was a pitcher and a damn good one. He won 18, 23, and 24 games in his first 3 full seasons before they started to wean him off of the mound to concentrate on batting. This may have been a mistake. Imagine if either the Red Sox or Yankees moved Ruth to first base and let him start 20 games a year throughout the 1920s. Maybe he would have hit a few fewer homers (although he hit quite well when he was a pitcher), but he could have easily hit 600 homers and won over 200 games as a pitcher. He could have been Ohtani 100 years before Ohtani. Also, Babe was a trailblazer in that he was the first player to concentrate on home runs. When he hit 54 dingers in 1920, the first year of the modern baseball, that was more than any other team hit. Think about that. Oh, and he also had a career batting average of .342 and an on-base percentage of ,474. The only knock is that he played a segregated game, but that wasn’t his fault, and he dominated unlike any other player.

Ted Williams: He has a credible case as the greatest hitter ever (maybe even over The Babe). His career BA and OBA are actually a smidge higher than Ruth’s (.344 and .482, respectively). And as great as his numbers were, he missed 3 prime years (ages 25 – 27) serving our country during WWII. If he had played those years, he would have hit over 600 homers. It’s true that he didn’t pay too much attention to fielding, and he was a grouch, but he hit .388 at age 38 and led the league in BA and OBA at age 39. His personality and lack of postseason appearances hold him back a bit, but he most definitely is in the conversation for the mountain.

Honus Wagner: He played in the deadball era, so his power numbers don’t compare to the other players, but he was as dominant, relative to his league, as anyone who ever played. He hit 643 doubles and 252 triples, excellent totals even for the era. He was also considered to be the best defensive shortstop in baseball during most of his career. His 1908 season, where he led the league in batting, on-base percentage, slugging percentage (all by wide margins), doubles, triples, stolen bases, and RBIs, is probably one of the 3 greatest seasons ever, and he had others that were nearly as good. He is somewhat forgotten because he played so long ago, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is one of the 5 best players that ever played.

My one regret in compiling this list is that I didn’t include anyone who played all or almost all of his career in the Negro leagues. Based on what I do know, it would be totally reasonable to nominate Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, or Satchel Paige as candidates for the mountain. Bill James had Charleston and Gibson in his Top 10 of all-time in the 2001 version of his Historical Abstract, and I respect his opinion immensely, but due to my lack of knowledge, it would have kind of been a guess from my perspective.

#Mt. Rushmore

#Baseball

#ESPN.com