The Big Show

After 12 years and something like 800 performances, I may have reached the pinnacle of my improv career Friday night.

Tantrum got to perform at the annual conference of the National Collegiate Honors Council. We had a captive, energetic audience of over 1,500 people.

Our show was at The Midland, on the same stage where Jerry Seinfeld had just performed the night before.

It was the largest crowd I’ve ever entertained, and the largest and best venue I’ve ever played.



And we were ON. Just a tremendous show.

Instead of running onto a small intimate stage, we waited--music cranked--for the enormous curtain to be lifted.

Instead of entertaining a few dozen family, friends, and fellow improvisers, we were making more than 1,500 very intelligent people laugh big and laugh often.

It was quite a rush, and of course it was over too soon.

And that, in retrospect, is the bittersweet part of it. Realizing that these opportunities don’t come along very often, that we may never do such a great show for such a big room again...it’s not hyperbole to say that Friday night may have been a once-in-a-lifetime gig.

Damn, was it fun.




P.S. This happens to be my 200th post on this here blog. It took less than seven months to get through the first hundred, and almost seventeen months to get through the next hundred. Thanks to all of you who still check in, even though my output isn’t what it used to be.

Overheard at the Gym

After I finished my workout today, I climbed off the cardio machine du jour and removed my headphones.

A woman, probably about 40 years old, was on the elliptical in front of and to the right of me. She was talking to a girl, probably 13 or 14 years old. I'm assuming it was her daughter.

As I walked past them to return the magazine I was reading, the girl says:

"What are 'show-ers' and 'grow-ers'?"

My head whipped around to catch the mom wrinkling up her forehead, as if puzzled by the question.

The guy on the machine next to her happened to be taking a sip of water, and he did the most wonderful, honest spit-take I've ever seen. As he coughed the excess water away, the mom said, "Well it looks like HE might know!"

The guy looked mortified, and he violently shook his head side-to-side as he tried to gather his speaking voice.

Finally, he said, "That's WAY out of my jurisdiction. I would suggest that you [the mom] look it up first and proceed with caution."

Beautiful.

Your 2010 Kansas City Royals

Well, another lost season has come and gone for the Royals. After flirting with 4th place most of the year, they finished with authority and ended the year in the cellar. At 67-95, they had the 5th worst record in baseball. At least they didn’t lose 100.

The 2010 Royals were strange. The first half of the year featured Guillen, Ankiel, Farnsworth, and Podsednik—middling veterans who we knew (hoped?) would not be around in August. The second half showcased…Betemit, Blanco, and Ka’aihue.

Yes, it was an odd year, but at least they didn’t bother getting our hopes up (Ned Yost’s All-Star Break “we’re still in it” comment notwithstanding).

Random observations:

-The Royals leader in home runs was shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt with 16. Yeah. Him. Technically, he was tied for the team lead with Jose Guillen, who was traded in August and only played in 106 games for KC.

Sixteen home runs is tied with the Oakland A’s for the worst team-leading total in baseball this year.

For perspective, Betancourt would have finished NINTH on the Toronto Blue Jays in home runs, behind such luminaries as John Buck.

-Quiz time: Who had the lowest ERA among Royals starters this year? If you said Zack Greinke you are correct. But if you said Bruce Chen, you are also correct – they tied at 4.17. So yes, last year’s Cy Young winner and a career journeyman who throws 86 mph had roughly equivalent seasons. Chen led the Royals with 12 wins.

Speaking of Greinke, he never looked dominant this year. The lack of motivation may have something to do with it, but he never seemed to have any of the electric stuff he showed last year. More alarming, he got absolutely SHELLED a few times. I have no idea what to expect of him next year.

-Joakim Soria is probably the best pick in the history of the Rule 5 draft. The Royals might have the best closer in the game right now, which is about as useful as owning a motorcycle in Alaska.

-Alex Gordon, who is ready to “dominate” next year, batted .215 in a couple hundred at-bats.

I don’t expect much in 2011, and that’s as it should be for a Royals fan. We might see our first glimpses of the future in Montgomery, Moustakas, and Hosmer. But I see another win total in the 60s, while bigger crowds than they really deserve cheer them on between texts and facebook updates.

More From OK Go.

It's obligatory at this point. OK Go...and Friends. Enjoy.

Final Thoughts Before Kickoff

My posts have been sporadic lately, but I had to get this in before kickoff to lend it any credibility.

Really, this post consists of a single question aimed at a single group.

To those who have been saying:

Yeah, I think the Chiefs are probably an 8 or 9 win team.

Not "if everything goes right and Denver and Oakland are wretched and Philip Rivers gets hurt".

Not "best case scenario".

But with a matter-of-fact tone that suggests a sentiment of, "Yeah, that sounds about right. I'm making a statement with a reasonable level of confidence."

My question is this:

What the hell have you seen that makes you think it is likely that this team will win half its games?

Todd Haley is still a pompous prick who sounds constipated when he talks inanely about guys "caring" and "buying in".

Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis are nothing special; they are simply reputations created as underlings in New England.

Though Eric Berry can't hurt, our defensive front is the same one that allowed a Cleveland Browns journeyman to run for almost 300 years last year.

And last I checked, Matt Cassel was our quarterback.

Enlighten me - what the hell have you seen that suggests doubling last year's win total? I would even have accepted a preseason performance as evidence at this point...but there's not one to point to.

I really hope I'm wrong.

Posted at 8:13pm, FWIW.

Don't Get "Mad"

I don’t get Mad Men.

Granted, I’ve watched only two episodes, but two hours of my life is all the show’s going to get.

People blather on about how beautifully the show captures the 1960s—the clothes, the sexism, the smoking. I got over that in about 15 minutes. Yes, you’ve done your research. Now have your characters DO something.

I’m told I’d appreciate it more if I watched the whole series. Well, yeah; that’s normally the case with serial dramas. It’s just that I’m way past the point of investing time in things while hoping they’ll get better. I prefer instead to move on to better, more promising things. I would far prefer to miss out on something than wish I could precious hours of free time refunded.

I’m not saying it’s a bad show. It’s fine. The acting is good. The subtlety present in the storytelling is a nice counterpoint to the melodrama and David-Caruso-style jackassery so common on the procedural du jour.

However, I think the pendulum swings too far toward style and nuance. If you want me to watch the show, I need something of substance BEFORE your final commercial break.

I guess what I’m saying is I just don’t understand the hype.

35

So I turn 35 tomorrow.

I’ve been asked how I feel about that.

Not too shabby, thanks for asking.

Don’t get me wrong – the number sounds a bit odd, like it’s not real. It doesn’t seem quite right. It seems like life hit the accelerator about 11 years ago and started flipping calendar pages with reckless abandon.

It doesn’t seem possible that I graduated high school literally half my lifetime ago.

So…although I’ll admit to the occasional head-shaking as to how NOW got here so quickly and stealthily, I can’t complain about life at 35 one tiny little bit.

I’m in good health and in good shape. No ailments, aches, pains, or meds.

I have great friends who make me laugh.

I live in a nice house in a nice area.

I am able to do lots of things in my life that make me happy. Travel, improv, softball, food, drink…in no particular order.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but…I like my job—the work, the people, the company. I like all of it.

Most of all, I married the right woman. She makes all the aforementioned stuff 10 times better.

Not too shabby.

Responsible Fast Food Consumption?

It would be nice to have a healthy, sit-down meal loaded with fruits, vegetables, and lean protein 3 times a day.

It would also be unrealistic.

Sometimes the drive-thru happens.

However, if you play your cards right, there are ways to avoid dropping a 1,200 calorie bomb on your attempts to maintain your weight. And I’m only going to mention things that leave me satisfied enough to avoid raiding the vending machine at 2:30.

General rule: Stay away from fatty sauces (regular salad dressings, and anything cheese- or mayo-based). Also, there’s only so much you can do if you order something with a shitton of rice or fried potatoes.

Taco Bell:
It might surprise you to know that a regular taco contains only 170 calories. Three of these makes a reasonably-sized meal. You can even shave 20 calories apiece by ordering “Fresco style”, which replaces the cheese with pico de gallo. I don’t do this, but you can. Also good choices: the new cantina tacos, which have the traditional corn tortilla/meat/onion/cilantro/lime construction. They’re not bad, especially for drive-thru food. Steak (the tastiest of the three) = 160 calories, Chicken = 170, Carnitas = 200 calories.

Panda Express:
There are plenty of good choices here, and they make it easy by displaying the “Wok Smart” logo next to any entrée with 250 calories or less. Get a two-entrée plate, avoid Orange Chicken and Beijing Beef, and you’re set…as long as you choose the mixed vegetables as your side. Here's why: Chow mein noodles (400 calories), steamed rice (420), fried rice (570!)…and vegetables (35).

Subway:
Lots of low-cal choices, but that doesn’t matter when I am famished two hours later. Plus, it’s just not tasty. I rarely eat at Subway. If you must, do one of the lean 6-inch subs (they're marked as such) with double meat.

Chipotle:
They finally published their nutritional info after refusing to do so for many years. It’s probably because a standard burrito there with cheese and sour cream weighs in at 970 calories. Even now, they have a very defensive disclaimer on their info insisting that their calories are far better for you.

To the numbers: the tortilla itself has 290 calories. With that in mind, order a Burrito Bol, or better yet, a salad (if you do the latter, use salsa instead of the 260-calorie dressing).

A Bol with rice, beans, meat, salsa, and cheese will come in under 600 calories. Sub fajita vegetables for beans and it’s under 500. A salad (again, use salsa for the dressing) removes the rice and about 100 calories.

Note: All the meats have roughly the same calories; if you feel like steak or pork, they’re no worse than the chicken.

McDonald’s:
It’s tough to stay under 600 calories and still get enough to eat here. A McDouble is 390 calories. A six piece McNuggets with one small sauce is 330. Get one of those with a small fry (230), I guess. When I have to resort to this I’m usually hungry again sooner than I’d like. I guess you could do a fruit and yogurt parfait (160) instead of the fries. I mean, if you're into that.

The grilled chicken salads are a reasonable option at 220-320 calories before adding dressing. The balsamic (80 calories/packet) and Italian (120) are the best dressing choices. I just don’t care for the salads I’ve had there.

This is kinda fun. I’ll do a few more when time permits.

A-Rod's 600th and the Hall of Fame

When Alex Rodriguez hit his 600th career home run yesterday, lots of discussion was stirred about his legacy.

The biggest topic: will he be elected to the Hall of Fame?

As most of you know, A-Rod admitted using steroids before this baseball season began. That put him squarely in the company of convicted cheats (Rafael Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez), assumed cheats (Bonds, McGwire), and admitted cheats (Canseco, Giambi).

Note that every single one of these players would be a Hall of Famer (yes, probably even Giambi) if we knew nothing of PED use among major leaguers.

Why does the steroid issue bother baseball fans so much more than, say, football fans?

Simple: baseball's history and context and the ability to compare players from different eras are what make the sport special.

The steroid era has made those comparisons impossible, at least right now.

There needs to be a contextual adjustment to understand the full effects of PEDs

And that's why my answer to the question--will A-Rod (or Bonds, or McGwire, et al) get into the Hall of Fame--is yes. Eventually.

In the 1980s, 400 home runs was a magic number. The only person with that many home runs who wasn't in the Hall was Dave Kingman, whose only skill was hitting home runs. He was also a notorious asshole, which didn't help.

But that's basically all it took - 400 home runs.

Now, some people are saying players with 600 home runs (or 762, for that matter) shouldn't be in the Hall because of what they've been caught/admitted to/are suspected of doing.

That leaves two options: close the Hall of Fame to an entire generation of players, or let the chapter close and look at the numbers to understand the context in which they were achieved.

Baseball fans - the seamhead, sabermetrician type - are notoriously obsessed with numbers. Once the pre- and post- random testing numbers have been posted by the players, they will be applied an infinite number of ways in an infinite number of iterations to statistical career norms to understand what they really mean.

From there--and this will likely be 10 years down the road--we will finally have context.

And this numerical context will finally let us know who was truly great, steroids or no.

From a moral standpoint: Look, I'm not a moron - I know steroids had a huge part in shaping the statistical history of MLB's last two decades. But I also believe that the players are no more guilty than the owners, the union, and the commissioner in allowing their use to be as prevalent as it was.

Steroid use undoubtedly provided an unfair advantage. I also believe their use was not only condoned, but encouraged.

I think this middle-ground opinion and time will be the things that get those tangled up in the steroid era to their proper place in history.

Gen X Radio

It's hard to find stuff I actually want to listen to on the radio, and my commute is too short to justify hooking up my iPod and looking for something good on it.

The Buzz is ostensibly what I'd listen to, at least if I wanted to hear Spoon's The Underdog for the eleventy billionth time or the Chili Peppers rhyme syllables with words (hey-o / say-o) or the morning crew do a set-up skit about roses.*

*You do know that almost everything you hear on a morning show--the calls, the fights--is a setup, right? It's been planned in advance. The people on the phone are being paid.

So I hit seek a couple times and ended up at 99.7 FM. It's now billing itself as "Gen X radio", which I find a bit patronizing. However, I figured I'd give it a shot.

I tuned in during Fiona Apple's Criminal. Okay. Fine (though overplayed) song. This could go one of two directions.

Next was Tal Bachman's She's So High. Yeah, they're going that direction. Poppy 90s stuff. Great. Well, I'll give them one more shot...

Who Let The Dogs Out.

Really. I actually waited about 10 seconds because I figured it was some sort of commercial for a pet shelter.

It wasn't.

Done.