All time teams are fun, but you can only go so far with them. For instance the team that I am about to name has been set for a few years now, ever since I finally figured out what to do in left field. But imposing restrictions is a way to get hours of fun out of the same basic premise (an all time team). For instance, I have a team comprised only of members whose careers began in 1959 (the year I was born) or later. Or a team made up solely of players whose last name begins with "M" (like mine does). Lots of possibilities for this sort of thing. But for now, my all-time team with no restrictions. Here we go...

In left field I've kicked around various possibilities over the years, Ted Williams, one of my favorites and quite possibly the greatest hitter who ever lived but from what I understand, never having seen him play, an indifferent fielder and so-so at best on the bases. Stan Musial, a good enough hitter to be mentioned in the same paragraph and a better all-around player. Rickey Henderson, the best fielder of the three, some will say the best ever at the position, probably the best lead-off hitter ever and the all-time leader in runs scored, walks and stolen bases. I used to be kind of anti-Rickey but I have softened on him over the years to the point that I could probably take him if I needed a lead-off hitter more than I do (have one or two without him). So I finally settled on someone who I really wanted on my team, someone who wasn't going to make it at his more regular position (right field) but who came up as a left fielder, filling in as a rookie for a broken legged Bobby Thompson, and who spent his last two or three national league seasons as a left fielder before finishing up with the Brewers as a DH in 1975-76. I refer, of course, to Henry Louis Aaron. Hammerin' Hank, the alltime leader in total bases (by 722), extra base hits (by 100), RBI (by 86) and, ah, home runs with 755. Yes I know this last one may not last much longer but the others are still safe for a while and I could say much more about the greatest slugger of his era, an era noted more for pitching and low scoring games than any since the dead ball era, but I think I need say no more. Hammerin' Hank Aaron is my left fielder.

Center field: Willie Mays. Willie Howard Mays Jr., if you like that better. End of discussion. An almost exact contemporary of Hank Aaron, he has the same number of home runs per hundred at bats, 6.1. Had he not lost almost two full seasons to the Army he'd most likely be right there with Hank. Who knows, maybe they'd both be at 755. Hank might have been the better hitter (.311 lifetime to Willie's .302) but it's close and I think Willie at least edges him everywhere else. Running? Best you ever saw if you got to. His arm? A cannon. Go get the ball? Come on, who did it better than Willie? And he loved to play the game. Willie Mays, Mr. Baseball.

Right field: Babe Ruth. Surprised? I didn't think so. The all-time leader in slugging, second in homers and the man who caused the way the game was played to be changed. Until 2000, when Barry Bonds got all puffed up and whatever else, Ruth had four of the top five, seven of the top eleven seasons of all time as measured by slugging percentage. When Bill James came up with his win shares system for grading players' seasons and careers he further proved that Ruth was the greatest single player ever as far as having an impact on the games in which he played. Willie Mays is third, by the way. Hank Aaron, eleventh.

Third base: Mike Schmidt. A case can be made for Eddie Mathews or George Brett but a stronger one can be made for Schmidt, a three time MVP. The same kind of player as Mathews but just a little bit more so, at least with the bat, Mathews might have been better with the glove it's hard to say, I rate them even on defense. Brett was a better hitter for average but I think Schmidt's power makes up for his lower average, he topped 300 total bases six times in his career to Brett's four, and two of Brett's were 300 exactly. Brett did have the better single season high though, 363 in 1979 to Schmidt's 342 in 1980. As I said, a case can be made for Brett but I'll take Schmidt.

Shortstop: Honus Wagner. Bill James has Wagner as the second greatest player of all time; who am I to argue with that. At one time I thought that Alex Rodriguez might one day give Wagner some competition for this spot (he really has none right now) but A-Rod doesn't even play short anymore, and may never again. Wagner in a landslide.

Second base is hard. Bill James likes Joe Morgan. I've had a few guys here over the years, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins, Jackie Robinson, Charlie Gehringer. James talks me out of Gehringer, arguing persuasively that his numbers are inflated by the era in which he played. By the numbers Jackie Robinson seems to not even belong with this group and yet, he's my choice. As complete a player as Mays albeit with less power, he played with a ferocity rarely seen on a baseball field. Ty Cobb is another one like that and I had to leave Cobb off because you can't have four outfielders so I'll have Jackie Robinson as my secondbaseman.

The rest tomorrow, night all.

I really don't know where to go with more, I will just say this: this country's drug laws are hypocritical, some times ambiguous and just plain retarded. A case in point: this past Sunday, 29 January, on "Sixty Minutes", the second story was about a man in I think Florida who was recently sentenced to twenty-five years in prison for drug "trafficking". In this case trafficking means having more than a specified amount. The drug was morphine I believe and he has a prescription for it or whatever drug it was. He was apparently hoarding for fear of running out and was also cheating to get more than usual, I think even forging a prescription at least once. But he wasn't distributing or even preparing to, he was just making sure that he didn't run out, apparently he has a crippling spinal injury and is in constant pain, except when in the sweet arms of Morpheus. Sorry.

Naturally he can't be allowed to have all the pain drugs he wants. But why not? Even if he is being reckless with them, even if he's becoming addicted or already is addicted, who is he hurting? Himself? Possibly. Whose business is that? Besides his own, I mean. Anyway, I am tired of the subject. Think I'll smoke one and go to bed. Just kidding. "Smoking one" tends to wire me for a while, couple hours or so anyway so I never smoke before I want to sleep. From now on I'm going to write about easier, happier stuff for a while. Baseball, then maybe something even less importante. Adios

Some thoughts. The first issue would seem to be personal freedom. Why does the government claim the right to tell me what I may and may not ingest. It smacks of feudalism and the idea that individuals, the low-born anyway, are less than free, that someone or some body has dominion over me/us. I don't agree that that is so. I doubt if anybody feels that way about himself and I pity anyone that does. Nevertheless, we have a government that, at least on this subject, feels that it can impose its will upon the individual.

If this was all there was to it I think that we, the people, would take back our right to liberty, and choose not to be dictated to. So there must be more to it. Could it be that I am supposed to feel a responsibility to society/my country, and that part of this responsibility is that I will not impair myself with drugs? Or beyond impairing, I will not ruin my life with drugs and become a burden on society or worse? Supposing this to be "true", how does alcohol fit into this scenario?

Next, I will say that in my opinion we do have a national drug problem. It's not our only national problem either but for now its the one we're talking about. "Drugs" means all of it, alcohol, speed, pot, pills of various function, cocaine, heroin, nicotine whatever. It seems that anything that can be used can be abused and this is especially true of drugs because in addition to having potential for creating dependency, many if not all of them can be physically addictive. And yet, some are allowed, some are not. Some are sort of in between, prescription drugs for example. The rule for prescription drugs seems to be you can have that which you have a legitimate medical need for but nothing just because it feels good, although abuse goes on here too, naturally. You are allowed to indulge in some so-called adult recreational drugs, chiefly alcohol and tobacco. Neither of these is good for an individual and neither is in any way good for our society/country. Nevertheless, it's a free country, they say, so be responsible, act like an adult, use good judgment (that's kind of ironic when talking about alcohol because the first thing that starts to "go" when you drink is your power to reason) and we'll let you have this.

But, evidently, not that, whether that is marijuana or something harder. Why? Now there's a question. For the moment let's leave the harder ones out and focus (a little more irony?) on marijuana. This will be continued soon, I gotta go.

If anybody ever tells you that football players are not dumb, don't believe it. I realize that there are exceptions but let's take a look at a few cases in point. Today, in the Colts/Steelers game, Troy Polamalu makes a diving interception to come pretty close to sealing the victory for the Steelers with about five minutes to go. Except... Polamalu isn't content with a boring old game-winning interception. Oh no! He wants to score a touchdown! Do the Steelers need another touchdown? No. What they need is the ball. But Polamalu wants a touchdown, probably so he can do some moronic celebratory dance or something. And be on SportsCenter! Dude! You just made the game-winning play! You're already on SportsCenter! Except... he was so eager to get up and start running for his precious touchdown that he kicked the ball out of his own arms and lost the interception on review. I haven't heard him address this play yet but I bet if somebody would ask him what he was thinking about on that play he would say "I was just trying to make a play". Doh! (Smacks forehead) You had the play moron, all you did was screw it up.

And how about in Saturdays Broncos/Patriots game. The big play, the play that really swung everything into Denver's favor, happened with the score 10-6 Denver, but New England knocking on the endzone door and maybe about to take the lead. Except Tom Brady makes a rare poor throw and Champ Bailey pounces on it, intercepting the ball in full stride and heading for the other endzone. Bailey is very fast and once he eludes a (would be) tackler around midfield he looks like he's sure to score; there's nobody else on the screen except teammates. So he sails down the sidelines and, like others before him, decides to start the celebration a little early and slow way down at the five. Unfortunately for him (but to my great enjoyment) Patriots tight end Ben Watson had decided to run out the whole play, even though it must have looked pretty hopeless, and because of this, Watson is able to slam into Bailey just before he crosses the goal line, even knocking the ball out. Yes!!! It even appeared to me that the Patriots would be awarded the ball and Bailey could live forever in infamy along with Leon Lett but alas, the replays were inconclusive and the questionable ruling of out of bounds at the one that had been made by the field officials was allowed to stand. Damn! And not one talking head would even ask him what the problem was even though he was interviewed more than once after the game, and asked about that very play even. They all pretended like it was one of the biggest plays of the game (well OK, it was) and that nothing unusual had happened. I tell you, I have less and less respect for those boneheads every week.

I suppose I could write more but I feel better now. Thanks, you've been great!

In the comments section of my Prison Reform post, part 2 I think, the question is asked, how to pay for it all. A good enough question. The answer, of course, is we pay for it the same way that we pay for things, including prison administration, now. With your tax dollars, and mine. My proposed reformation should not necessarily cost more, and in the long run, if it works like I think it should, it should cost us less. But whatever, even if it cost more there is more than enough wealth in this country for us to have whatever we, as a citizenry, decide that we need. The key is to spread it (the wealth of this country) around a little bit more. You can call me a socialist if you want but there is no justification, in my opinion, for ten percent of the people controlling ninety percent of the wealth. I'm not really a socialist, at least not completely, and I'm not against capitalism (at least, not completely) but there's nothing wrong with some checks and balances as it were. (Always wanted to use that one "as it were". There, that's twice, I'm good.) I welcome any opinions here but for starters, I propose a complete overhaul of our federal revenue raising system. Currently we have an income tax that is responsible for most of the federal government's revenue. I could live with an income tax but I would like to see it modified in such a way that it produced at least as much revenue while costing me less. Ha ha. Actually, everyone tends to favor any proposed change that would cost him/her less, what I really mean is come up with a system that is as close as possible to being equally "fair" to everyone. Everybody would have to pay something, even if it's a dollar, and the people with the most would have to pay the most. I know the people with the most will say that a progressive tax is not fair to them but you know what? They are allowed to trade places with poor or working class people, all they have to do is ask. It would be one thing if people were rich because they just work so much harder than everybody else but we know that there are many factors that go into being rich, like being born that way, or at least having the means to higher education and maybe a little seed money. If it was all about merit, George W. would have less money than most kindergarten teachers. And so would Lebron James for that matter. In my next post I will begin to talk about how we should spend all this federal money.